At least four Republican state lawmakers who attempted to modify strict abortion restrictions in their states have faced backlash from anti-abortion groups and key party allies, with some losing primary elections as a result, according to an investigation by ProPublica published this week.

The cases span multiple states and follow a similar pattern: legislators who supported more permissive abortion policies became targets of conservative challengers backed by organizations such as Tennessee Right to Life. In several instances, the lawmakers who replaced these so-called abortion-ban reformers went on to support even stricter legislation.

North Dakota state Rep. Eric Murphy, a Republican, introduced a bill last year that would have expanded legal abortion access up to 15 weeks of pregnancy and allowed later abortions for women whose doctors deemed it a medical necessity. The proposal came after North Dakota banned abortion for almost everyone from the moment of conception, though enforcement was tied up in court at the time.

To make his case, Murphy read aloud from two ProPublica stories about women in Texas who died without lifesaving care during similar restrictions. "Physicians felt compelled to follow the law," he said in a legislative hearing. "Both women died so that an inane law could be followed."

The bill ultimately failed 87-6, and Murphy now faces two challengers in his June 9 primary election. His county Republican Party endorsed his opponents instead of him—including Jill Chandler, executive director of a crisis pregnancy center who believes abortion should be banned from conception.

"To know that he was an endorsed Republican candidate from my district and one that I had voted for because of that endorsement was eye-opening," Chandler told ProPublica. "I remember thinking, 'This can never happen again.'"

Murphy said a conservative colleague warned him before introducing the bill: "I can no longer protect you from who's going to come after you."

Tennessee state Sen. Richard Briggs faces a similar situation ahead of his August 6 primary. The cardiothoracic surgeon voted in 2019 for Tennessee's trigger law—a ban designed to take effect if Roe v. Wade was overturned. When that happened, Briggs said he realized the new law lacked adequate protections for patients experiencing medical complications.

"As a medical doctor, I drew the line," Briggs said. He subsequently introduced bills seeking clearer medical exceptions and protection for doctors who intervened in cases involving fatal fetal anomalies.

Kent Morrell, one of Briggs' primary challengers, has made opposition to those efforts central to his campaign. "My opponent consistently works to weaken Tennessee's pro life laws," Morrell states on his campaign website. Tennessee Right to Life subsequently revoked its endorsement of Briggs.

In South Carolina, two new state senators who replaced abortion-ban reformers went on to support legislation eliminating nearly all exceptions to the state's abortion ban. One provision would have sent women convicted of illegally terminating pregnancies to jail.

What the Left Is Saying

Abortion rights advocates see the Republican primaries as evidence that opposition to abortion restrictions extends beyond traditional political lines and reflects genuine medical concerns. Groups supportive of reproductive rights argue that even lawmakers from opposing parties recognize the dangers of rigid bans without adequate health exceptions.

"These aren't liberal activists—these are Republicans saying the laws go too far," said one reproductive rights advocate who works on state-level campaigns, speaking generally about the trend. "When doctors and legislators with medical expertise are telling you there's a problem, that's not ideology. That's reality."

Progressive organizations have noted that Republican defectors often cite specific cases—like those Murphy read aloud from Texas—where women suffered or died due to unclear medical exceptions. Abortion rights groups argue this demonstrates that even conservative voters can be moved by concrete examples of harm.

What the Right Is Saying

Anti-abortion organizations maintain that any softening of abortion restrictions represents a betrayal of campaign promises and core Republican principles. Groups like Tennessee Right to Life say they have a consistent record of opposing candidates who work to weaken pro-life laws, regardless of party affiliation.

"We support candidates who will protect life from conception," according to the organization's stated endorsement criteria. "Consistency matters on this issue."

Conservative commentators argue that voters should hold accountable any Republican who breaks ranks on abortion, particularly in states where constituents elected officials specifically because of their pro-life commitments. Some suggest that lawmakers like Murphy and Briggs misjudged their districts' priorities.

"The people who pushed these bills knew exactly what they were doing," one conservative activist told ProPublica. "They ran as Republicans, accepted Republican endorsements, and then tried to undermine the core issue their voters care about."

Social conservatives say the pattern in South Carolina—where replacement lawmakers advanced stricter legislation—demonstrates that primary voters are making their preferences clear when given the opportunity.

What the Numbers Show

North Dakota's abortion ban forbids termination from conception with exceptions for rape and incest up to six weeks and to save the life of the mother. The state Supreme Court has since reinstated this law following legal challenges.

Murphy's bill to expand access to 15 weeks failed by a vote of 87-6 in the North Dakota House, indicating substantial bipartisan opposition to his proposal.

Tennessee's trigger law, which Briggs initially supported, took effect after the U.S. Supreme Court's 2022 Dobbs decision overturned federal abortion protections. The law contains exceptions for rape, incest, and to prevent death of the mother, though advocates for medical professionals say those exceptions lack clarity in practice.

At least four Republican state lawmakers who challenged severe abortion restrictions have lost support from anti-abortion groups and party allies, according to ProPublica's count. In South Carolina, proposed legislation would eliminate most existing exceptions and create criminal penalties for women who terminate pregnancies illegally.

The Bottom Line

The primary challenges facing Murphy and Briggs illustrate a broader tension within the Republican Party between strict abortion prohibition and practical concerns about medical care. Both men argue they are responding to real-world problems in how laws operate; their opponents say any deviation from maximalist positions represents unacceptable compromise.

Murphy's June 9 primary and Briggs' August 6 contest will test whether Republican primary voters reward legislators who cite medical evidence for modifying restrictions or punish those seen as insufficiently committed to anti-abortion principles. The outcomes could influence how other Republican lawmakers approach similar legislation in the future—particularly in states where abortion bans face implementation challenges.

What happens in these races may also signal whether anti-abortion organizations retain their ability to swing low-turnout primary elections, a tactic that has proven effective in reshaping state legislatures over the past decade.