In Donald Trump\u0026#039;s America, women\u0026#039;s constitutional right to an abortion is threatened.\u0022Our country now stands perilously close to a return to the dark days when women were forced to put their own lives at risk to get safe and legal abortion care.\u0022—Nancy Northup, Center for Reproductive RightsThe president-elect made that clear in an interview Sunday night with \u002260 Minutes,\u0022 in which he repeated his vow to appoint \u0022pro-life\u0022 judges to the U.S. Supreme Court. Those judges, he said, could overturn the landmark decision in\u0026nbsp;Roe v. Wade—which would in turn send the issue \u0022back to the states.\u0022 These statements echoed ones he made on the campaign trail and during the final presidential debate.Interviewer Lesley Stahl followed up: \u0022But then some women won\u0026#039;t be able to get an abortion.\u0022To which Trump responded: \u0022Yeah, well, they\u0026#039;ll perhaps have to go—they\u0026#039;ll have to go to another state.\u0022Watch the exchange below:Confoundingly, Trump also asserted during the interview that the matter of same-sex marriage, decided by the court last year, \u0022was already settled. It\u0026#039;s law.\u0022 Roe v. Wade was decided in 1973.Memo to President-elect Trump: Just like \u0022gay marriage,\u0022 (aka equality) has been settled, so too has Roe. We\u0026#039;re not going back.— ACLU National (@ACLU) November 14, 2016As Rewire wrote in 2015:States like Louisiana, Mississippi, North Dakota, and South Dakota already have laws on the books that would automatically criminalize abortion should the decision be overturned. Meanwhile, 11\u0026nbsp;other states, including Arkansas and Wisconsin, have pre-Roe laws criminalizing abortion that are still technically in effect and could be\u0026nbsp;resuscitated following a reversal. And Elisa Leilani Slattery explained in July in a blog for the Open Society Foundations:Traveling long distances for abortions disproportionately harms young women, low-income women, women with precarious immigration status, and women with disabilities, for whom travel is prohibitively expensive, not physically possible, or an otherwise risky proposition. There\u0026#039;s no way to measure the harm of forcing women to locate funds, arrange transportation, schedule childcare, and justify one\u0026#039;s absence to employers, family, and partners—all with the clock ticking as abortions become more expensive and medically complex later in a pregnancy. \u0026nbsp;But there\u0026#039;s another, perhaps more insidious, aspect of burdensome travel that\u0026#039;s even harder to quantify. It\u0026#039;s a type of social exclusion through which women, however temporarily, are effectively banished from society. Some women\u0026#039;s rights groups have begun to publicly acknowledge this, calling the practice \u0022abortion exile.\u0022Forcing women to leave their communities for abortions is isolating and degrading; it denies them their status as full and equal citizens. In interviews I\u0026#039;ve conducted in Ireland, women whose pregnancy had a fatal fetal anomaly said that being forced to travel at such a heartbreaking time made them feel as though their country had turned its back on them.In the wake of Trump\u0026#039;s election, women\u0026#039;s health advocates promised to \u0022hold the line\u0022 against the president-elect\u0026#039;s dangerous anti-choice ideas and the groups emboldened by his victory.Fortunately, Rewire noted on Monday, \u0022[t]here is currently no case in the pipeline that directly challenges either Roe\u0026#039;s holding that abortion is a fundamental right, or Planned Parenthood v. Casey\u0026#039;s sloppy undue burden standard balancing that fundamental right against the state\u0026#039;s interest in both fetal life and protecting patients.\u0026nbsp;At the moment, there\u0026#039;s also not a federal statute designed to prompt a potential challenge.\u0022However, journalist Jessica Mason Pieklo continued:Give the Trump administration and its Republican-controlled Congress just a smidge of time to get settled\u0026nbsp;after this\u0026nbsp;January, though, and I\u0026#039;d expect that to change. Conservatives have been eager to push 20-week \u0022fetal pain\u0022 bills, dilation and evacuation\u0026nbsp;bans, and even federal fetal \u0022personhood.\u0022 If enacted and then challenged by advocates\u0026nbsp;in the courts, any one of those pieces of legislation could put the issue of abortion rights squarely before the Roberts Court—one\u0026nbsp;re-settled to a 5-4 conservative, anti-choice\u0026nbsp;majority.\u0022Make no mistake: Donald Trump\u0026#039;s proposed policies pose a direct threat to the constitutional protections recognized by Roe v. Wade and resoundingly reaffirmed in Whole Woman\u0026#039;s Health v. Hellerstedt,\u0022 said Nancy Northup, president and CEO of the Center for Reproductive Rights, last week. \u0022Our country now stands perilously close to a return to the dark days when women were forced to put their own lives at risk to get safe and legal abortion care.\u0022\u0022President-elect Trump has publicly pledged to overturn Roe,\u0022 she said, \u0022and promised punishment for the one in three American women who will have an abortion in her lifetime. When a woman decides to end a pregnancy, she needs safe, high-quality care—not a prison sentence.\u0022Also in the \u002260 Minutes\u0022 interview, Trump appeared to walk back slightly his campaign pledge to build a wall along the U.S.-Mexico border, but said he would immediately deport or incarcerate 2-3 million \u0022criminal\u0022 undocumented immigrants once he takes office in January.