This study aims to analyze the policy discourse held by interest groups in the United States following the repeal of Roe, the constitutional right to abortion, from a security perspective. Additionally, it seeks to examine what these organizations believe needs protection and against what, and the potential consequences for womenś health security in the USA. The study employs a security feminist and post-structuralist theoretical and methodological approach based on Bacchi’s (2023) problematization framework “What’s the problem represented to be?” (WPR) and Baldwin’s (1997) Security Concept to analyze how these interest groups perceive the abortion issue post-Roe and what this produces and reproduces. The analyst reveals a distinct and polarized view on the abortion issue regarding what should be protected and against what. These divergent perspectives influence how threats are perceived and what measures are advocated for. The study’s analysis also demonstrates that the politicized debate and the various problematizations may have adverse consequences for women’s health security, such as increased risks of unsafe abortions and lack of access to safe abortion care. Furthermore, the state-centric understanding of health policy may contribute to reproducing the stigma surrounding abortion and excluding women’s individual needs. This underscores the importance of questioning the prevailing health policy and its impact on women and other vulnerable groups, and raising the question: security for whom and for what?