Louisiana, Alabama and Arkansas have filed a lawsuit with the U.S. Supreme Court challenging abortion shield laws in Massachusetts, New York and California.
The lawsuit, filed Wednesday, asks the Supreme Court to declare the laws unconstitutional and prevent the three states from shielding abortion providers who prescribe and send abortion-inducing drugs to women in states where abortion is prohibited.
The challenge puts Massachusetts' abortion shield law directly before the nation's highest court. Massachusetts is among a small number of states whose laws protect providers from certain out-of-state legal actions involving abortion services, including when the patient is located outside the state.
Louisiana Attorney General Liz Murrill, joined by Alabama Attorney General Steve Marshall and Arkansas Attorney General Tim Griffin, argues that the shield laws interfere with the ability of pro-life states to enforce their own laws. The states' Supreme Court complaint raises constitutional arguments involving the Full Faith and Credit Clause, equal sovereignty, federal common law concerning public nuisance and the Dormant Commerce Clause.
The attorneys general contend that the laws go beyond protecting abortion providers within their own states by preventing other states from investigating or taking legal action against providers who send abortion-inducing drugs across state lines.
The three states also filed a separate federal lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Louisiana against 30 individuals and organizations accused of facilitating the prescription, dispensing and shipment of abortion-inducing drugs into states with pro-life laws.
Among the defendants is the Massachusetts Medication Abortion Access Project, along with its founder, Angel Foster. The Louisiana attorney general's office says the lawsuit seeks to stop the defendants from continuing to send abortion-inducing drugs into Louisiana and other states.
MCFL President Myrna Maloney Flynn welcomed the legal challenge, saying it could help stop abortion-inducing drugs from being prescribed and shipped from Massachusetts into states that have enacted pro-life protections.
"We applaud Attorneys General Griffin, Marshall and Murrill for their effort to cut off the abortion industry's steady supply of abortion pills prescribed and shipped from Massachusetts into their states, undermining pro-life protections there," Maloney Flynn said.
Flynn also criticized Massachusetts' shield law for protecting the identities of abortion providers.
"Governor Healey's shield laws not only allow Massachusetts abortionists to market and sell abortion drugs to vulnerable women across the country, they also conceal the very identity of Bay State abortionists. If a woman in Louisiana ingests mifepristone or misoprostol from Massachusetts then experiences complications from those abortion pills, she has no recourse; she is utterly powerless in holding a Massachusetts abortionist responsible. A favorable outcome at the Supreme Court would be a win for common sense and a landmark victory for women’s safety," the Massachusetts pro-life leader stated.
Flynn said MCFL will be watching the Supreme Court proceedings: "We look forward to learning how the Justices respond to the states' request to restore, nationwide, the spirit and effectiveness of their Dobbs decision."
The challenge represents another major legal dispute over the interstate reach of abortion laws following the Supreme Court's 2022 Dobbs decision. At issue is whether states such as Massachusetts can protect providers who prescribe and ship abortion-inducing drugs to women in states where those drugs are prohibited under state law.