Indirect restrictions demobilize supporters of abortion rights

State governments have created a multitude of indirect restrictions on abortion in the decades since Roe v. Wade. Here we test whether indirect restrictions demobilize abortion supporters relative to direct restrictions. We draw on research from moral psychology showing that people judge indirect offenses as less morally wrong than direct offenses, holding constant the consequences of the offenses. In two experiments, pro-choice participants answered how much they oppose a banning policy (a direct restriction), a defunding policy (an indirect restriction), or an excluding policy (the same as defunding but framed as more direct). In both experiments, pro-choice participants were less opposed to defunding than banning or excluding, even when the number of women affected was held constant. These results support the hypothesis that indirect restrictions can demobilize political opponents.