Reproductive justice attorney responds to Medication abortion decision

Alyssa Morrison has written, spoken extensively about impact potential investigation has had on abortion seekers

(Alyssa Morrison, Lawyers for Good Government staff attorney)

Immediately after I heard about the Supreme Court taking on the Mifepristone case, I began talking with Alyssa Morrison, reproductive justice staff attorney for Lawyer for Good Government. 

Morrison has examined state laws and regulations limiting abortion access and, more specifically, the chilling effect of prosecutors and law enforcement threatening to investigate such matters. Even if no one violates the law, there are potentially costly lawsuits and charges that a person could face that serve as deterrents to getting needed or desired reproductive care. 

“It's hard to know which way the court would rule,” Morrison. “But it's also extremely hard to feel optimistic that the court that overturned Roe will rule in a favorable way.” 

Morrison pointed out the irony that everyone thought abortion would be regulated by the states after Dobbs, but that a year later, the Supreme Court again had to weigh in to establish a national precedent to govern medication abortion since federal law conflicted with state bans on Mifepristone. 

States like Texas and Mississippi rely heavily on medication abortion to meet the need for reproductive care. Many other states have passed shield laws to protect abortion providers from prosecutions and civil litigation. 

“If the Supreme Court were, to rule in a way that limits telehealth and requires in-person distribution of medication abortion, then that would completely take the teeth out of those provisions,” Morrison said. 

I had wanted to talk to Morrison about the effect that potential criminal investigations and civil lawsuits had on abortion care. She had written and spoken extensively on the issue. Even if these laws don’t pass constitutional muster, the cost of litigating them sometimes is too much to bear. So it prevents people from providing or getting the treatment they need. 

“When we're talking about people who have potentially never been investigated for anything before, just the prospect of even being contacted by someone in law enforcement and asked questions about your personal behavior and asked to provide evidence…all of that is truly terrifying,” Morrison said. 

Many abortion funds document personal and sensitive information about abortion seekers. So it’s worrisome for both the women they help and the volunteers and employees that they would have to turn over material in the discovery part of a trial. 

Tracking criminal or civil litigation threats is challenging unless they are reported directly to advocacy organizations. Finding emails and numbers to report those things can be too expensive for people without internet access or paying data charges.

Passing shield laws is one step state lawmakers can take to protect abortion seekers and patients. Ballot initiatives are another. And finally, Congress must enshrine the constitutional protection once provided by Roe v. Wade. 

I’ll be reporting more on the medication abortion lawsuit in the coming weeks.