In 2024, following a critical election that took place nearly two years after the U.S. Supreme Court rescinded federal abortion protections, a coalition of patients, healthcare providers, and advocates united to reclaim and expand reproductive rights. Conversely, opposition groups sought to impose additional restrictions. This article highlights key individuals and organizations that significantly influenced reproductive health legislation and access to abortion throughout the year.
Women Affected by Abortion Bans
Across state legislatures, courtrooms, congressional hearings, and presidential campaign advertisements, women nationwide have courageously shared their most painful experiences to advocate for the reversal of abortion limitations that have fundamentally altered reproductive healthcare in America.
After Kentucky’s abortion ban was enacted, Hadley Duvall publicly revealed her story of being raped by her stepfather at the age of 12, resulting in pregnancy. She emerged as a vocal advocate for abortion rights, appearing in re-election campaign ads for Democratic Governor Andy Beshear in 2023, and this year, contributed to national campaign advertisements for Democratic figures.
Representing numerous Louisiana women, Kaitlyn Joshua shared her struggles at the Democratic National Convention, recounting her experience of being denied miscarriage treatment due to the state’s stringent abortion law. Following her testimony, Louisiana Attorney General Liz Murrill publicly questioned the accuracy of Joshua’s account on social media.
Kristin Lyerly, a Wisconsin-based OB-GYN, took her fight against state abortion bans to the courts, claiming that these laws have drastically changed medical practices. Lyerly participated in a civic engagement project in Madison where individuals shared their personal abortion views and experiences. She detailed an instance where, despite Roe v. Wade protections, she was almost compelled to deliver a stillborn child instead of opting for a safer abortion procedure. Additionally, Lyerly campaigned for reproductive rights in a conservative congressional district, although she was not successful in her election bid.
Allie Phillips ran for the Tennessee legislature as a Democrat after the state’s abortion ban forced her to seek care for a nonviable pregnancy in New York City. Despite losing her campaign, Phillips expressed her commitment to advocate for reproductive rights moving forward, announcing her new pregnancy. She also joined a lawsuit alongside other affected women and medical professionals to clarify the state’s exceptions for medical health. In October, a three-judge panel ruled that doctors would not face penalties for performing emergency abortions to save a patient’s life.
Amanda Zurawski, who developed sepsis in Texas after her water broke at 18 weeks, became an ardent advocate for abortion rights after facing delays in receiving necessary medical care due to the state’s strict abortion restrictions. She actively campaigned for candidates supporting reproductive rights this year and intends to remain involved in political advocacy.
Influence of the Charlotte Lozier Institute
The Charlotte Lozier Institute, affiliated with the anti-abortion organization Susan B. Anthony Pro-Life America, played a crucial role in the high-profile federal lawsuit concerning medication abortion. Data from the institute underpinned arguments to revoke the federal approval of mifepristone and supported U.S. District Judge Matthew Kacsmaryk’s decision to grant standing to the doctors involved. Their research indicated a rise in Medicaid-funded emergency room visits linked to medication abortions over twenty years, correlating with increased access to such procedures. Public health experts criticized the study, arguing that it misrepresented significant findings and conflated general emergency visits with serious complications, contradicting established research on the safety of mifepristone.
In February, Sage Publications retracted three studies authored by Charlotte Lozier researchers due to identified methodological issues. Led by vice president James Studnicki, these researchers sued Sage, claiming the retractions were politically fueled.
This past summer, the U.S. Supreme Court unanimously dismissed the medication abortion lawsuit, not based on case merits but on the standing of the doctors involved. Following the court’s decision, anti-abortion activists sought alternative plaintiffs to argue that abortion pills are hazardous. In October, states intervened and revised their complaints, relying on new research indicating similar claims while ignoring the retracted studies.
Alabama Supreme Court’s Landmark Ruling
In February, in vitro fertilization (IVF) became a focal point in a wrongful death lawsuit after the Alabama Supreme Court ruled that frozen embryos qualify as children. Justice Jay Mitchell, alongside the majority ruling, invoked state constitutional amendments aimed at protecting the rights of unborn children and aligned his arguments with existing civil law surrounding wrongful death claims. This decision compelled many IVF clinics to pause operations until the state legislature granted immunities to these facilities for such treatments, leaving families facing significant financial stakes in limbo.
The ruling not only sparked concern among families seeking fertility treatments in Alabama but also drew attention to similar anxieties among those in states with existing abortion bans. Amidst this backdrop, support for IVF access transcended political divides, prompting Republicans to integrate IVF support into their national platform. President-elect Donald Trump even promised prospective government support for IVF costs, although the feasibility of such promises without congressional action remained uncertain. Meanwhile, substantial opposition to IVF legislation persisted among many GOP congressional members.
Jonathan Mitchell and Mark Lee Dickson’s Initiatives
This year, attorney Jonathan Mitchell and pastor Mark Lee Dickson commenced efforts aimed at curbing out-of-state abortions, with Texas serving as their primary launching pad. Utilizing a lesser-known state regulation, Mitchell sought to debrief abortion funds, healthcare providers, and women traveling out of state for abortions, generating fear without leading to immediate charges. Previously, Mitchell instigated a wrongful death lawsuit against women who allegedly facilitated their friend’s medication abortion—this suit has since been abandoned.
Through their Sanctuary Cities for the Unborn project, Mitchell and Dickson facilitated the passage of approximately 80 local ordinances in Texas and strategically positioned cities within abortion-access states. Some of these ordinances restricted doctors from performing abortions on residents of these towns even if they traveled to maternal health-friendly states, while others prohibited transport on local roads to out-of-state clinics for abortion services. These policies relied on an antiquated federal law, the Comstock Act, purportedly to ban the mailing of abortion pills.
Similar to Texas’s six-week abortion ban, which they helped design, these local ordinances often promote private citizen enforcement, allowing individuals to pursue lawsuits against others for “aiding and abetting” abortions. Nevertheless, an electoral defeat occurred when Amarillo voters rejected a measure aimed at prohibiting abortion-related travel on local highways. However, toward the year’s end, Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton initiated a lawsuit against a New York physician for prescribing abortion medications to a Texas resident, which Dickson subsequently regarded as a victory for the anti-abortion movement. Plans for future anti-abortion ordinances in Arizona and Missouri are anticipated in 2025.
YOUR SUPPORT MAKES OUR WORK POSSIBLE.
