TRENTON, N.J. (BP) — Critics of shield laws like the one recently signed by New Jersey’s governor continue to maintain that such legislation allows a workaround for states that allow abortions and gender transitions for minors to violate the rights of conservative-leaning states that ban or greatly limit those procedures. Ambiguous wording also raises concern for those who may want to protest, if even silently, outside an abortion clinic.
The New Jersey law includes a provision finding a person guilty of interfering in such matters if he or she “purposely and knowingly, by force or threat of force, intimidates, threatens, or coerces, or attempts to intimidate, threaten, or coerce, any person or entity…” attempting to acquire such services.
“This New Jersey law not only jeopardizes the life and well-being of preborn children, women and families, but undermines our constitutional protections to peacefully assemble and pray,” said Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission (ERLC) President Evan Lenow. “While we should never resort to physical violence, harassment or intimidation as we contend for the sanctity of life, we must engage in bold prayer and Christlike ministry toward women seeking abortion. This is also true for those pursuing so-called ‘gender transitions.’
“The broad language used in the law will undoubtedly result in the infringement of First Amendment rights for simply talking with or praying for women outside of abortion clinics. We have seen the implications play out in the United Kingdom, where people are being arrested for silent prayer outside abortion clinics. It is a dystopian trope becoming real before our eyes.”
Shield laws prevent state officials from complying with particular requests or orders from other states. In 2024, a civil lawsuit originating in Texas levied a $100,000 fine against a New York doctor who had sent abortion pills to a patient in Texas, violating Texas law. A New York court cited the state’s shield laws in refusing to file the Texas petition.
That same doctor, Margaret Carpenter, also faced a felony charge in Louisiana in early 2025 for providing abortifacients to a teenage girl in that state. A grand jury indictment led to an arrest warrant and a demand for extradition by Louisiana’s governor, but New York’s governor declared Carpenter was not in Louisiana at the time of the alleged offense, and therefore could not be a fugitive.
“What these shield law states are doing are undermining the prerogative of these pro-life states to implement and enforce pro-life laws,” Erik Baptist, director of Alliance Defending Freedom’s Center for Life, said at the time. “And so I think the Supreme Court ultimately will want to take this.”
The Guttmacher Institute identified 23 states and the District of Columbia as having some level of shield law protections over abortion and gender transitioning, 16 of them and D.C. protecting both. Eight states extend protections to telehealth provisions.
The Heritage Foundation’s Thomas Jipping wrote a white paper in December 2024 on shield laws’ impact on abortion access, regardless of the Dobbs decision that returned that issue to the states.
“… Abortion is more widely and easily available today than virtually any time in American history,” he said. “Most abortions are legal in most states, the most common method of abortion is available entirely online, and a growing number of states are explicitly protecting abortion access in statutes and constitutions.
“Abortion shield laws, therefore, are not for the purpose of expanding abortion access within a particular state, but to frustrate or undermine other states’ ability to enforce their pro-life laws.”
Lenow likewise argued that shield laws infringe on other states’ ability to enforce their laws.
“The impact of the shield law subverts the will of pro-life states by preventing prosecution of New Jersey healthcare workers who ship abortion pills into other states where abortion is illegal,” he said. “It reminds us again of the need for federal action to address the mailing of abortion pills and to eradicate abortion once and for all. I urge Southern Baptists to pray to this end.”
(EDITOR’S NOTE — Scott Barkley is chief national correspondent for Baptist Press.)