The next front in the US abortion wars may be a battle over speech. More than two years after the Supreme Court overturned *Roe v. Wade*, abortions are on the rise due to increased access to abortion pills and interstate travel. This has angered anti-abortion advocates, who are pushing for policies to restrict the distribution of abortion pills and target individuals and groups assisting women in obtaining out-of-state abortions. Texas recently sued a New York doctor for allegedly providing telehealth abortion services to a Texan woman, highlighting the interstate conflict.
In an attempt to further restrict abortion access, the anti-abortion movement is focusing on controlling information about obtaining abortions. At least two bills have been pre-filed for the 2025 legislative session targeting abortion-related speech. Rachel Rebouché, an expert in reproductive health law, notes that controlling information about services legal in some states but not others is a key aspect of the post-*Dobbs* landscape.
One Texas bill would criminalize providing information on how to obtain abortion-inducing drugs, as well as maintaining websites that facilitate access. It would also force internet service providers to block websites like Aid Access and Plan C. A second bill, pre-filed in New Hampshire, bans “abortion trafficking” – transporting minors for abortions without parental consent – and “recruiting” minors for abortions. This language, mirrored in model legislation from the National Right to Life, has alarmed abortion rights activists, especially given similar laws already passed in Idaho and Tennessee.
The vague wording of these bills is concerning. Kylee Sunderlin of If/When/How highlights the ambiguity of “recruiting,” suggesting it could encompass sharing information or even having a conversation that influences someone’s decision. A Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruling temporarily blocked Idaho’s “recruiting” provision, citing potential First Amendment violations.
Elisabeth Smith of the Center for Reproductive Rights believes restrictions on “recruiting” minors are a precursor to broader restrictions targeting adults. Idaho, Mississippi, Oklahoma, and West Virginia have also introduced bills to limit abortion-related speech, including advertising, which, while protected under *Bigelow v. Virginia*, could be challenged in the current Supreme Court climate. Harvard Law School lecturer Dessie Otachliska points out the vulnerability of *Bigelow* in the current legal landscape.
Tennessee’s abortion trafficking ban is also temporarily blocked, awaiting appeal. The Supreme Court may ultimately intervene to define the boundaries of abortion-related speech and the meaning of “recruiting,” given the novelty and increasing prevalence of these laws. The ongoing legislative efforts underscore the continuing intensity of the abortion debate.