Exit Strategy takes place in 2031. In the near future, crossing a state line will not protect a woman if the government can see where she went, identify who helped her, and punish the doctor waiting on the other side.

The pieces in this puzzle already exist. In 2026, lawmakers are trying to classify abortion pills as contraband, prosecute women for ending their own pregnancies, reach doctors protected by another state’s laws, and collect more information about where patients live and what care they receive.

Other proposals make basic rights dependent on matching documents, government databases, and the legal status assigned to a person before or at birth. None of these measures creates the Unborn Child Protection Act, but it’s the foundation.

Personhood gives the government an interest in the pregnancy. Medical records tell it which pregnancies exist, reporting systems identify the women who may resist, and travel and financial records show where they go.

Civil and criminal penalties make helping them dangerous. The UCPA begins when someone decides to connect those systems.

First, give the government an interest in the pregnancy

Most abortion bans punish the person who performs or provides an abortion rather than the woman who obtains one. During the first half of 2026, however, eight states considered fourteen bills that would allow the pregnant woman herself to be prosecuted.

A Tennessee proposal showed where that can lead. If an embryo or fetus is legally recognized as a person from conception, ending a pregnancy can be prosecuted as homicide.

Even worse, Tennessee allows capital punishment for some homicide convictions. This means the proposal could have exposed a woman to the death penalty for obtaining an abortion. At least seventeen states and one territory introduced thirty-six personhood bills during the first half of 2026.

None of these bills came to anything, but legislation doesn’t have to be signed into law to show us what its sponsors want the government to be able to do. Personhood is usually framed as a question about when life begins, but legally, it asks a much larger question: whose rights control the pregnancy?

In The Motherhood Mandate, the UCPA does not wait for Rylee to end hers. The possibility that she might is enough to treat her as a threat before she has committed a crime. Personhood supplies the justification. Prevention opens the door.

Then, identify the pregnancy

Project 2025 recommends requiring states to report the number of abortions performed, gestational age, method, stated reason, and the patient’s state of residence. The federal government could use funding to pressure states into supplying that information.

The state of residence matters because it distinguishes someone who obtained an abortion where she lives from someone who crossed a state line for care. Project 2025 also recommends separating miscarriage care, stillbirth, ectopic-pregnancy treatment, and induced abortion into distinct reporting categories.

In 2026, Utah considered marking “elective” and “non-elective” abortions differently in individual medical records. Better data can support better policy, but it can also show who traveled, what care she received, and how her doctor classified it.

A database doesn’t have to be created for surveillance to become useful for surveillance. The UCPA begins with information: Rylee’s pregnancy is known, someone reports what she may be planning, and the state already has the legal justification to intervene.

By A Ward of the State, this has expanded into everyday life. Allison’s health, education, conduct, and family history become evidence the government can use to decide how much authority her parents should retain.

Make escape dependent on location

A government does not have to deny care directly if it can place someone where that care is unavailable. A 2026 investigation found that pregnant unaccompanied immigrant girls were being transferred to a federal facility in San Benito, Texas.

Some were as young as thirteen, and approximately half of the pregnancies reportedly resulted from rape. Texas bans abortion in nearly all circumstances, including rape and incest.

Former officials and advocates argued that transferring the girls there prevented abortions without requiring federal officials to deny individual requests. The Department of Health and Human Services disputed that interpretation.

Intent matters, but the effect does not depend on it. When the government controls where someone is housed or detained, it also controls which laws surround her and which choices remain available.

In The Motherhood Mandate, Wisconsin can force Rylee into a household she did not choose because it has physical and legal control over her. In Exit Strategy, Mackenzie understands that crossing the nearest border is not an escape because a woman is safe only when she is beyond the reach of the law that tries to control women.

Make helping her dangerous

Medication abortion made state borders less important. In 2025, providers protected by state shield laws supplied approximately 91,000 telehealth abortions to patients in states with total bans, up from 72,000 the year before.

States responded by targeting the medication and the people who provide it. By June 3, 2026, lawmakers in twenty-one states had introduced fifty-eight bills addressing the sale, purchase, distribution, or delivery of abortion medication, and four became law.

Mississippi placed abortion medication alongside illegal drugs and controlled substances. Texas authorized private citizens to sue anyone who manufactures, prescribes, mails, transports, or provides abortion pills to someone in Texas.

In February, a Texas man used that law to sue a California doctor for at least $100,000. California protects doctors who provide legal telehealth care from within the state, but the lawsuit asks whether Texas can reach across the border and punish one of them anyway.

This is how a state line can stop protecting anyone. The government does not have to prevent every woman from leaving if it can isolate her by making doctors, pharmacies, delivery services, drivers, friends, and family members afraid to help.

By Exit Strategy, we can assume that every person involved could become visible to the system. Escape is no longer a trip; it requires an infrastructure that can survive being treated as criminal.

Allow the harm to disappear into the numbers

One 2026 study estimated a possible 9.2 percent increase in pregnancy-associated deaths in states with abortion bans, representing approximately sixty-eight excess deaths. Another found no statistically significant overall increase associated with total or six-week bans.

That does not establish that bans are harmless. Post-Dobbs data remain limited, death records lag, and states classify pregnancy-related deaths differently.

Restrictions can delay emergency treatment, force women to continue dangerous pregnancies, and drive obstetric specialists away from the states where they are needed. The consequences do not disappear because they are difficult to capture in a single number.

The UCPA is defended as a law that protects unborn children. Its costs are scattered across medical delays, coerced pregnancies, forced households, damaged families, and decisions doctors are no longer free to make.

If those consequences cannot be reduced to a single mortality figure, the system can call them complications instead of harm.

Expand the system beyond pregnancy

The SAVE America Act would require documentary proof of citizenship to register to vote. The bill passed the House in February 2026 but stalled in the Senate.

More than twenty-one million American citizens lack ready access to an accepted citizenship document. Married women face an additional barrier when the name on a birth certificate does not match their current identification.

The right to vote can remain untouched on paper while becoming inaccessible to someone who cannot produce the correct documents or satisfy the database reviewing them. A right does not have to be repealed if the government can decide who qualifies to exercise it.

The administration also attempted to restrict birthright citizenship for some children born in the United States. The Supreme Court rejected that attempt on June 30, 2026, preserving the Fourteenth Amendment’s guarantee.

The executive order would have made a baby’s citizenship depend on the parents’ legal status. These policies are not abortion laws, but they rely on the same governing logic: a right exists only after the government confirms that you qualify for it.

That is the world Allison inherits in A Ward of the State. Her family’s rights depend on records, classifications, and whether the system recognizes them as entitled to exercise those rights.

This could become our collective future

The UCPA does not arrive as one enormous law that suddenly eliminates women’s freedom. It emerges when separate systems begin working together.

Personhood gives the state a reason to intervene. Medical records identify the pregnancy, a report turns the woman into a suspect, and location determines which choices remain available.

Surveillance reveals where she goes. Liability makes anyone considering helping her calculate the personal cost.

In The Motherhood Mandate, one report closes the system around Rylee. More than a decade later, in A Ward of the State, the same machinery has moved beyond pregnancy and into medicine, education, childhood, citizenship, and the family itself. Today’s proposals do not have to reproduce the UCPA to help make that world possible.

They only have to leave behind another legal principle, another reporting requirement, another database, or another way to punish resistance. The next law does not have to build the system because it only has to connect the parts.

If you want to see where that system leads, enter the UCPA universe with The Fatherhood Mandate, where one report turns a private pregnancy into a matter of state control.

Thanks for reading The Unborn Child Protection Act Companion Site!

Share