{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.015793251974156496, 'fraction_numerical': 0.003589375448671931, 'mean_word_length': 5.8669950738916254, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Physically Intrusive Abortion Restrictions as Fourth Amendment Searches and Seizures: A new conceptual avenue for challenging abortion restrictions.

Successful challenges to abortion restrictions have typically been brought under the Fourteenth Amendment’s Due Process Clause and considered within a right-to-privacy framework.1 However, legal scholars have criticized that approach, citing its limitations and its poor fit with abortion.2 While those scholars have offered a sexequality framework as an alternative,3 challenges under the Equal Protection Clause have been unsuccessful in the context of pregnancyrelated claims.4 As anti-abortion advocates and state legislatures friendly to their cause gain ground in restricting abortion, litigants and pro-choice advocates may welcome new conceptual avenues and fresh litigation strategies to combat the influx of abortion restrictions passed in recent years.5 Abortion restrictions in place today range from those that regulate the context of abortion — principally providers — to those that impose physical restrictions directly upon women seeking abortions. The former make abortion more costly and time consuming by reducing the number and convenience of locations. For example, this type of restriction may require that providers are licensed physicians, that two physicians participate, or that provider locations qualify as surgical