Shifting Reproductive Rights Landscape Presents Challenges for the Civil Rights Bastion.

By Fiona Hagan

April 25th, 2025

In the wake of Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, which abruptly redrew the landscape of reproductive rights in the US, the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) finds itself at the center of a legal and moral reckoning. The bulwark of constitutional rights faces one of the most significant tests of its identity in its history, dating back to 1920. 

The ACLU’s reaction to the overturning of Roe v. Wade, the case that established abortion as a constitutional right, was a swift and unambiguous condemnation. Within hours of the Supreme Court’s decision, a blistering statement was issued by the organization, denouncing it as a “shameful” assault on bodily autonomy, equality, and privacy — pillars of the ACLU’s conception of civil liberty. 

A strategic defense began immediately, with various legal challenges and public awareness campaigns. “With thousands of staff and volunteers in all 50 states, D.C., and Puerto Rico, the ACLU has been preparing for this moment for years and will carry out a multi-pronged approach to stem the tide of attacks on abortion and expand access where possible,” their initial press release on Dobbs states. 

Their rhetoric worked to reframe the narrative surrounding abortion as not only a medical or political issue, but a fundamental human right. The messaging broadened the debate’s scope from a singular focus on women’s bodily autonomy to the role of the government in private life. In doing so, the ACLU attempted to recast the unsanctimonious end of Roe not as the end of a decades-long battle, but as the dawn of a new era in the fight for civil liberties. 

The ACLU’s strategy has been shifted further by the impact of Dobbs on courtroom terrain. The organization has had to employ bifurcated tactics in its defense of reproductive rights: playing defense in red states while going on offense in blue ones. 

In conservative strongholds like Idaho, Florida, and Texas, the organization has filed lawsuits against bans that restrict access to abortion in nearly all cases. Protecting doctors against criminal prosecution for performing abortions and providing legal assistance to patients caught in legal crosshairs has been prioritized. The work in red states is often reactive, a patchwork of legal triage amid crumbling precedents of individual liberties and autonomy. 

The strategy has had to shift in progressive states towards proactive protections. It has helped pass shield laws to protect reproductive healthcare providers from interstate threats and supported constitutional amendments enshrining abortion access. The ACLU found particular success in Michigan, where they worked with “partners to collect signatures to put an amendment on the ballot this fall that would enshrine the right to reproductive freedom, including abortion, in the state Constitution,” according to a 2022 press release. Michigan voters put the right to abortion in their state constitution in late 2022. 

The dual approach the ACLU has taken reflects a larger difficulty in the legal and cultural landscape: how can a national organization adapt to a landscape where the Constitution seems to hold different meanings when crossing state lines and ideological frontiers? In response to Dobbs, the organization primarily known for its legal muscle has pivoted into strengthening its movement-building credentials. Planned Parenthood and the Center for Reproductive Rights have both partnered with the ACLU as tools to expand outreach. State-based advocacy groups have also brought the ACLU local power and grassroots insights. 

In conservative states, these relationships have proven to be crucial. Organizers lead the charge while the ACLU supports and provides legal expertise. This collaborative posture is not without tension, however. The ACLU’s traditional model, centered on the courtroom, has been critiqued as out of sync with the more urgent activism that has taken hold in the wake of Roe’s fall. The question of the ACLU’s place—as a strategist, legal support system, or actor on the frontlines—remains in question and continues to evolve. 

The ACLU’s civil liberties strategy post-Dobbs has elicited pushback from conservatives and progressives alike. From the right, it’s accused of abandoning the neutral civil liberties defense central to its mission to act as an extension of the progressive movement. Parts of the left have criticized the ACLU for not doing enough to protect reproductive freedoms, that they have been too cautious, too quiet, too invested in legal procedure in a moment that demands radical action and visibility. 

Even within the ACLU, debates on its ideal position in the fight for abortion rights persist. Unlike other organizations that prioritize the protection of a particular set of liberties, the ACLU’s net is cast over all threats to constitutional freedoms. Their broader mandate—covering everything from immigrants’ rights to free speech—has prompted consideration of what cause, if any, should be the center of their mission. These are not just strategic questions. They go to the core of what kind of institution the ACLU is, and what it will evolve into. 

The future of the ACLU may hinge on its choice to either reframe or reclaim its vision of civil liberties and what it chooses to prioritize. Following the Dobbs decision, the battle over abortion rights has been increasingly intertwined with other foundational civil rights. Bodily autonomy, privacy, and freedom from government overreach are no longer abstract legal doctrines. These are the lived realities of people all over the country, struggling to navigate a patchwork of legality, morality, and access. 

The ACLU’s work, then, extends beyond litigation. They are tasked with narrating a new vision of civil liberties for a country divided by vast ideological differences. Amidst looming Supreme Court challenges, state ballot initiatives, and legislative threats, the organization faces a future that requires vigilance and demands reinvention. 
The unique strategy the ACLU has employed post-Dobbs is reflective of both the urgency and complexity of defending civil liberties in a fractured democracy. When fundamental rights are under siege, neutrality is not an option. And silence can be complicity.