ROE V. WADE IS AT RISK. HERE’S HOW TO PREPARE.

Opponents of abortion have spent decades planning for a Supreme Court with a majority hostile to reproductive rights. So it’s little surprise that, with the confirmation of Brett Kavanaugh in the fall, the necessary fifth vote, they’ve been quick to seize the moment.

The anti-abortion movement has also spent those decades building a vast fundraising and organizing network, with the goals of securing an anti-abortion voting bloc and getting more like-minded judges, at every level, and lawmakers — and presidents — into power.

Mere weeks after Kavanaugh was sworn in, West Virginia and Alabama passed state constitutional amendments that could ban abortions if Roe v. Wade is overturned.

Those on the other side, then, need their own robust and creative playbook — not just to fight back against attacks on reproductive freedom but also to pre-emptively protect and expand those freedoms wherever possible.

The Supreme Court will determine the fate of Roe, but its dismantling will start on the state level, requiring the effort to push back to be nationwide and expansive. Republican-controlled state legislatures are expected to put forth many pieces of anti-abortion legislation this year. Some are meant to directly challenge Roe v. Wade, like recent proposals in Kentucky and Florida that ban abortion around the sixth week of pregnancy. That can translate to about two weeks after a missed menstrual period — before many women even realize that they’re pregnant, let alone have time to consider an abortion. Ohio lawmakers have already voted for such a measure.

Women in many parts of the country are already finding it nearly impossible to exercise their reproductive rights. At least 424 anti-abortion bills have been passed at the state level since 2010, according to the Guttmacher Institute, which studies reproductive health. As a result, 43 percent of all reproductive-age women — 29 million people — now live in areas that are hostile to abortion rights, including seven states that each have just one abortion clinic left.

Lawmakers in states with outdated abortion laws are taking action. Bills in Rhode Island would codify the right to an abortion in the state, no matter what happens to Roe, and would repeal several existing laws that are now unenforceable — like one requiring that a woman receive consent from her husband before getting an abortion and another that defines life as beginning at conception. Similar legislation will be considered in New Mexico, Vermont, Massachusetts and Nevada — which recently became the first state in the country with a female-majority legislature.

While blue states are locking down reproductive rights, tougher fights are breaking out in red and purple states.

A lawsuit filed last week in Pennsylvania seeks to overturn the state’s ban on using state Medicaid funds to pay for abortion. If successful, it could help thousands more women each year to afford an abortion. This case is evidence of the central inequity around abortion: It is easy for women with means to get an abortion, while poor women are at the mercy of statutes that restrict their rights. That’s because only 16 states allow women who rely on Medicaid — in other words, poor women — to use that coverage to pay for an abortion.

Such lawsuits can be long shots, but they’re shots worth taking — as in Wisconsin, where Planned Parenthood is suing to repeal several anti-abortion laws enacted under former Gov. Scott Walker, a Republican.

Similarly, bills with little chance of passing can still have value. In the deep-red bastions of Missouri and Texas, lawmakers like state Rep. Jessica Farrar, D-Houston, have introduced legislation to repeal abortion restrictions and expand access. Such bills may be unlikely to be signed into law, but they raise awareness of an issue that many Americans have long ago tuned out. “In these states, these bills can help change the conversation around abortion,” said Elizabeth Nash, senior state issues manager at the Guttmacher Institute.

(In 2017, Farrar also introduced a stunt bill to make a point about the unnecessary restrictions that women face in the state; among other things, the legislation would have required men to read a booklet about the risks of vasectomies, colonoscopies and erectile-dysfunction drugs before receiving them.)

There can be a fine line between gimmicks and strategy. But abortion rights supporters have spent too long on the defensive, while anti-abortion forces have put substantial pressure on all three branches of government. It isn’t too late to wipe outdated laws off the books and make the procedure more accessible to low-income women and more available to everyone. And it is certainly high time to make abortion rights a voting issue in elections.

The anti-abortion movement understands the high stakes of this moment. Those who support reproductive rights must as well.