Mississippi Bill: Life in Prison for Aiding Teen Abortions

1.13.25

Click to skip ahead: In Legislation Watch, new bills from Mississippi, Kentucky, Nebraska and Wyoming. In Stats & Studies, young people are fleeing anti-abortion states. In the States, news from Washington, New Mexico, Arizona, Montana and more. Attacks on Democracy looks at the latest in Florida. In the Nation, a few quick hits. Anti-Abortion Strategy flags yet another ‘free speech’ lawsuit from an anti-abortion activist. In the Courts, birth control coverage heads to the Supreme Court.

---

Legislation Watch

State legislatures are coming back into session and whew do we have a lot to talk about. Let’s start with Mississippi, where a Republican lawmaker has introduced a bill that would punish anyone who helps a teen get an abortion with 20 years to life in prison.

In keeping with conservatives’ attempts to disguise their extremism as concern for children, Rep. Mark Tullos is calling his bill the “Safeguarding Teens from Out-of-State (Abortion) Procedures (STOP) Act.” I know, it’s a mouthful! But we know what this bill is really about: Like similar laws passed in Idaho and Tennessee, this is an attempt to strip young people of their right to travel for healthcare.

Tullos has clearly taken lessons from recent court battles. Unlike the Idaho and Tennessee laws, which make it illegal to “recruit, transport, or harbor” a teen seeking an abortion, his bill focuses only on “transporting” and “harboring.” By omitting any reference to “recruitment,” Tullos is clearly trying to avoid the legal challenges that have plagued those other states.

Because remember, judges have rightly ruled that the term "recruitment" violates free speech, because it could criminalize something as simple as sharing a clinic URL. Leaving out that word, however, doesn’t make the Mississippi bill any less harmful than the others.

The STOP Act would make providing “lodging, shelter, transportation, or money” to help a teen get an abortion a felony. That means a grandmother who lends her 17 year-old grandchild gas money to leave the state could be punished with life in prison. The bill would also allow civil actions to be brought against anyone found to have ‘aided and abetted’ a teen abortion.

What’s more, the bill wouldn’t just make it illegal to drive a teen out of Mississippi for an abortion—it would also criminalize driving a teen through the state, potentially targeting people who don’t even live in Mississippi.

As WJTV points out, Tullos seems to understand that his bill is unconstitutional: He wrote that each provision of the bill is severable—a way to make it easier for a court to deem some parts of the legislation unconstitutional, while leaving others intact. This is what happened with Idaho’s law: a court invalidated the provision about “recruiting” but upheld the language on “harboring” and “transporting.”

None of this is about protecting teenagers. The real goal here is to criminalize what I call “the helpers”—abortion funds, friends, family, or anyone in the community who supports teens in making their own pregnancy decisions. But it’s also about normalizing travel restrictions for women of all ages. They’re just using teenagers as test cases. For more, check out the column I wrote when Republicans first started proposing these laws:

Breaking the Overton Window 

In better legislation news, Nebraska Sen. Machaela Cavanaugh has proposed a bill that would prohibit prosecutions based on pregnancy outcomes—whether it’s abortion, miscarriage, or stillbirth. It’s an important move, given the rise in criminalization since Dobbs. And with Republicans so eager to let citizens sue each other over abortion, I was relieved to see that Legislative Bill 53 would also block civil lawsuits against people for their pregnancy outcomes.

In Wyoming, a Republican lawmaker has introduced legislation that would mandate women view ultrasounds and hear the fetal ‘heartbeat’ before being allowed to use abortion medication. Per usual, this is about shaming women—not healthcare.

In Kentucky, a Republican has filed a bill to add a few so-called “exceptions” to the state’s abortion ban. Rep. Ken Fleming’s legislation would let rape and incest victims end their pregnancies in the first six weeks and make an exception for certain nonviable pregnancies.

Fleming filed a similar bill last year, citing his daughters as the motivation. But like most abortion ban ‘exceptions,’ the bill was written as narrowly as possible—more of a PR move than legislation to expand care. For example, many people don’t know they’re pregnant before six weeks; sexual violence victims, in particular, are more likely to be in denial or still processing their trauma. (Not to mention, young victims are less likely to know about their bodies or pregnancy.)

And while allowing abortion in cases of lethal fetal abnormalities is incredibly important—this is one of the issues I’ve been intently focused on these last few years—the language of Fleming’s bill leaves a lot to be desired. House Bill 203 defines a nonviable pregnancy as a “condition diagnosed before birth from which an unborn child would die at birth or shortly thereafter, or be stillborn.” But what does ‘shortly thereafter’ birth mean? If a newborn could survive for a few days, is that a lethal condition? What about a few weeks?

A Kentucky Democrat has also filed legislation to add exceptions to the state’s ban: Sen. David Yates says, “I’ve been around in government a long time, and I think it’s dangerous when government makes decisions for you.” Yates’ bill would allow for abortions for sexual violence victims up until ‘viability,’ and his language around fatal anomalies is much broader than the Republican bill: Senate Bill 35 would allow abortions “because of a lethal fetal anomaly or the fetus is incompatible with sustained life outside the womb.”

Both bills call for abortions to be permitted in cases of “incomplete miscarriages.” Unbelievably, miscarriage care is not allowed in Kentucky if there’s still a fetal heartbeat—a dangerous standard that has killed women.

Stats & Studies

To no one’s surprise, a new study finds that abortion bans are driving people to leave anti-choice states. The National Bureau of Economic Research reports that the 13 states with total abortion bans lost 128,700 residents in the year following Roe’s demise.

Using change-of-address data from the U.S. Postal Service, the researchers found that these states are losing more than 36,000 residents per quarter. They also found that those in single-person households were most likely to move; that indicates it’s probably young people fleeing these states.

The study also looked ‘abortion hostile’ states—those that didn’t have total abortion bans, but “abortion access was either directly impaired or perceived to be under threat.” These states, too, lost residents.

Other studies and polls have shown a similar trend since Roe was overturned, especially around young people. A 2024 poll from CNBC/Generation Lab, for example, found that 62% of young people wouldn’t live in a state with an abortion ban, with 45% reporting that they would “definitely” or “probably” reject a job offer in one. Similarly, a 2024 Redfin Survey reported that nearly 1 in 10 Gen Zers who plan to move cite abortion rights as a reason.

It’s not just young workers—college students, medical students, residents, and doctors are also steering clear of anti-abortion states. A NBC poll found that 1 in 3 students would change schools if they were in a state with a ban. And a 2024 study from the Association of American Medical Colleges (AAMC) revealed that residency applications dropped by double digits in states with bans.

All of which is to say: People don’t want to live in states where they and their loved ones can’t access healthcare or are treated as less than fully human. Maybe if the Republicans in these states don’t care about our lives or rights, they’ll care about their bottom line. Researchers wrote, "States with bans may face challenges in attracting and retaining workers, especially younger workers, which could impact economic growth and development.”

In the States

Montana Republicans are asking the Supreme Court to step in on a fight over parental consent. Last year, the state’s Supreme Court struck down a Republican law mandating that doctors get notarized consent from a parent or guardian before performing an abortion on a minor, ruling that it violated minors’ right to privacy and equal protection under the state constitution.

But Republican Attorney General Austin Knudsen wasn’t happy with that decision, so now he’s asking the nation’s highest court to weigh in. In his brief, he claims that “a child’s right to privacy does not supersede a parent’s fundamental right to direct the care and upbringing of their child.”

Knudsen and Gov. Greg Gianforte have been relentless in trying to restrict abortion, despite clear protections in the state constitution—a task made even harder after voters recently passed a pro-choice ballot measure. My guess? This plea to the Supreme Court is a last-ditch effort, because they know it might be the only way they can restrict abortion rights in Montana.

Arizona abortion rights lawmakers and activists are working to repeal restrictions in light of November’s pro-choice ballot measure win. But with the current makeup of the legislature, it won’t be easy. Erika Mach of Planned Parenthood Advocates of Arizona acknowledged the uphill battle, saying, “It will be a challenge.” Still, she added, “We’re prepared to make any strides we can when it comes to repealing the 40-plus restrictions we have on the books.”

Good news out of New Mexico: The state Supreme Court has ruled against towns and counties that passed anti-abortion ordinances in violation of state law. Across the country, anti-abortion activists have been pushing local governments to pass ordinances restricting women’s right to travel—like those in Texas—or pushing local versions of the Comstock Act, which bans mailing “obscene” materials, including abortion pills.

Since Roe was overturned, several of these ordinances have passed in New Mexico. But as expected, the state Supreme Court ruled that local governments must adhere to state law. In a statement, Gov. Michelle Lujan Grisham applauded the decision, saying that healthcare decisions are personal and that “they’ll stay that way” in the state:

“Let me be crystal clear: as long as I’m governor, New Mexico will fight any attempt to limit reproductive healthcare access, whether those challenges come from local ordinances, other states, or the federal government.”

The bad news? This decision inches anti-abortion activists closer to their real goal: getting the Comstock Act in front of the Supreme Court. As you know, that’s the endgame.

Washington Gov. Jay Inslee has directed the state health department to adopt an emergency rule in anticipation of Donald Trump’s inauguration, requiring hospitals to do two things: 1) Prohibit withholding care based on a person’s pregnancy status, and 2) Prohibit prioritizing an embryo or fetus over the health of the pregnant person unless that’s what the patient wants.

Washington is already a pro-choice state, but taking proactive and explicit steps like this makes a lot of sense. What I am curious about, however, is what these rules mean for religious institutions—which house nearly half of the hospital beds in the state.

In other Washington news, Governor-elect Bob Ferguson has launched a committee to take on Project 2025, with Planned Parenthood Alliance Advocates CEO Jennifer Allen as co-chair.

Quick hits:

• The Daily Progress profiles Virginia Del. Amy Laufer, who is working to codify abortion rights;

• The Arkansas Times profiles five reproductive rights leaders in Arkansas;

• And in Louisiana, the New Orleans health department has created a map of where people can find misoprostol, which is now a controlled substance in the state.

Attacks on Democracy

Well this is gross: Three governors who actively worked to quash voters’ will on abortion are getting a ‘pro-life’ award next month. Priests for Life will be honoring Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis, South Dakota Gov. Kristi Noem and Nebraska Gov. Jim Pillen—all of whom used their offices to lobby against pro-choice ballot measures.

DeSantis, in particular, went all in, weaponizing state agencies to defeat Amendment 4. He launched a taxpayer-funded disinformation campaign against the abortion rights measure, orchestrated a bogus ‘voter fraud’ investigation, and even threatened TV stations with criminal charges for running ads supporting the amendment. It was a mess. And despite the majority of Floridians voting to restore abortion rights, his attacks on democracy succeeded in defeating Amendment 4.

Apparently, even that was too close for comfort. DeSantis held a press conference today to propose changes to the state’s ballot measure process. “The citizen initiative has really been transformed into a special interest initiative,” he claimed.

DeSantis suggested new rules for verifying petition signatures, changing how ballot language is written, and holding ballot initiatives as stand-alone elections. In other words, he’s doing everything he can to override the will of voters.

I guess he’s already campaigning for next year’s ‘award,’ too.

In the Nation

• Nicholas Kristof at The New York Times writes about the consequences of the global gag rule.

• POLITICO on AI abortion training;

• Carter Sherman at The Guardian reports on effort in Democratic states to expand who can provide and prescribe abortions.

• And in international news, there’s been an “unprecedented” rise of pregnancy-related prosecutions in the U.K.

Anti-Abortion Strategy

You all know I’ve been expecting a wave of bogus “free speech” arguments from anti-abortion activists looking to harass women outside clinics—I even called it in my 2025 predictions. Conservative legal groups are eager to overturn the Supreme Court decision that allowed for buffer zones. But apparently, they’re not stopping at clinic buffer zones.

An anti-abortion activist is now suing over a San Diego ordinance that establishes buffer zones outside religious institutions, medical facilities, and schools—and it’s the school part that’s got Dan Blythe in a twist. The anti-abortion extremist wants to be able to hand out leaflets to high school students, but the ordinance stops him unless the students actually want his materials.

I just had to share this quote from his complaint, which is pretty much exactly what you would expect from an anti-abortion asshole:

“The ordinance prohibits plaintiff from engaging in this activity unless he has first gained the consent of each student whom he is approaching and to whom he is offering leaflets…Obtaining consent is an unrealistic requirement for distributing literature to multiple people arriving in waves and leaves plaintiff unable to engage in the critical literature distribution aspect of his free speech activity.”

Calling consent “unrealistic” is just a *chef’s kiss* perfect encapsulation of who these men are. A federal judge will rule on the case after hearing arguments last week.

In the Courts

Here we go: The Supreme Court will hear a challenge to the Affordable Care Act’s requirement that health plans cover preventative care—including birth control. The Washington Post has the run-down, but here’s the gist: Becerra v. Braidwood Management Inc. was brought by a Christian business that doesn’t want to cover PrEP (the medication that helps prevent the spread of HIV).

Their argument? That PrEP “encourage[s] and facilitate[s] homosexual behavior.” In other words, total assholes. But it doesn’t stop at PrEP—they’re coming for birth control, too. In their filing, the plaintiffs claim the ACA forces them to cover “all F.D.A.-approved contraceptive methods, including methods that some regard as abortifacients.”

And there it is. If you’ve been reading for a while, you know Republicans have spent years laying the groundwork to argue that certain contraceptives—like emergency contraception and IUDs—are actually abortions. This case is another move to further that lie, and to strip Americans of affordable contraceptive care. I don’t need to tell you why that’s so scary, especially now that Roe is gone.

Oh, and you’ll never guess who the lawyer is behind the case: Jonathan Mitchell. That’s right, the architect of Texas’ abortion ban and the maniac who has been recruiting aggrieved men to sue anyone who help their partners or exes get abortions.

I’ll have more for you in the coming days, but you can find background on the case at the National Women’s Law Center and KFF.