Since the Supreme Court’s decision in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, the legal landscape surrounding abortion has continued to shift, deepening the divide between states that safeguard access and those working to restrict or eliminate it. This week, we examine two new legislative developments: Montana's proposal to criminalize abortion-related travel and Missouri's expansion of tax benefits for anti-abortion organizations. As states employ both legal and financial strategies to reshape access, the battle over reproductive rights remains as contentious as ever.
Last Year: A Patchwork Nation: Abortion Laws and Access Challenges
Following the Dobbs decision, states have charted their own paths on abortion access, creating a fragmented and often contradictory legal reality. Some enacted near-total bans, with their "trigger laws" going into effect, while others reinforced protections for reproductive healthcare. This resulted in a complicated and often contradictory patchwork of laws, leaving many individuals navigating shifting policies, legal uncertainties, and logistical challenges to access care. The disparities in access have only widened over the past year, particularly affecting marginalized communities and those in rural areas.
Beyond direct bans, many states have pursued subtler restrictions, such as funneling funds into crisis pregnancy centers or enacting measures to discourage providers from offering abortion services. Meanwhile, states that support abortion rights have taken steps to protect providers and patients, including passing shield laws that guard against out-of-state legal consequences. This ongoing struggle underscores how abortion access in the U.S. remains in flux, largely dictated by geography and political leadership currently holding the power.
Last year, we took a look at an emerging trend related to "abortion trafficking," as states began passing laws restricting abortion-related travel, particularly for minors. Idaho led the way with ID H0242 in April 2023, criminalizing adults who assist unemancipated minors in obtaining an abortion without parental consent. Tennessee followed in July 2024 with TN SB1971, which created the offense of "abortion trafficking of a minor" and allowed for wrongful death civil suits in certain cases. Additionally, Alabama, Mississippi, and Oklahoma introduced similar bills, though they did not pass. These efforts to to enforce parental consent through legal penalties seemed to signal a broader strategy that continues to gain traction. Turns out they did, and now Montana is pushing the boundaries further.
Montana’s "Abortion Trafficking" Law: Criminalizing Interstate Travel for Abortion Care
Montana lawmakers are pushing forward House Bill 609 (currently 'tabled' in committee), which would make it a felony for pregnant individuals to obtain an abortion deemed illegal under state law—whether within Montana or by traveling elsewhere. The bill also criminalizes those who assist in facilitating an abortion, from healthcare providers to family members who help a pregnant person leave the state for care. Supporters argue the bill aligns with Montana’s constitutional amendment CI-128, which allows for state regulation of post-viability abortions. However, opponents are wary of the potential for vague and overreaching legal consequences, which could harm patients facing complex medical decisions.
Critics also caution that this legislation could have dire implications for those dealing with fetal anomalies or medical emergencies discovered later in pregnancy. Testimony from medical professionals and advocates underscored the bill’s potential to force individuals into impossible situations, facing felony charges simply for seeking necessary medical care. The bill’s language reflects a broader national strategy: framing abortion-related travel as "trafficking," a rhetorical shift designed to justify increasingly restrictive policies.
There are currently two other bills from this session, Idaho House Bill 0360 and Mississippi House Bill 1041 which directly mention "abortion trafficking". Idaho's bill, introduced in early March, amends Section 18-608 to remove a references to "abortion trafficking laws". Mississippi's bill sought to create penalties for "abortion trafficking," imposing fines and prison sentences for those involved (a fine between $1,000 and $10,000, imprisonment in the Department of Corrections for 2-5 years, or both). Additionally, the bill would have granted the Mississippi Attorney General the discretion to prosecute such cases if local prosecutors decline to do so. Though Mississippi’s bill ultimately failed, it illustrates an ongoing legislative push to impose criminal consequences on abortion-related travel.
The Montana bill remains under committee review, but if passed, it would mark a significant escalation in efforts to restrict out-of-state abortion access.
Missouri’s Anti-Abortion Tax Credit: Diverting Public Funds to Crisis Pregnancy Centers
In Missouri, lawmakers are advancing House Bill 1176, which seeks to expand financial incentives for crisis pregnancy centers—facilities that present themselves as reproductive health care providers but generally focus on discouraging abortion and contraceptive services. The bill proposes allowing residents of Missouri to fully offset their state income tax liability by donating to these centers, increasing the existing tax credit from 70% to 100% with an annual cap of $50,000 per taxpayer. Proponents argue this policy empowers individuals to direct their tax dollars while strengthening support for anti-abortion initiatives. Critics, however, warn that it effectively diverts taxpayer funds away from essential public services, such as healthcare and education, to ideological organizations.
Beyond ideological concerns, the bill raises questions about tax loopholes. Experts caution that dollar-for-dollar tax credit is highly unusual and could encourage an influx of donations that further deplete needed state revenues. Additionally, allowing donations in the form of corporate stock could enable wealthy individuals to bypass capital gains taxes while receiving full state reimbursement, creating a system that disproportionately benefits high-income donors. Missouri already allocates significant funding to crisis pregnancy centers (roughly $6.3 million in recent years), and this measure signals a broader trend among conservative legislatures to financially support anti-abortion organizations while restricting access to reproductive healthcare.
Currently, 53 bills address "pregnancy resource centers" (another name for crisis pregnancy centers), and 23 that mention "crisis pregnancy centers" directly, Texas currently leads in the number of proposed measures directly referencing "crisis centers" whereas Kansas leads with 24 bills addressing "resource centers":
The Ongoing Shift in Abortion Policy
As states continue to push new legislative boundaries, the legal landscape for abortion remains increasingly complex. These latest measures highlight the varied approaches being used to restrict access—whether through criminal penalties or financial incentives. With ongoing legal battles and shifting policies, reproductive healthcare access remains largely dictated by state lines. As we track these developments, it is clear that the fight over abortion rights is far from settled. Stay tuned for further updates as this issue continues to evolve.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Cover Photo by Mr. Great Heart on Unsplash
About BillTrack50 – BillTrack50 offers free tools for citizens to easily research legislators and bills across all 50 states and Congress. BillTrack50 also offers professional tools to help organizations with ongoing legislative and regulatory tracking, as well as easy ways to share information both internally and with the public.