But legal experts say the reality, if Roe is reversed, will not be that simple.
Already, lawmakers in both red and blue states are beginning to draw new battles lines in expectation of a patchwork system where abortion rights are no longer protected nationwide.
Legislation introduced this year in Missouri is an extreme example of how anti-abortion lawmakers are looking to crack down on abortions that happen beyond their states’ borders.
Mary Ziegler, a Florida State University College of Law professor who’s the author of “Abortion and the Law in America: A Legal History, Roe v. Wade to the Present,” said the Missouri bill is a sign of things to come.
“This won’t be the last state that tries to regulate conduct outside of its borders,” Ziegler told CNN.
‘The portability of medication abortion changes the access landscape’
“In the last three years education about abortion pills has been a huge part of my job,” said Katie Glenn, the government affairs counsel for the anti-abortion group Americans United for Life.
Several states have outlawed telemedicine abortions and sending the pills by mail.
But some, like Texas, have gone further by contemplating how they’ll prosecute providers who seek to send in abortion pills from out of state. Texas last year expanded upon its existing prohibitions on mailing medication abortion pills by classifying the offense as the type of crime that would warrant extradition.
On the flip side — and in anticipation that their states will become so-called “safe havens” for abortion seekers and clinics — Democratic lawmakers are pushing proposals that would limit the ability of out-of-state authorities to investigate providers within blue states.
Glenn argued that these bills may have unintended effects on patients. She posited, for instance, that the Connecticut bill would prevent an out-of-state resident from pursuing a lawsuit for a botched delivery performed in the state.
Connecticut state Rep. Jillian Gilchrest, a Democrat who sponsored the bill, dismissed the criticism, telling CNN that “those on the anti-choice side would say anything to try and prevent individuals from being able to access legal safe abortion care.”
She said Connecticut lawmakers were prompted to push the bill, which passed the state House and is now before the Democratic-controlled Senate, by the novel Texas law. The Texas law provided a model for one of the Missouri proposals targeting out-of-state abortions.
“By being able to go after individuals that assist someone with an abortion, we recognized that a Texas-like law, in other states — they could reach to Connecticut,” Gilchrest said.
‘Swift and decisive action’ against companies that aid employees in obtaining abortions out of state
Texas legislators have previewed how they may seek to hinder access to the procedure even beyond their state.
Texas state Rep. Briscoe Cain promised “swift and decisive action” if the company did not rescind the policy.
“I intend to introduce legislation next session that bars local governments in Texas from doing business with any company that pays the abortion-related expenses of its employees or that provides abortion coverage as an employee benefit — regardless of where the employee is located or where the abortion is performed,” Cain wrote, adding that his proposal would apply “even if the employee is located out of state and even if the abortion is performed out of state.”
Citigroup declined to comment on the Cain letter.
“Basically every time there’s this inflection point, with the court changing, you see kind of these issues come up again,” said Greer Donley, who is one of the co-authors of the new article, which will be published in the Columbia Law Review, about the topic.
But, she said, this is the first time “we’re really starting to see legislators playing with the text and language of these bills coming out.”
“And certainly you have an anti-abortion movement that is extremely emboldened right now with its own belief that the court is going to support a lot of its more creative measures,” Donley told CNN.