Shield Laws Related to Sexual and Reproductive Health Care

October 20, 2025

This fact sheet was written by Kimya Forouzan. It was edited by Chris Olah.

Since the US Supreme Court’s Dobbs vs. Jackson Women’s Health Organization decision in 2022, some states have instituted protections, known as “shield laws,” that seek to minimize legal risk to patients, health care providers and those who assist people seeking certain types of legally protected sexual and reproductive health care—mainly focused on abortion and gender-affirming care. Most states have enacted these protections as statutes, while others have issued them via a governor’s executive order or used a combination of the two. An executive order has the same legal effect as a statute, but it can be rescinded more easily by a future state administration, and the shield law–related executive orders issued thus far have offered fewer comprehensive protections than those codified in statute.

Shield laws seek to protect individuals and entities by preventing state officials from complying with certain requests or orders from other states. All states’ shield laws prohibit state entities from complying with out-of-state inquiries related to legally protected health care, effectively cutting off access to information or records that another state may request for use in civil or criminal charges against an individual or entity.

Additional protections include refusing to extradite someone to face legal proceedings in another state, prohibiting the issuance of search or arrest warrants, and prohibiting professional disciplinary actions or effects on licensure for health care providers. Other protections include preventing specific legal actions from taking place, such as issuing a subpoena to compel an individual to provide documents or testimony for a lawsuit or a summons that requires an individual to appear in court. Some states offer protections to limit financial and contractual ramifications for providers who offer legally protected health care, such as preventing changes to rates or eligibility for medical malpractice insurance or changes to employment contracts with provider networks or managed care plans (e.g., nonrenewal or termination). Some states also allow an individual who has been targeted with legal action from another state to file a lawsuit to seek legal redress against those who violated their rights under the shield law, and some states refuse to enforce out-of-state judgments levied against an individual. Four states prevent state law enforcement agencies from providing information to federal officials related to legally protected health care, as an attempt to shield individuals and entities from adverse actions by the federal government. Eight states extend their protections to the provision of protected care via telehealth.

Jurisdictions vary in how they define the types of care and specific acts protected under shield laws. While the categories in this chart represent the most common types of protections related to sexual and reproductive health care that have been enacted, states may offer others; more information is available in the downloadable citation spreadsheet.

Highlights

22 states and the District of Columbia have some level of shield law protection related to reproductive health or gender-affirming care.
- 15 states and DC have at least some shield law protections that explicitly cover both types of care (Table 1).
- 8 states extend protections to telehealth provision.
- 22 states and DC prohibit state entities from providing investigative assistance to out-of-state inquiries.
- 10 states and DC allow lawsuits claiming a violation of legal rights by anyone who has been targeted for providing, receiving or assisting with care.
- 6 states prohibit state law enforcement agencies from providing information to federal officials related to protected care.
- 21 states provide protection against extradition or surrender to another state (Table 2).
- 19 states and DC provide protection against professional discipline or effects on licensure for health care providers.
- 12 states provide protection against enforcement of out-of-state judgments.

Current Policy Status Table

Table 1. Scope of Protections Under Shield Laws
Jurisdiction	Encompasses both reproductive health and gender-affirming care	Extends protections to telehealth provision	Prohibits investigative assistance for out-of-state inquiries	Allows lawsuits for violation of legal rights	Prohibits state law enforcement agencies from providing information to federal officials
Arizona			X
California	X	X (certain, but not all, protections apply to telehealth)	X	X	X
Colorado	X	X	X
Connecticut	X		X	X
Delaware*	X		X	X	X
District of Columbia*	X		X	X
Hawaii			X
Illinois†	X		X
Massachusetts	X	X	X		X
Maryland	X		X
Maine	X	X	X	X	X
Michigan			X
Minnesota	X		X	X
Nevada			X
New Jersey			X
New Mexico	X		X	X
New York	X	X	X	X
North Carolina			X
Oregon	X		X (prevents a health regulatory board from disclosing information to another public entity)
Pennsylvania			X
Rhode Island	X	X	X	X	X
Vermont	X	X	X	X
Washington	X	X	X	X	X
TOTAL (22 + DC)	15 + DC	8	22 + DC	10 + DC	6

Notes: Table includes only those jurisdictions with policies in effect relevant to this topic. The table generally reflects the wording of state statutes and executive orders.

*Delaware and the District of Columbia extend protections to telehealth provision solely related to medical malpractice insurance.

†While Illinois law does not provide for lawsuits against those who violated an individual’s rights under its statute, it includes a private right of action against the state of Illinois if the state infringes on “making autonomous decisions about the individual’s own reproductive health, including the fundamental right to use or refuse reproductive health care; continuing the pregnancy and giving birth or to have an abortion, and to make autonomous decisions about how to exercise that right.”

Table 2. Shield Law Protections for Individuals from Specific Actions
Jurisdiction	Protection Against
Jurisdiction	Extradition or surrender	Professional discipline and/or effects on licensure	Enforcement of out-of-state judgments	Subpoenas, compelled testimony or production of documents	Criminal or civil summonses	Arrest and arrest warrants	Search warrants	Changes to medical malpractice insurance rates or eligibility	Changes to health care employment contracts
Arizona	X
California	X	X	X	X		X		X	X
Colorado	X	X	X	X	X	X	X	X	X
Connecticut	X	X		X	X			X	X (related to health care credentials and privileges)
Delaware	X	X	X	X	X	X	X	X
District of Columbia		X						X
Hawaii	X	X	X		X	X
Illinois	X	X		X	X			X
Massachusetts	X	X	X	X	X	X		X
Maryland	X	X	X	X				X
Maine	X	X	X	X	X	X	X (related to electronic device content information)	X	X
Michigan	X
Minnesota	X	X	X (civil judgments related to abortion)	X		X
Nevada	X	X				X (pertains only to a governor’s warrant for arrest)
New Jersey	X	X
New Mexico	X	X	X	X	X
New York	X	X		X		X		X
North Carolina	X
Oregon		X	X	X				X
Pennsylvania	X	X
Rhode Island	X	X	X	X	X	X		X	X (related to employment, hospital staff membership and privileges)
Vermont	X	X	X	X	X			X
Washington	X	X		X	X	X	X
TOTAL (22 + DC)	21	19 + DC	12	15	11	11	4	12+ DC	5

Notes: Table includes only those jurisdictions with policies in effect relevant to this topic. The table generally reflects the wording of state statutes and executive orders.