Roe v. Wade torn amidst political polarization. Photo by zimmytws via Adobe Stock.
Megan Baldemor ’26 is a biology major with minors in chemistry and medical & health humanities and she is a 2025-26 health care ethics intern at the Markkula Center for Applied Ethics at SA¹ú¼Ê´«Ã½. Views are her own.
In 2022, a about a 10-year-old child, raped and forced to travel across state lines to receive an abortion, shocked the nation. This came as a direct result of the Supreme Court’s decision to overturn ¾±²Ô , ending nearly 50 years of federal abortion protections and returning authority to individual states. , four years since the Dobbs decision, 13 states have instituted total abortion bans, nine states have no gestational limits, and 28 states have adopted a partial policy.
This patchwork of regulation has left clinicians confused and fearful about how to proceed. Many states with total bans include exceptions for medical emergencies, but are often written in unclear terms. Clinicians have delayed treatment to pregnant patients out of concern that providing care could violate state law. for abortion care also skyrocketed to nearly one in five patients in 2023. A from the found that people in total ban states were more than twice as likely to receive abortions later in pregnancy, and researchers attributed these delays to the added time and cost of traveling long distances for care. has emerged as a promising outlet that has helped to lower interstate travel for abortion access. However, this shift has brought renewed attention to medication abortion, particularly the question of whether drugs like mifepristone can be safely prescribed through telehealth and distributed without an in-person evaluation. Against this landscape, it is imperative to develop clearer, consistent regulatory frameworks.
This essay argues for a partial abortion framework that maintains state-regulated gestational limits, paired with federal protections for vulnerable populations, as a pragmatic approach that supports the principles of distributive justice and the common good. In the United States, where abortion remains a highly contentious and polarizing issue, it is not yet realistic to expect consensus on whether regulation should rest solely at the state or federal level. Therefore, such a compromise represents an important step toward bridging policy extremes. It is also important to note that this article does not discuss the moral status of the fetus or the broader debate over the permissibility of abortion itself. Rather, its purpose is to identify the minimal exceptions and safeguards to address concerns across the abortion debate.
What Are The Benefits and Costs of Each Abortion Policy?
Total Abortion Bans
Total abortion bans (TABs) criminalize abortion in almost all cases, with limited or no exceptions for pregnancy resulting from rape or incest, or diagnosis of a lethal fetal anomaly. In most states, abortions are permitted when the pregnancy threatens the life of the pregnant person. TABs establish a clear and consistent moral boundary regarding fetal life. Religious and cultural beliefs often shape perspectives on the moral status of the fetus. In the tradition, for example, life is generally understood to begin at conception, whereas in the tradition, moral status is believed to increase as the fetus matures. Total abortion bans address these differing viewpoints by extending legal protection to fetal life at all stages of development. Additionally, prohibiting abortion in nearly all circumstances creates a straightforward legal framework, which helps to reduce the ambiguity that has characterized abortion regulation in the post-Dobbs era. These bans, as mentioned before, also allow exceptions when the unborn fetus threatens the life of the pregnant person. This is important because it balances the goal of protecting fetal life with the practical necessity of ensuring the health and survival of the pregnant individual.
However, TABs create . Research has shown that when abortion is illegal, people do not stop having abortions; instead, they often turn to , which can result in serious physical and mental health complications. Additionally, these restrictions motivate people to travel across state lines to access care. This disproportionately impacts low-income individuals, people of color, and rural communities. As a result, access to reproductive healthcare becomes dependent on a person’s socioeconomic status and location, exacerbating existing health disparities.
In , half of U.S. abortion patients between the ages of 15 and 44 lived below the federal poverty threshold, while Black women accounted for 28% of abortion patients and Latina women accounted for 25%. The South and Midwest have the largest proportions of Black residents and are also the regions most likely to lack to maternity care. Those delayed in accessing abortions, due to travel across state lines, are pushed later into their pregnancy increasing the urgency of abortion. TABs also do not provide exceptions for cases of rape or incest, and forcing someone to carry a pregnancy under these circumstances can cause lasting psychological trauma. And finally, abortions of pregnancies with lethal fetal anomalies are not permitted under TABs, despite many of these pregnancies being high-risk to continue to term.
No Gestational Limits
No gestational limits refers to state laws which do not limit abortion based on gestational age, even if the fetus is viable outside of the womb. For example, the places no gestational limit on abortion and treats it as a standard medical procedure. It is covered by state Medicaid funds and protected under the fundamental right to privacy.
The primary benefit of not having gestational limits is that it allows people to exercise full autonomy. Rather than having to travel across state lines to access abortion care or having to carry a pregnancy to term that could cause lasting physical, psychological, or emotional harm, individuals can make decisions based on their unique circumstances. This flexibility is particularly important in cases involving sexual assault, where survivors may experience delays in reporting or obtaining evidence. Such delays can make it difficult to access timely abortion care under restrictive gestational frameworks.
However, a system without explicit gestational limits also raises significant ethical concerns. Although abortions after viability are extremely rare in practice, in principle, a law that allows abortion up to birth fails to set moral boundaries around life. While people disagree about fetal moral status, viability is often treated as an ethically important threshold because it reflects the fetus’s potential to survive outside the womb.
Once the fetus is viewed as possessing at least some degree of moral status, many argue that the state or federal government has a limited obligation to protect it. Additionally, later-term procedures carry significantly higher medical risks than early-term abortions, including the possibility of infection, hemorrhage, or death. The potential for greater harm in these cases raises important questions about how much risk should be tolerated in pursuit of autonomy and whether there should be a threshold that balances safety with reproductive rights.
Partial Abortion Policy
Partial abortion policy refers to legislation that regulates abortion based on gestational age. These policies vary by state, with some allowing abortion until six weeks (during the embryonic stage), twelve weeks (the point at which the circulatory, digestive, and urinary systems become functional), or when the fetus becomes viable outside the womb, typically at 22–24 weeks.
Given the substantial harms associated with both total abortion bans and no gestational limits, a partial abortion framework represents a more balanced and pragmatic approach. Such a framework would reflect a “federal floor with state ceilings” model, in which the federal government establishes minimum nationwide protections while allowing states to adopt stricter regulations unless federal law explicitly prohibits them.
Similar approaches exist in areas such as , , and protections. In the context of abortion, the federal government could establish a minimum level of protected access while prohibiting abortions after fetal viability, with clear exceptions for pregnancies that threaten the life of the pregnant person, as well as cases involving rape, incest, or lethal fetal anomalies. States would then retain the authority to impose additional gestational restrictions within those federal boundaries.
This solution offers a compromise that respects the diverse religious, cultural, and political values within the United States. Some may argue that gestational thresholds are arbitrary, and I would agree with that statement; in deciding the specific thresholds for a given state, lawmakers must weigh scientific evidence, ethical considerations, and societal values. However, the purpose of this essay is not to determine exact thresholds, but to argue that establishing some threshold is morally necessary. Furthermore, any threshold must include exceptions that help mitigate the harms imposed on women, ensuring that the policy is both ethically defensible and compassionate in practice.
How Does Partial Abortion Policy Support Justice and the Common Good?
As phrased by Aristotle, justice is the idea that, “equals should be treated equally and unequals unequally.” John Rawls built on this concept in his seminal work A Theory of Justice (1971), where he introduced the ideas of “justice as fairness” and the “veil of ignorance.” In Rawls’ view, when designing policies for society, individuals should imagine themselves behind a veil of ignorance in which they do not know what position they will occupy in that society. They do not know their socioeconomic status, health, gender, or personal circumstances. By removing this knowledge, policies are evaluated in a way that prioritizes fairness and protects those who might end up in the most disadvantaged positions.
Applying this to the abortion debate, the veil of ignorance forces us to consider that we could occupy any position, including that of the 10-year-old rape survivor. Using this lens, policymakers would design abortion policies that include freedoms and clear exceptions to protect individuals facing severe hardship. At the same time, behind a veil of ignorance, individuals do not know what their moral or religious beliefs will be, and a fair policy would also recognize concerns about protecting viable life. A partial policy aligns with both of these goals because it ensures a basic floor of reproductive rights for all women, places a moral boundary on abortion once fetal viability is reached, and allows those affected by the most severe harms to have access to abortion. This structure still permits states to have different policies but mitigates equity concerns and risks associated with interstate travel as there is a floor of protected rights.
Aristotle defined the “common good” as the social conditions that allow members of a society to flourish. He argued that the purpose of the state is to create structures that promote virtue, justice, and meaningful life for all. A partial abortion policy supports the common good by balancing individual autonomy with societal responsibility, thereby creating the conditions for individuals to flourish.
The post-Dobbs era is unsettled and uncertain. The by the Supreme Court to allow mifepristone by telehealth underscores the importance of consistent regulatory frameworks. A partial policy is not a perfect resolution, but a durable one. It reaches across the political divide to reduce harm, improve legal and medical clarity, and protect both autonomy and vulnerable life.