Legal Protections for Stakeholders in Abortion Care: An Innovative Approach to Bolstering Shield Laws

In the wake of Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization— the 2022 Supreme Court decision that reversed Roe v. Wade returned the authority to regulate abortion to the states— reproductive healthcare providers are facing legal threats for providing state protected healthcare to Americans in other more vulnerable areas. Amidst this polarized climate, states have enacted legislation that protects providers from legal action and professional repercussions. By extending the protections afforded to healthcare providers to attorneys—another group of stakeholders at risk of professional repercussions—the legislation introduces a new tactic for pro-choice states seeking to defend their residents from out-of-state regulation. 

Providers in many red states face uncertainty about the legality of performing life-saving abortions under their state’s restrictive abortion laws.[1]  Healthcare providers in blue states have stepped in, prescribing abortion medication to patients in states with limited abortion access through telehealth and mail-order prescription services. Yet these states’ constitutional protections for abortion have not eliminated threats to providers’ freedom to perform legally protected healthcare services. 

Attorneys General in red states are launching legal action against out-of-state providers providing abortion medication to the challenging state’s residents. One of these providers is Dr. Margaret Daley Carpenter of New York. In 2024, Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton filed a civil suit against Carpenter for providing abortion medication to Texas residents; she was also one of several providers indicted by a Louisiana grand jury in January for violating the state’s abortion laws.[2] Attorney General Paxton argued that Carpenter was “practicing medicine” without a proper license in Texas and that she was aiding abortions, which the state’s abortion law prohibits.[3] The opposition, including Paxton, argued that these actions violate the Constitution’s Full Faith and Credit Clause, which compels states to respect other states’ laws.[4]

In anticipation of such challenges, many states have enacted legislation that aims to safeguard providers from legal action brought by out-of-state prosecutors. These so-called shield laws exempt providers and local law enforcement from complying with out-of-state investigations and court orders.[5]  Many states also protect providers from professional repercussions by prohibiting adverse action from in-state licensing boards and medical malpractice insurers.[6]

California’s new legislation expands the state’s robust shield laws. AB-260 authorizes pharmacies to dispense the abortion medication mifepristone and other abortion drugs without including the names or addresses of the prescriber, patient, or pharmacy on the prescription label while also permitting the State Department of Health to exclude mifepristone and other abortion drugs from the state’s drug labeling requirements.[7] The bill draws on legislation passed by five other states,[8] which intends to further limit out-of-state prosecutors’ ability to bring legal action against healthcare providers acting in their professional capacity. 

Offering anonymity to providers and making specific exceptions to state labeling regulations for abortion medication represent a significant effort to adapt state laws to address the current intimidating climate. AB-260 and similar legislation thereby underscore the severity of the threats to healthcare professionals. The immediacy with which AB-260 was implemented further highlights the urgency of the threat. 

AB-260 will presumably give providers a greater sense of security and help to reduce anxieties they may have about treating out-of-state patients. California also enacted California Business & Professions Code §6106.4, which is similarly designed to provide stakeholders a sense of security in the face of out-of-state legal threats. BPC §6106.4 protects California attorneys who defend providers prescribing abortion services to out-of-state residents from state bar discipline or denial of admission to the bar.[9]

Resembling similar legislation protecting healthcare providers from professional discipline, BPC §6106.4 is based on the idea that out-of-state legal threats have undesirable negative impacts on attorneys’ ability to act in a professional capacity. The bill exemplifies an understanding that states should strive to mitigate those negative impacts and defend stakeholders’ ability to fulfill their professional duties without fear of adverse action, whether they operate in the medical or legal fields. 

By recognizing that the threat posed by out-of-state legal challenges impacts legal professionals as well as healthcare providers, BPC §6106.4 thereby expands the conceptualization of this threat. Such an expansion further illustrates the severity of the threat and the urgent need for comprehensive protective legislation. 

Although many states protect providers from adverse professional action, extending similar protections to legal professionals is a relatively novel idea. BPC §6106.4 therefore presents a new avenue for states to further strengthen their shield laws and take an even bolder stance against out-of-state legal challenges. Given that these protections for attorneys flow from the same logic as similar protections for providers, adding these provisions to existing shield laws is a logical next step for pro-choice states. 

The pending litigation against Dr. Carpenter presents an opportunity for further progress on strengthening state shield laws. Texas Attorney General Paxton sued a clerk in Ulster County, New York, for refusing to enforce a Texas court order compelling Carpenter to pay over $100,000 in penalties for prescribing abortion medication to Texas residents.[10] In response, New York Attorney General Letitia James announced in September that her office will be joining the case to defend the clerk.[11]

James’ announcement is part of a broader effort in New York to defend shield laws while the state is being targeted by litigation. In February 2025, the state joined the movement to allow healthcare providers to prescribe abortion medication anonymously. New York Education Law §6807 b-11 amended state labeling laws to allow pharmacists to include the pharmacy’s name or address instead of their personal name,[12] and New York Education Law §6810 1-a amended labeling laws to allow providers to include the name of their practice instead of their personal name.[13] State lawmakers have also proposed a “Shield Law 2.0” bill that incorporates provisions from California’s new legislative package. S.4941B/A.5480 clarifies that all professionals involved in the provision of legally protected reproductive healthcare, including attorneys, cannot face disciplinary action.[14] The bill passed both chambers of the state legislature and is awaiting Hochul’s signature. 

The steady growth in state adoption of provider anonymity laws demonstrates that shield laws are not developed in isolation. Although they are targeted at the state level, shield laws are part of a national movement to safeguard legal protections of abortion, with blue states drawing from and building off each other’s legal advancements. States will likely follow California’s lead, and attorneys in blue states nationwide may soon receive greater security and protection from unnecessary professional repercussions. As the threat of out-of-state legal challenges remains pressing, states should act urgently to adopt these crucial protections for all professional stakeholders involved in the provision of reproductive healthcare. 

[1] Mary Ziegler, “In States with Abortion Bans, When Does a Medical Emergency Trigger an Exception?,” State Court Report (January 28, 2025), https://statecourtreport.org/our-work/analysis-opinion/states-abortion-bans-when-does-medical-emergency-trigger-exception

[2]  Andrew Maglione, Mambwe Mutanuka, Alexandre Busto and Rebecca Simone. “State actions reveal risks of delivering abortion care across state lines,” Nixon Peabody (February 13, 2025), https://www.nixonpeabody.com/insights/alerts/2025/02/13/state-actions-reveal-risks-of-d elivering-abortion-care-across-state-lines

[3] Pam Belluck. “States Heading Toward Constitutional Battle Over Abortion Shield Laws,” N.Y. Times (September 8, 2025), https://www.nytimes.com/2025/09/08/health/abortion-shield-laws.html

[4] Laurie Sobel, Ivette Gomez, and Alina Salganicoff. “The Intersection of State and Federal Policies on Access to Medication Abortion Via Telehealth after Dobbs,” KFF (July 24, 2025), https://www.kff.org/womens-health-policy/the-intersection-of-state-and-federal-policies on-access-to-medication-abortion-via-telehealth-after-dobbs

[5] UCLA School of Law Center on Reproductive Health, Law, and Policy. “Shield Laws for Reproductive and Gender-Affirming Health Care: A State Law Guide,” UCLA School of Law Center on Reproductive Health, Law, and Policy (October 2025), https://law.ucla.edu/academics/centers/center-reproductive-health-law-and-policy/shield-l aws-reproductive-and-gender-affirming-health-care-state-law-guide

[6] Id.

[7] C.A. State Assemb. Bill 260 (“AB 260”), 2025–26 Leg., Reg. Sess. (C.A. 2025), https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billTextClient.xhtml?bill_id=202520260AB260

[8] Patrick Adams. “California considers allowing doctors to prescribe abortion drugs anonymously,” N.P.R. (September 10, 2025), https://www.npr.org/sections/shots-health-news/2025/09/10/nx-s1-5535877/california-shi eld-law-abortion-prescription-label

[9] California Business & Professions Code §6106.4 (“BPC §6106.4”), 2025–26 Leg., Reg. Sess. (Cal. 2025), https://legiscan.com/CA/text/AB1525/id/3259686

[10] Aria Bendex, “New York attorney general joins landmark legal battle over out-of-state abortion provider,” NBC News (September 8, 2025), https://www.nbcnews.com/health/health-news/new-york-attorney-general-joins-landmark -legal-battle-state-abortion-p-rcna229444

[11] Aria Bendex, “New York attorney general joins landmark legal battle over out-of-state abortion provider,” NBC News (September 8, 2025),  https://www.nbcnews.com/health/health-news/new-york-attorney-general-joins-landmark -legal-battle-state-abortion-p-rcna229444 

[12] New York Education Law §6807 b-1, 2025–26 Leg., Reg. Sess. (N.Y. 2025), https://www.nysenate.gov/legislation/laws/EDN/6807

[13] New York Education Law §6810 1-a, 2025–26 Leg., Reg. Sess. (N.Y. 2025), https://www.nysenate.gov/legislation/laws/EDN/6810 

[14] N.Y. State Sen. Bill 4914B/ N.Y. State Assemb. Bill A5480 (“S4914B/A5480”), 2025–26 Leg., Reg. Sess. (N.Y. 2025), https://www.nysenate.gov/legislation/bills/2025/S4587