Where abortion restrictions stand: The states that have passed laws

States that have passed abortion restrictions:

• Louisiana passed a fetal heartbeat law in May. (Effective if a judge lifts the block in the Mississippi suit.)
• Alabama passed a near total ban on abortion. (Effective November 2019.)
• Ohio passed a fetal heartbeat law. It was temporarily blocked by a judge in early July.
• Kentucky passed a fetal heartbeat law. It's been temporarily blocked by a judge.
• Mississippi passed a fetal heartbeat law. It's been temporarily blocked by a judge.
• Georgia passed a fetal heartbeat law. It's been temporarily blocked by a judge.
• Utah voted to limit abortions to the middle of the second trimester. (Currently effective as of May 14)
• Arkansas voted to limit abortions to the middle of the second trimester. This decision has been temporarily blocked by a federal judge.
• Missouri signed into law a ban on abortions at 8 weeks of pregnancy. This decision has been temporarily blocked by a federal judge.

States considering abortion restrictions:

• Florida is considering 2 bills — one limiting abortions after the 20th week of pregnancy and the second is fetal heartbeat bill.
• South Carolina is considering a fetal heartbeat bill.
• Maryland failed to pass a fetal heartbeat bill.
• Minnesota is considering a bill banning abortions after 20 weeks.
• West Virginia introduced a fetal heartbeat bill earlier this year.
• Tennessee has passed a bill that would ban abortions if Roe v. Wade is overturned.

States enacting abortion protections:

• Illinois' Gov. J.B. Pritzker signed a bill into law on in early June to protect the state's abortion rights if Roe v. Wade were overturned.
• New York passed a bill in January that protects the "fundamental right" to abortions.
• Virginia expanded in May the range of medical professionals who can perform abortion procedures.
• The Kansas Court ruled in late April that the state constitution protects a woman's right to terminate a pregnancy.
• The Illinois House passed a bill in May further protecting abortions by removing some of the barriers for abortions and penalties for doctors, positioning Illinois to become a major U.S. abortion destination.
• Maine Gov. Janet Mills (D) signed a bill into law in June that makes it easier to get an abortion by allowing medical professionals who are not doctors to perform the procedure.
• Rhode Island Gov. Gina Raimondo (D) signed a bill codifying the Roe v. Wade decision and protecting abortion rights in her state.
• A federal judge blocked an Indiana law in late June that would have banned second-trimester abortion procedures.

Why it matters: Supreme Court rulings have been cited to allow abortions up to 24 weeks during pregnancy when the fetus is not viable — or when a woman's health or life is at risk.

• But conservatives have been advancing more restrictive policies in the past few years, hoping to spark a fresh Supreme Court case now that Justice Brett Kavanaugh replaced Anthony Kennedy.

What they're saying:

• "For pro-life folks, these are huge victories," Sue Liebel, state director for anti-abortion group Susan B. Anthony List, told the AP. "And I think they're indicative of the momentum and excitement and the hope that's happening with changes in the Supreme Court and having such a pro-life president."
• “The gloves are off” among abortion opponents, NARAL Pro-Choice America's Kristin Ford told Vox.“They feel like they have the wind at their backs and they don’t have to dance around their true intentions anymore.”

The bottom line: We're one major Supreme Court case away from a new era of abortion rights, an unthinkable idea before the election of President Trump.

Go deeper: What happens to abortion access in each state if Roe v. Wade is overturned

Editor's note: This piece is being updated with the latest state-by-state decisions.

• "After nearly a month of stonewalling, it appears clear that the President has chosen the path of defiance, obstruction, and cover-up," the letter reads.

The state of play: Several White House officials have told Axios' Alayna Treene that the administration has no plans of complying with the committees' demands for interviews or documents without a full House vote formally approving an impeachment inquiry.

The big picture: The Trump administration's initial refusal to turn over the whistleblower complaint on the president's interactions with Ukraine is what led House Speaker Nancy Pelosi to finally support a formal impeachment inquiry.

Go deeper: Trump letter dares Pelosi to hold vote on impeachment inquiry

• Johnson asked the Justice Department earlier this week to look into links between Ukraine and Hillary Clinton's 2016 presidential campaign. His letter questioned the narrative that Biden's actions in Ukraine had nothing to do with his son's connection.
• However, it was also discovered that he signed onto a 2016 letter that mirrored Biden's work to reform Ukraine's prosecutor general and judiciary.
• There is no evidence that Biden's reform work in Ukraine was to protect his son's business dealings, as the president and some of his allies allege, or that he committed any form of corruption.

The state of play: Sondland, a Trump political appointee who donated $1 million to the president's inaugural committee, denied that there was a quid pro quo between the Trump administration and Ukraine's government in a series of text messages that former Ukraine special envoy Kurt Volker provided to a group of House committees investigating the Trump-Ukraine matter.

• "I think it’s crazy to withhold security assistance for help with a political campaign," Bill Taylor, the top U.S. diplomat to Ukraine, texted Sondland.
• Sondland texted back: "Bill, I believe you are incorrect about President Trump's intentions. The President has been crystal clear no quid pro quo's of any kind."
• The New York Times reported that Sondland's response came only after he spoke to the president.

Go deeper: House committees release texts from former Ukraine envoy Kurt Volker