In several conservative-leaning states, lawmakers have introduced legislation classifying abortion pills as controlled substances, making them illegal to possess without prescriptions, and even criminalizing women who obtain them. While such bills have stalled in places like Indiana and Mississippi, others in Idaho, Oklahoma, Tennessee, and Texas may gain traction. Louisiana has already gone further, allowing lawsuits against out-of-state doctors or entities who mail abortion pills to its residents. Though mainstream anti-abortion groups generally oppose punishing patients, a growing fringe within the movement—dubbed “abortion abolitionists”—advocates criminal charges, even considering abortion homicide, sparking heated debates about normalizing punitive measures

Two recent JAMA studies found that in the 14 U.S. states that enacted near-total or six-week abortion bans following the Dobbs decision, infant mortality climbed approximately 5.6%—equating to an estimated 478 excess infant deaths—while birth rates rose about 1.7%, or roughly 22,000 additional births. These effects were most pronounced in Southern states and among Black infants, who experienced an 11% higher mortality rate than expected. Texas, in particular, drove much of the increase, with a large population and an earlier six-week ban contributing heavily to the outcomes . Researchers warn these findings highlight deeply unequal and adverse health consequences of abortion restrictions and suggest bolstering Medicaid, paid parental leave, and childcare support to mitigate harms. 

South Carolina’s six-week “heartbeat” abortion ban—triggered once fetal cardiac activity is detected—is back before the state Supreme Court, with Planned Parenthood and allies challenging its narrow definition of “heartbeat” and timing, arguing that true cardiac activity begins closer to nine or ten weeks. While the law remains in effect, both sides presented arguments over whether the statute permits abortions up to nine weeks, given ambiguous language in its definition. The court's decision, expected in the coming months, could reshape access in South Carolina and may serve as a bellwether for similar heartbeat laws nationwide.

The South Carolina Supreme Court has reopened review of the state’s 2023 “heartbeat” abortion law, which bans nearly all abortions after approximately six weeks—when fetal cardiac activity is detectable via ultrasound—but contains ambiguous language suggesting a heartbeat might not begin until around nine to ten weeks. During the February 12 hearing, state lawyers emphasized legislative intent supporting a six-week cutoff, citing widespread usage of the term during legislative sessions, while Planned Parenthood argued that medical uncertainty around “cardiac activity” forces doctors to avoid providing abortions even when legally permissible at later stages. With the six-week ban currently in effect pending a decision expected within months, this dispute over how to define the heartbeat threshold could significantly impact abortion access not just in South Carolina but as a precedent for similar laws elsewhere

A Texas state judge, in a civil default judgment, has fined New York physician Dr. Margaret Carpenter over $100,000 and barred her from prescribing abortion pills to Texas residents after she allegedly sent mifepristone and misoprostol via telemedicine to a woman near Dallas—an action deemed illegal under Texas law, despite New York's "shield law" protecting providers prescribing across state lines. The ruling tests the conflict between restrictive abortion bans and protective legislation in blue states, with New York Gov. Kathy Hochul refusing extradition or cooperation, reinforcing the stance that physicians in shield‑law states can serve patients in banned‑abortions states without penalty.

North Carolina’s legislature has funneled roughly $30 million over the past three years into crisis pregnancy centers—anti‑abortion, religiously affiliated facilities offering services like pregnancy tests and ultrasounds—but often lacking medical licensing, privacy protections, oversight, or proven outcomes. With over 100 such centers statewide, fewer than 25% of funds actually aid pregnant individuals, and many clients report receiving misleading or medically inaccurate information. Critics, including medical professionals and reproductive‑rights advocates, warn the centers use “deception, delay tactics, and disinformation” to deter abortion, undermining informed consent, while defenders argue they provide supportive services. A pending bill (S 247) would redirect funds to evidence‑based maternal and infant programs starting in fiscal year 2025–26, increase accountability through audits and data reporting.

The article from The Cut details how the Trump administration’s early actions—including narrowing enforcement of the FACE Act and pardoning anti-abortion extremists—are fueling a resurgence in threats and violence against abortion clinics. By weakening federal protections and dropping charges against protestors who blocked clinics or engaged in harassment, the administration has signaled tolerance for aggressive anti-abortion tactics. Clinics now face heightened security risks and must divert resources from patient care to protection. Providers fear a return to the more violent era of anti-abortion activism and warn that these changes could embolden extremist behavior nationwide.