Greer Donley is the Associate Dean for Research and Faculty Development, the John B. Nicklas, Jr. Faculty Fellow, and a Professor of Law at the University of Pittsburgh School of Law. She is one of the nation’s leading experts on abortion law, with widely cited scholarship on medication abortion, interjurisdictional conflicts, and the far‑reaching consequences of abortion bans on reproductive healthcare. Her work has been published in top law reviews and featured across major media outlets, shaping national conversations in the post‑Dobbs era. She spoke with SSRN about abortion shield laws, the evolving legal landscape, and the most pressing challenges and strategies for ensuring reproductive access today..

Q: Can you tell us about the motivation behind your recent co-authored paper, “Abortion Shield Laws in Action,” and what you see as the most significant legal challenges these laws face today?

A: David Cohen, Rachel Rebouche, and I have been thinking and writing about shield laws since their first conception. We wanted to write this paper after observing how quickly US states began implementing shield laws after Dobbs. These laws are a relatively new legal innovation, first  becoming effective in the summer of 2023. Our paper looks at how they are working a few years later. The primary purpose of shield laws is to protect providers and individuals involved in abortion care in shield states from civil and criminal liability instigated by states where abortion is heavily restricted or banned.

Since the overturning of Roe v. Wade, there was a real concern that legal and political attacks would severely limit access to abortion and threaten providers. Shield laws have played a crucial role in mitigating some of these threats. For example, recent data indicates that more than 10,000 boxes of abortion pills are mailed into restrictive states each month, providing vital access to those who cannot travel out of state, many of whom lack the resources to do so. These laws have enabled providers to continue offering care despite the legal threats.

However, the legal landscape is still very much in flux. Some early cases, like those in New York, have shown clerks refusing to file lawsuits against providers, citing shield laws’ protections. Another case in federal court is ongoing. Our hope is that these laws will continue to serve as a shield, allowing states to uphold their own abortion policies as intended, especially in a post-Roe landscape where states are increasingly diverging in their laws.

Q: Your work discusses the concept of interjurisdictional abortion wars. How do shield laws and telehealth intersect in this context, and what are the potential legal and practical implications?

A: The intersection of shield laws and telehealth is a critical aspect of the ongoing interjurisdictional battles over abortion access. These battles are complex because they involve different legal standards across jurisdictions, including federal, state, and even local laws. It’s important to clarify that shield laws address conflicts between states, not conflicts between federal and state authority. The federal supremacy clause makes clear that federal law generally trumps state law, but shield laws are designed to protect providers and patients from state-level legal actions, especially when states attempt to reach across borders to regulate out-of-state care.

Post-Dobbs, my co-authors and I anticipated and indeed observed that states would adopt divergent abortion laws, with some banning and others protecting access. This divergence enabled states to try to influence or restrict out-of-state care. For example, Texas suggested that if any part of a medication abortion was consumed in Texas, it was an illegal abortion, even if the Texas patient travelled out of state and the out-of-state provider fully followed their home state’s laws. Similarly, some states like Idaho passed laws making it illegal to help minors leave the state for abortion without parental consent, aiming to prevent out-of-state travel for abortion care.

Shield laws have evolved to address these challenges. Initially, they focused on protecting providers offering care to patients that travelled to them but returned to the ban state. But over time, some have expanded to shield providers treating patients across state lines through telehealth, even if the patient is physically located in a ban state.

Practically, this means that shield laws are becoming a vital tool to facilitate cross-border care and telehealth services, which are essential for maintaining access in a highly polarized legal landscape. The broader implication is that shield laws are becoming a key part of the legal infrastructure supporting reproductive access, especially as states attempt to regulate beyond their borders.

Q: Your paper “From Medical Exceptions to Reproductive Freedom” discusses using pregnancy complication cases as a legal strategy against abortion bans. How might this influence future litigation?

A: This paper was motivated by the observation that, despite strict abortion bans, many pregnant individuals face severe health risks or complications that require medical intervention. These cases often reveal the dangerous gaps in the bans particularly because many laws include narrow or vague exceptions for health or life, which are difficult to interpret and apply consistently.

In our analysis, David Cohen and I argue that pregnancy complication cases can be powerful legal tools to challenge these bans. They demonstrate that abortion is not just a matter of personal choice but a critical component of healthcare for everyone. Publicized cases of women denied care, suffering harm or even dying have shifted public perception by emphasizing that abortion bans threaten real lives.

Legally, these cases can be used to expose the flaws and inconsistencies in the laws. For example, some laws have vague language that leaves too much to interpretation, draw arbitrary lines, and prioritize secular exceptions over religious ones. We suggest strategies like challenging laws based on vagueness, religious discrimination, and rationality. These cases can serve as a wedge to argue that abortion bans violate constitutional rights by endangering health and life for all. They can also help shift the legal narrative from abstract rights to concrete health and safety concerns, making it harder for courts to justify bans that cause harm. We hope that ultimately, they can also be used down the road to challenge Dobbs itself as unworkable.

Q: Your chapter in “Regulation in a Turbulent Era” examines the regulatory landscape post-Dobbs. What do you see as the biggest hurdles for regulators trying to adapt to this rapidly changing environment?

A: The post-Dobbs environment presents a host of complex challenges for law makers, and these hurdles differ depending on which side of the debate you’re on. For anti-abortion lawmakers, the primary concern has been how to “expand” exceptions without undermining the core restrictions. They are trying to craft laws that appear to provide some leeway for health-or-life exceptions but are often so narrowly defined that they effectively do almost nothing to expand access.

Supporters of reproductive rights, on the other hand, are focused on expanding abortion access. Shield laws are a key part of this puzzle. Many advocates are pushing to expand and strengthen these laws to better protect providers and patients. Some states are experimenting with innovative measures, such as removing provider names from pill bottles. But there are other critical efforts too, like expanding state Medicaid coverage for abortion or removing unnecessary state abortion restrictions.

Another layer is the broader regulatory landscape, where federal agencies such as the FDA are involved in shaping the environment. The rapid pace of legal and policy changes makes it difficult for regulators to keep up, and there are tremendous threats to the agencies’ independence. Overall, it is a big challenge to navigate this shifting terrain balancing legal risks, public health considerations, and political realities while trying to ensure access and safety for those seeking reproductive care.

Q: You played a key role in drafting Connecticut’s abortion shield law and other legislative efforts. What have been some of the most important lessons learned from these advocacy efforts?

A: It’s been interesting and exciting to have our scholarship turn into a real-world impact. It has been a privilege for me and my co-authors, David and Rachel. We feel the responsibility of wanting shield laws to remain effective over the long run.

I teach a course on legislation and regulation, which focuses on how courts interpret statutes. For me, it’s been really rewarding to bring real-world experience into the classroom, something that complements my scholarly work. Having done some actual bill drafting, I can provide students with an inside perspective on how the process works, which I think students have enjoyed.

Q: Given your experience with drafting laws and amicus briefs, what advice would you give to legal scholars and practitioners interested in influencing reproductive health policy? 

A: I think it’s important for legislators to communicate with a wide range of stakeholders. Talking to advocates is crucial, but it’s also valuable for legislators to engage with academics, healthcare providers, and others who serve different roles within a movement.

Being open to creative ideas is also important. For example, when shield laws first emerged, they were often packaged with other bills aimed at reducing unnecessary abortion restrictions or funding reproductive health services. Combining related issues can be an effective strategy.

Reproductive rights have been less in the spotlight recently, but I hope people continue to prioritize reproductive rights, as they remain critically important and currently endangered.

Q: Your work often discusses the intersection of law, ethics, and medicine. How can these fields collaborate more effectively to advance reproductive justice?

A: I’m currently starting several new projects related to the fetal personhood movement. It’s been an exciting time to revisit my background in philosophy and ethics. I previously completed a fellowship in bioethics, which I really enjoyed, and I’m now exploring questions like: if the fetus is not considered a person under the Constitution, then what is it? This question intersects law and philosophy and has been both challenging and intellectually stimulating.

I also do a lot of work at the intersection of law and medicine. For example, after Dobbs, I had the opportunity to work with rheumatologists whose rheumatoid arthritis patients were struggling to access a common medication called Methotrexate, which can also cause abortions. Collaborating with them helped me understand the legal issues and communicate how certain patients are facing difficulties accessing these drugs.

Additionally, I am part of a centre at the University of Pittsburgh called CONVERGE, an interdisciplinary hub focused on sexual and reproductive health equity. It includes members from the Schools of Medicine, Public Health, Psychiatry, and Law. Collaborating with colleagues across these fields has been very rewarding and enriching for various projects.

Overall, I think reproductive rights and justice are inherently interdisciplinary fields, and the more that experts from different fields work together, the better the work will be.

Q: What do you think are the most common misconceptions the public or policymakers have about abortion laws and their impacts?

A:  One of the most common misconceptions about abortion, reflected in recent polling, is that people have abortions for selfish reasons or because they are irresponsible. These gendered biases influence public perception. For example, a late-2024 poll found that about 57% of likely voters – both pro-choice and anti-abortion — believed most abortions are obtained for selfish reasons. I was surprised by how widespread this misconception is.

Most people seek abortions because they cannot afford to have a child. Many are already mothers struggling to care for their existing children. Others feel they are not emotionally, financially, or physically capable of being the parent they want to be. There are also medical reasons and a variety of other circumstances that lead to abortion. Framing any of these reasons as selfish is simply incorrect. There are also deep stereotypes about why women get pregnant, such as the idea that pregnancy is their fault or that they were irresponsible. These biases are ingrained, and supporters of abortion rights are working to correct them.

Historically, during the Roe era, much of this discussion was silenced; people who had abortions did so quietly. Since Dobbs, however, more open conversations are happening, which I believe will lead to greater understanding. I hope this will help people see why abortions happen and understand that all abortions are health saving. Pregnancy is physically and emotionally demanding, more than many realize.

Having been pregnant myself, I can say that pregnancy’s physical demands can be overwhelming, even when the pregnancy is wanted. Whether someone seeks an abortion because they don’t want to be pregnant or for other reasons, they are making a medical decision that prioritizes their health. Pregnancy is physically and emotionally challenging, even under the best circumstances. Addressing gender biases and misconceptions about abortion is crucial for changing hearts and minds. Doing so is essential for protecting abortion rights and recognizing abortion as a fundamental healthcare issue.

Q: What are the next big questions or challenges in abortion law that you hope to explore in your future research?

A: I’m currently working on a two-part series that argues against the fetal personhood movement. I see the anti-abortion movement as being on the defensive right now; they are surprised and struggling with the deep unpopularity of their abortion bans. However, their long-term goal remains to ban abortion nationwide. If they can’t achieve this through legislation, they will try to do so through the courts, using fetal personhood. I’m working on some papers related to this.

Additionally, I’ve done a lot of work on medical exceptions in pregnancy and plan to continue exploring that area. I also work extensively on FDA regulation of abortion pills, and there could be significant developments in that area in the coming year.

Q: What do you think SSRN contributes to the world of modern legal research and scholarship?  

A: When my co-authors and I uploaded our paper “The New Abortion Battleground” to SSRN, it was downloaded around 10,000 times in just six months. That was incredible. It’s a great example of how SSRN provides free, open access to legal scholarship, allowing ideas to reach media, policymakers, and the public. It’s rare for an academic work to have that kind of immediate impact: where people want to read, discuss, and engage with your ideas.

I’m very grateful for SSRN because it helped get our paper out into the world. In law, posting drafts on SSRN is common, and it’s especially important because our paper was even cited by the Supreme Court’s dissent in Dobbs, when it was still a draft. Without SSRN, it wouldn’t have been accessible at that stage.

Beyond that, the habit of posting drafts fosters a vibrant exchange of ideas. I subscribe to various legal journals and receive updates on what scholars are working on, which helps me stay informed and share my own work. It encourages collaboration and the flow of ideas, with many of us working together (consciously or not) in part of larger effort to restore lost rights.

More About GREER DONLEY

Professor Greer Donley’s scholarship and advocacy have been influential in courtrooms, legislatures, and public discourse. Her work has appeared in leading journals including the Stanford Law Review, Columbia Law Review, and Duke Law Journal and her public writing is has been featured in outlets such as The New York Times, The Atlantic, The Washington Post, and Slate. Donley co‑authored the widely discussed paper The New Abortion Battleground, which was cited by the U.S. Supreme Court’s dissent in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization. Beyond scholarship, she has played a central role in drafting transformative reproductive‑rights legislation, including Connecticut’s pioneering abortion shield law. Before joining academia, she practiced at Latham & Watkins and clerked on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. She is a graduate of the University of Michigan Law School, where she served as Editor‑in‑Chief of the Michigan Journal of Gender & Law. Her work continues to shape the national landscape of reproductive health, law, and policy.

You can see more work by Greer Donley on her SSRN Author page here.