Beyond Shield Laws: We Need Free Abortion On Demand

Republicans have chipped away at abortion rights ever since the landmark 1973 case Roe v. Wade legalized it. They passed legislation like the 1976 Hyde Amendment, which prevented federal funds from covering abortion care. Hyde was a direct affront to the working class; its first victim was Rosie Jimenez, a 27-year-old single mother in McAllen, Texas. Unable to afford an abortion after Hyde was passed, she died from an unsafe procedure, highlighting the class disparities in abortion access.

The senseless deaths of individuals like Rosie Jimenez could have been prevented. Yet none of the Democratic administrations did much after Roe to enshrine abortion rights in the Constitution or codify them into law. In fact, some staunchly anti-abortion Democrats have helped their GOP colleagues limit abortion access.

Pennsylvania’s Democratic governor, Bob Casey Sr., was an opponent of abortion rights. The 1992 case Planned Parenthood v. Casey led the Supreme Court to weaken Roe by allowing states to impose onerous restrictions on providers and on the individuals who needed an abortion. States like Pennsylvania could enforce parental notification requirements or long waiting periods before patients could receive an abortion. These restrictions added to the cost and difficulty for patients who had to arrange childcare and lodging. Even while Roe was still technically protected, the working class, immigrants, and students continued to face additional obstacles due to financial barriers.

Yet Democrats have pledged abortion protections to their constituents every election season. They could have acted at multiple points, including during Bill Clinton’s administration in 1993–1994 and Obama’s administration in 2009–2011. In 2007, before he was elected, Obama promised he would sign the Freedom of Choice Act once in office, which would have codified Roe v. Wade into law. After he was elected, he backtracked, saying that abortion was not his highest legislative priority. The truth is that we have never been able to rely on Democrats to protect bodily autonomy, and since Roe was overturned on June 24, 2022, that remains true.

After Roe fell, individual states determined abortion rights, and 13 states have since banned abortion care entirely, imposing criminal penalties on providers.

Even before Roe was overturned, abortion activists prepared for its fall with slogans like “Abortion pills forever.” After telehealth medication abortion became popular early in the COVID-19 pandemic, many activists promoted it as a strategy against the threat of the impending Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization ruling. Abortion pills should be accessible, but relying on them to counter growing right-wing attacks on abortion is not a sustainable strategy.

Mifepristone, the first pill taken during a medication abortion, has long been a specific target of anti-abortion attacks. Conservatives have argued that mifepristone should be banned because it contaminates the water and have claimed that abortion pills pose a health risk, despite mifepristone’s robust safety record.

With these ongoing attacks against medication abortion, Democratic-led states like New York and California created shield laws to protect themselves and abortion providers licensed there from the effects of other states’ anti-abortion laws. Shield laws allow providers to mail abortion medication to patients, regardless of the patient’s location.

The shield laws are a reactionary response that falsely promises protection of bodily autonomy, even to those who live in abortion-ban states. While shield laws have helped pregnant people access abortion care across state lines, they remain vulnerable to ongoing far-right attacks on abortion. On September 30, 2026, Republican attorneys general from Louisiana, Alabama, and Arkansas filed two lawsuits targeting dozens of health care providers who mail abortion pills, as well as the shield-law states that protect them.

One of the lawsuits asks the U.S. Supreme Court to end shield laws, while the second lawsuit doxxed abortion providers. As Jessica Valenti from Abortion, Every Day writes, “The three Republican AGs claim that by allowing providers to ship abortion medication into their states, shield laws unconstitutionally nullify their abortion bans and allow pro-choice states to dictate their abortion policies.”

The consequences could reduce abortion access across the United States, as many abortion providers may not risk mailing abortion pills into states with bans. Dr. Margaret Carpenter, based in New York, was indicted in Louisiana in 2025 on felony charges for allegedly mailing abortion pills to a minor. Louisiana sought her extradition, but New York invoked its shield law. Without that law, it’s hard to say what would have happened, but shield laws and “abortion pills forever” will not save abortion rights.

These recent lawsuits are yet another example of relentless anti-abortion efforts to ban an essential health care service. As has been demonstrated time and time again, Democrats have used abortion rights to win votes rather than a right worth fighting for while failing to codify Roe into law. The fate of our bodily autonomy cannot be left to politicians as they have repeatedly shown their unwillingness to protect abortion access.

In other countries, the working class has mobilized in the streets to fight for abortion rights. In Mexico, Pan y Rosas — one of the largest feminist organizations — organized workplaces and schools and ran a national campaign demanding the right to an abortion. They recognize that abortion rights are connected to class struggle. We need to bring the fight for free abortion on demand for anyone who needs it to the streets by mobilizing in schools, workplaces, and across movements. We must demand accessible, safe abortion, whether through pills or an in-clinic procedure.