Enlarge this imagePeople gather Tuesday at the Utah State Capitol to rally in support of Omar Vizquel Jersey abortion rights in Salt Lake City.George Frey/Getty Imageshide captiontoggle captionGeorge Frey/Getty ImagesPeople gather Tuesday at the Utah State Capitol to rally in support of abortion rights in Salt Lake City.George Frey/Getty ImagesIf the Supreme Court overturns Roe v. Wade, abortion law soon could be in the hands of states. And if that happens, roughly two dozen states are expected to ban or severely curtail abortion. Some lawmakers also are trying to limit patients’ options even in states without such restrictions. Several weeks ago, for instance, a Mi souri state lawmaker introduced a bill that would let private citizens sue someone who helps a person cro s state lines to obtain abortion care. Such legislation raises a number of legal questions, NYU law profe sor Meli sa Murray tells Morning Edition. “The Supreme Court suggested that returning this to the states will settle this fraught conflict over abortion … but it seems like it’s really just going to exacerbate already existing conflicts and perhaps provide new conflicts that we haven’t yet seen,” she says. Here are some of those battle lines (you can listen to the full interview here): Efforts to restrict rights for LGBTQ youth Can states limit abortion and gender-affirming treatments outside their borders? Can your state prohibit you from acce sing care somewhere else? Individuals have “the right to travel,” or move freely within various states. Murray says that there are some limitations, but that the idea of one state precluding someone from Zach Duke Jersey getting treatment in another state or “basically imposing their public policy on the other state” goes beyond existing limits. She adds that many people don’t realize that when the Supreme Court struck down a ban on interracial marriage in Loving v. Virginia in 1967, it was also striking down a law that made it a crime for people to leave the state to “transact interracial marriage elsewhere.” Proposed laws like the one in Mi souri are borrowing a page out of this same playbook, according to Murray, which raises the question: If another state offers a benefit your state does not, can yours prohibit you from leaving in order to seek that benefit, if you plan to return? What does it mean to help someone cro s state lines? That could mean driving someone to obtain an abortion in a more hospitable state, Ricky Vaughn Jersey or potentially even donating money to an abortion fund that helps people do so. Murray says the latter could raise First Amendment i sues around prohibiting that kind of a sistance and, by extension, expre sion.Some companies are offering to cover travel costs for employees seeking abortion care. Murray says that’s legal for now, but that could change if terms like the one in this proposed law very broadly construe what it means to a sist someone. That could be seen as a violation of corporations’ rights to use their money how they choose. Murray points to Citizens United v. FEC and the idea that corporations can donate money as an expre sion of speech and says that this too could become a First Amendment i sue.Politics As medication abortion becomes dominant, red states restrict pills Would states be allowed to send and receive abortion medication through the mail? Some states are trying to minimize acce s to abortion medication, which Murray says raises questions in the realm of administrative law. While the Biden administration has rolled back the restrictions enacted by the Trump administration, Murray notes that individuals states can take action through their own administrative agencies that regulate the distribution of pharmaceuticals within their borders. They potentially could limit those kinds of pharmaceuticals from coming in from other states, she says. And it’s po sible that a majority-conservative Congre s could pa Yonder Alonso Jersey s a law prohibiting the use of the mails to distribute abortion medications. That calls back to the Comstock Act of 1873, which prohibited the postal service from transmitting articles for “immoral” purposes. This story originally appeared in the Morning Edition live blog.