> US Republicans have literally passed laws defining "woman" based on having a functioning womb

The bill referenced makes no direct mention of womb, nor functioning. You're using "literally" a bit unfaithfully there.

from the law

> a "female" is an individual whose biological reproductive system is developed to produce ova,

isn’t having a functioning uterus a hard prerequisite to the ability to produce ova?

“is developed to produce ova” is a statement about current capability. If they meant to include women with hysterectomies, they would have worded it differently, like “is or once was developed to produce ova;” if they meant to include women with non-functioning wombs, they would have written more broadly, like “is of the type that usually produces ova” or something.

The answer is a yes, as in, the ovaries can still ovulate even without a uterus. The ovaries also continue to produce hormones, through there are a feedback loop between the uterus and ovaries which get disrupted without a uterus.

It is somewhat similar to how men with vasectomy still produce sperm.

The uterus itself doesn't have much to do with ova production.

Are you including ovary removal in your definition of hysterectomy?

Or are you defining "ova production" as including fertilization/implantation?