How Dan Bishop could target abortion rights as NC attorney general

In post-Roe America, states now have the final say on reproductive rights. If Dan Bishop were to be elected North Carolina attorney general, his past votes and comments suggest he would seek to use the power of his position to restrict access. 

When the US Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade and with it, women’s constitutional right to abortion, Dan Bishop celebrated. 

“This decision is a foundational victory for our nation, allowing us to more perfectly carry out the promises of Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness enshrined in the Declaration of Independence,” Bishop, a Republican congressman, said in a statement. 

Bishop went on to describe abortions as “government-sanctioned killings – a barbaric practice of ripping babies from their mothers’ wombs” and compared the Roe decision to the 1857 Dred Scott v. Sanford decision, in which the court ruled that enslaved people were not citizens of the US and, therefore, could not expect any protection from the federal government or the courts. 

The court’s decision to overturn Roe sent decisions related to abortion and reproductive healthcare back to the state level, where legislatures, governors, courts, and attorneys general now determine the fate of reproductive rights in each state.

Now, as Bishop runs for North Carolina Attorney General, supporters of reproductive rights are sounding the alarm over what a Bishop victory could mean for abortion rights in North Carolina. 

Planned Parenthood and Reproductive Freedom for All have both endorsed Bishop’s opponent, Democratic Congressman Jeff Jackson, in the race.

“Dan Bishop is cut from the same cloth as Mark Robinson and Donald Trump,” Planned Parenthood Votes! South Atlantic’s Director of Public Affairs Jillian Riley told Cardinal & Pine in a statement. “While in Congress, he co-sponsored a bill that would have banned nearly all abortions nationwide and threatened access to IVF. Bishop’s record clearly demonstrates that he would use the state’s top law enforcement office to attack people who are LGBTQ, criminalize abortion, restrict access to comprehensive reproductive health care, and spread divisive, hateful rhetoric.”

A history of opposing abortion as an elected official

Concern over what Bishop would do with regards to reproductive rights are understandable, given his record and past rhetoric.

As a member of the North Carolina General Assembly in 2019, Bishop expressed support for a restrictive anti-abortion law in Alabama, which NPR noted was “considered the most restrictive abortion law in the United States” at the time. The law sought to ban abortions except in cases where the mother’s life was at risk or if there was a fatal anomaly in the fetus. There were no exceptions for rape or incest in that bill.

“I think it’s wrong to have an abortion in the case of rape or incest, just as it would be wrong to take the life of a child born to incest,” Bishop told the News & Observer in 2019.

Bishop said he would support a bill like it in North Carolina as well. He did note, however, that he would still support the legislation if it provided an exception for abortion in cases of rape or incest. 

When he first ran for Congress, Bishop was endorsed by National Right to Life, an anti-abortion organization that “works to restore legal protection to the most defenseless members of our society who are threatened by abortion, infanticide, assisted suicide and euthanasia.”

“Dan Bishop opposes abortion on demand, and he opposes using tax dollars to pay for abortion,” their endorsement said.

Since being elected to Congress, Bishop has been awarded a consistent A+ rating from Susan B. Anthony Pro-Life America, which expresses opposition to abortion, but also in vitro fertilization (IVF).

In Congress, Bishop was a co-sponsor of the Life at Conception Act, which seeks “equal protection under the 14th article of amendment to the Constitution for the right to life of each born and preborn human person.” In other words, the bill aims to give fetuses the same rights as human beings, posing a severe threat to abortion rights. The bill notably does not include protections for IVF services, meaning it could potentially threaten IVF access as well if it were to become law. 

Bishop has also voted against multiple bills that sought to protect or restore abortion access after the Court repealed Roe.

The first bill, the Ensuring Access to Abortion Act of 2022, aimed to prevent state attorneys general from prosecuting or punishing women who receive an abortion in another state, doctors who provide abortions to out-of-state residents, as well as those who may help a person cross state lines to get an abortion. The second was designed to restore the rights provided under Roe.

Both bills passed the US House in 2022, but failed to pass amid a lack of Republican support in the US Senate. 

The threat Bishop could pose as attorney general

North Carolina currently has a 12-week abortion ban, with exceptions for rape or incest up to 20 weeks life-limiting fetal anomalies up to 24 weeks, and to save the life of the mother at any time in the pregnancy. 

While Republican gubernatorial nominee Mark Robinson has said he would seek to ban abortion completely, if elected, his Democratic opponent Josh Stein has pledged to veto future abortion bans if elected. If Stein wins and if Democrats are able to break the Republican supermajority in the General Assembly to sustain Stein’s veto power, they can stop future Republican efforts to ban abortion. 

Bishop has remained relatively quiet on the issue of abortion during his campaign for AG, but did criticize Jackson for saying he would not defend provisions of the state’s abortion ban if elected.

“What we’ve seen in the past two attorneys general in North Carolina, and what Jeff has vowed to do … is to oppose the legislature on policy issues with which he disagrees,” Bishop said in a debate in June.

Jackson, meanwhile, believes that Bishop would wield the power of the AG’s office to push for more abortion restrictions via the courts.

“The nightmare scenario for a lot of people—for the state—that I don’t think everybody fully realizes, is what my opponent could do as attorney general is basically lock arms with this very conservative state Supreme Court and create an end run around the General Assembly,” Jeff Jackson, Bishop’s Democratic opponent, told Cardinal & Pine in June.

Republicans currently hold a 5-2 majority on the North Carolina Supreme Court, meaning that a potential anti-abortion lawsuit filed by an Attorney General Bishop would likely find a favorable audience.

“If my opponent is attorney general with this Supreme Court, they can just go right around and start rolling back reproductive rights,” Jackson said.

In some states, Republican attorneys general have taken extreme steps to prevent women from seeking abortions, including using the courts to prevent women from accessing abortion care, threatening to prosecute doctors who perform abortions as well as individuals who help women leave their states to get an abortion.

In Alabama, where abortion is completely banned except when the life of the mother is at risk, Republican Attorney General Steve Marshall has threatened to prosecute people who help women leave the state to have an abortion elsewhere. Marshall called for prosecution of those who “aid and abet abortions,” and was criticized by federal judge Myron Thompson, who noted, “The right to interstate travel is one of our most fundamental constitutional rights.”

Last December, after a court ruled that Texas resident Kate Cox could receive an emergency abortion after her fetus was diagnosed with trisomy18, a rare genetic condition that made continuing the pregnancy a risk to both Cox’s health ability to have children in the future. In response, Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton threatened to prosecute any doctor who performed the procedure. Paxton said the judge’s decision “will not insulate hospitals, doctors, or anyone else, from civil and criminal liability for violating Texas’ abortion laws.”

The judge’s ruling was appealed to the Texas Supreme Court, which ruled that Cox was not sick enough to qualify for an abortion under the state’s extremely restrictive ban. Cox ultimately had to go to New Mexico to have her abortion.

While Jackson has pledged to not to defend the state’s abortion ban  if elected, Bishop could go in the opposite direction and follow in Marshall and Paxton’s footsteps, using the power of the state to target women seeking abortions and those who might help them get care – or provide that care themselves.

“Whether I or my opponent serves as the next attorney general will have a direct impact on women across the state and on their freedom,” Jackson said.