“We’re still only 12 hours away from the election results, but the growth is palpable,” Foster said just before lunch. “It’s amazing.”

With control of the House still undecided and the size of the Republican majority in the Senate still up in the air Wednesday, the exact ways the election would affect abortion access remained unclear. But experts agreed that access to reproductive care in many states is likely to become more difficult. The increase in demands on Foster’s group was reflected a new reality: more than a third of those who had signed up overnight weren’t even pregnant. They wanted to make sure they had access to mifepristone, the abortion drug, if they ever needed it.

The election produced mixed results on abortion, with 10 states voting on abortion-related ballot measures. In Florida, Nebraska and South Dakota, voters defeated constitutional amendments that would have struck down state abortion bans passed in the wake of the Supreme Court’s 2022 decision. But in Missouri, voters passed a measure to overturn one of the most restrictive abortion bans in the country, and abortion rights amendments in Arizona, Colorado, Maryland and Montana also passed.

Some of the fallout from Tuesday’s political earthquake began to play out Wednesday. Under the Trump administration, some New England abortion providers are likely to lose significant federal funding, experts said. They may need their state governments to cover the shortfall, said Katherine L. Kraschel, an assistant professor of law and health sciences at Northeastern University who chairs the board of Planned Parenthood of Southern New England.

The first Trump administration issued new rules that prevented organizations that share space with abortion services from participating in the Title X program, which provides funding for family planning and preventive health services, Kraschel said. Grantees were also prohibited from discussing abortion, which excluded Planned Parenthood from the program. As a result of the policy, millions of people could not access family planning services, she said.

The Biden administration reversed these policies. A second Trump administration will almost certainly restore them. Kraschel worries that abortion opponents in Washington will also try to block abortion providers like Planned Parenthood from receiving Medicaid funds.

“Abortion providers across the country still depend on the federal government for a significant amount of their funding — just to keep the lights on for the non-abortion health services they provide,” she said. “He could be in danger.” She added that health care providers in New England are already stretched thin.

Trump’s victory is also likely to disrupt the legal landscape. Last January, the Biden administration implemented new rules that allow some providers to prescribe mifepristone remotely, eliminating the requirement for an in-person doctor visit. The policy paved the way for organizations like MAP to legally ship thousands of packages of abortion pills across state lines.

Abortion opponents challenged the Food and Drug Administration’s policy change in court, and Biden’s Justice Department strongly defended it. Trump could go the other way and simply reverse the decision, said I. Glenn Cohen, a Harvard law professor.

Some abortion opponents have also proposed attacking the legality of mail-order abortion pills, citing the Comstock Act, an 1873 law that prohibits the use of the mail or other common carriers to distribute pornographic materials, contraceptives, and items that could be used to cause an abortion. Whether enforcement would stand up in court remains an open question; it hasn’t been enforced in decades, legal experts say.

The Trump administration could try to make the transportation of abortion drugs and even surgical abortion instruments illegal, Cohen said, though he added that invoking the Comstock Act is highly uncertain.

“Team Trump tried to play it off in some parts of the campaign, but it’s hard to know if that was the general election strategy or their point of view,” he said.

A Trump Justice Department is also likely to take a different stance than the Biden administration on whether states with strict abortion bans must comply with federal laws requiring emergency abortion care when it is the only treatment that can save a pregnant woman’s life or prevent serious harm to her health. In Texas and Idaho, the Biden administration took steps to implement the Emergency Medical Treatment and Jobs Act.

Both states challenged the act in court. Supreme Court sent their cases back to the lower courts without ruling on the issues at stake; in the Texas case, the court ruled that the plaintiffs lacked standing, while in Idaho the majority cited various reasons for not intervening. That left open the question of how to reconcile federal and state laws.

“The Supreme Court essentially addressed the issue with the potential to revisit it in the future,” Cohen said. The Trump administration, he said, is likely to end enforcement of the act, withdraw its objections in court and leave the issue to the states, which would make the cases “dissolve.”

In Massachusetts, the right to abortion is enshrined in the state constitution, and elected officials have made it a point of pride to implement policies that are the mirror image of the red state’s abortion restrictions. Earlier this year, Attorney General Andrea Joy Campbell established a “Reproductive Justice Unit” tasked with monitoring new anti-abortion legislation and tactics emerging from red states and helping coordinate policies to counter them.

At a news conference Wednesday, Gov. Maura Healey noted that Massachusetts has a stockpile of mifepristone, passed protective laws to protect abortion providers and emphasized abortion rights as something “we’re very committed to as well.”

“We will make sure that women and those who need care are protected here in Massachusetts,” she said. “Always, always.”

But on Wednesday, local abortion rights advocates were contemplating the unthinkable: That a Republican-dominated Congress could pass a national abortion ban that would override state policies. It’s unclear whether such a law would hold up in federal courts, legal experts say.

“I hope it doesn’t happen, of course,” said Dr. Louise P. King, a practicing surgeon with a law degree who is director of reproductive bioethics at Harvard Medical School’s Center for Bioethics. Although Trump has said he would not sign an abortion ban if it were to pass, King and others are skeptical.

“I have no idea what Trump thinks, because he never says anything substantial about what he thinks,” King said. “But there are absolutely legislators who have been elected in places who would like to see this happen and would promote it.”

If they can, she said, it will become clearer in the coming days as the final election results trickle out.

Angel Foster and her team at MAP will be ready. In anticipation of a possible Trump victory, she bought several months’ worth of abortion pills in advance, and monthly “packing parties,” where volunteers stuffed envelopes with abortion drugs and supplies, became weekly affairs. But if demand continues at its current pace, it will have to replenish supplies sooner than anticipated.

“If what’s happened in the last few hours continues like this,” she said, “we’re going to need a lot more medicine.”

Material from Globe cable services was used in this report.

Adam Piore can be reached at [email protected].