Author: Jessica L. Waters

Jessica Waters is a senior scholar in residence at American University's School of Public Affairs.

The FACE Act Is Settled Law, Despite Efforts to Reframe It

At a House Judiciary Subcommittee hearing on the Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances (FACE) Act on Tuesday, members of the House GOP—including Texas Reps. Chip Roy and Brandon Gill and Ohio’s Jim Jordan—attempted to rewrite or minimize the history of violence against providers and patients, recasting antiabortion clinic blockades as peaceful protest.

Jessica L. Waters, J.D., senior scholar in residence at American University, gave a forceful defense of the FACE Act and pushed back on efforts to recast clinic blockades as protected speech.

“People should be able to seek medical care, and medical professionals should be able to provide it, without fear of violence or intimidation. This is an issue that warrants a federal remedy.”

Texas’ Newest Abortion Restriction Tells Us What We Already Knew: It Was Never About States’ Rights

In a move that surprised no one, Texas Gov. Greg Abbott recently signed HB 7 into law, allowing private citizens to sue anyone who manufactures, distributes or mails abortion medication to Texas residents. But this law is more than just another restriction—it signals that Texas isn’t content to enforce its near-total abortion ban within state lines. With HB 7, the state is now targeting out-of-state actors, making clear that antiabortion lawmakers are determined to export their bans beyond Texas and reshape abortion access nationwide.

This tactic exposes the lie at the heart of the “states’ rights” argument that fueled the fight to overturn Roe v. Wade. The goal was never to return abortion policy to individual states; it was always to prevent access wherever abortion is legal. Post-Dobbs, patients have continued to travel or use telehealth to obtain care, and states like Texas are responding with aggressive measures—state “trafficking” laws and multi-state lawsuits—to block access across borders. HB 7 is just the latest example of how far antiabortion states will go to control abortion nationally.

Supreme Court’s Blow to Federal Agencies’ Power Will Likely Weaken Abortion Rights. Here Are Three Issues to Watch.

One of the Court’s most significant decisions of 2024 was Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo. In a reversal of 40 years of precedent, courts—not agencies—will have the last word on interpreting federal law.

In her Loper dissent, Justice Elena Kagan wrote: “In every sphere of current or future federal regulation, expect courts from now on to play a commanding role.” Kagan’s dissent raises the specter of judges across the country—not doctors or scientists or educators, nor even politicians, who at least must answer to the public—playing a “commanding role” in reproductive rights policy.