Voters Across the Country Backed Abortion Rights. It Might Not Matter.

What
does it mean, then, for abortion rights to be expanded in some states, and further
enshrined and protected in others, when Trump takes the White House? And just
how protected will people in these states be if Trump does as many advisors and
supporters have urged him, enacting a national abortion ban, with or without
passing new legislation? State-based protections for abortion could be
guaranteeing access to something that’s not accessible, or a federal crime to
access.

To
answer this question, it’s first important to understand that the problems we
face on abortion rights are bigger than Trump. On the campaign trail, Harris
and her surrogates repeatedly told voters that Trump was an anti-abortion
candidate. They called state abortion bans “Trump abortion bans.” When women
died in Texas due to being denied an abortion, that was seen widely as proof of
the horrors that the  Dobbs decision,
rendered by a Supreme Court newly outfitted with three Trump appointees, had
wrought. In truth, the near-total abortion ban in Texas was already in effect
before the end of Roe. It may have seemed politically useful, but not
every bad thing that has happened around abortion since Dobbs is due to Dobbs,
or Trump. And despite this story, which was only partially true to begin with,
voters seemed happy to vote for Trump anyway.

Even
people in states where the right to an abortion will now be protected in the
state constitution will have other dangers to contend with. Nevada’s
constitutional amendment, for example, would not change the outcome of one of
the stories that garnered outrage ahead of the
election: of a mother of three, struggling to get housing for her family, who
was arrested and prosecuted in 2018 for an
apparent stillbirth. Prosecutors used a law from 1911 that effectively criminalizes
self-managed abortion after 24 weeks, and which remains on the books.