By Marie Tasy
Today, Governor Phil Murphy issued a Conditional Veto of the proposed Abortion Travel Advisory bill (S3663). His veto raises important questions about his motives and logic and whether the state should be in the business of evaluating other states’ laws in the first place.
The bill, strongly backed by Planned Parenthood, called for the creation of an ‘Abortion Tourism’ website to be maintained by the Department of State (DOS), a move that would promote one-sided information and political messaging.
According to the proposal, the website would have used a three-tiered, color-coded system—Blue: Exercise normal caution; Yellow: Exercise increased caution; and Red: Reconsider travel. Each state would be described according to its reproductive health care laws, including, but not limited to gestational duration bans, waiting periods, insurance coverage limits, medication restrictions, constitutional protections, reproductive health care funding, and criminal or civil liabilities for patients and providers. The DOS would be required to update the site each time a state changed its laws or regulations.
The Abortion Travel Advisory quickly became polarizing, drawing criticism and ridicule from commentators who questioned the need for such a government-run system since its passage in June.
In his conditional veto message, Murphy proposed replacing the requirement that the DOS establish an “Abortion Travel Advisory” with a requirement that the Department of Health (DOH) instead post the information.
The proposed change amends A4829 (P.L. 2023, c. 170), a law signed by Murphy in 2023 by adding a section that directs the website to include information or links to other resources that explain “reproductive health care” laws and services available in other states. The description of the proposed conditional veto language is identical to that in the Abortion Travel Advisory bill, covering gestational duration bans, waiting periods, insurance limits, medication restrictions, and other aspects of reproductive health law—minus the three-tiered color-coded system included in the original legislation.
Murphy said the change is intended to “alleviate” the burden on state resources, calling the creation of a separate website a “massive undertaking” for the DOS, which he said “neither has the expertise nor the resources” to maintain and update such a site. Instead, he pointed to the Department of Health as better equipped for the task, since it already manages the reproductive health website established under A4829. That existing platform, he said, can rely on third-party sources for information and educate New Jersey residents about the health risks of interstate travel.
Murphy’s claim that the Department of Health can “rely on third-party sources” to inform residents about “health risks” raises serious concerns about accuracy and accountability. By outsourcing the task to outside groups, the state serves more to advance a dangerous, political narrative than to inform the public.
Yet Murphy’s proposed fix—a bureaucratic shifting of responsibility to the DOH—fails to address the underlying issue of government overreach and inefficiency in monitoring and updating information across fifty states. Even without the three-tiered color-coded system, the conditional veto continues to establish a state-run platform designed to scrutinize and influence travel to other states.
This calculated move does little to disguise its intent. It allows Murphy to distance himself from the optics of an “Abortion Tourism” website while keeping his pro-abortion base satisfied.
In the end, Murphy’s move is as embarrassing as it is unnecessary, leaving unresolved why New Jersey feels compelled to monitor and grade other states’ policies.
_
Marie Tasy is the Executive Director of New Jersey Right to Life.
