The Future of Abortion Rights in America

The future of abortion rights hinges on who becomes president, as a Trump administration could enforce restrictive measures.

### The Future of Abortion Rights in the U.S.: Federal Bans and Personhood Laws
* 🚫  Currently, several states in the U.S. have completely banned abortion, while others impose severe restrictions, leading to **about half the states limiting access significantly**.
* 🏛️ " There are three branches of the United States government, and the potential for a **national abortion ban** could arise from Congress, although **public sentiment largely opposes such legislation**.
* 🏢  The executive branch, particularly the president's influence, plays a crucial role in shaping abortion rights, as the president oversees federal agencies like the FDA, which **approved the abortion pill Mifepristone in 2000**.
* 💊  Republicans are focused on **restricting access to abortion pills**, with plans to **reverse telehealth provisions** that allow remote prescriptions, potentially **eliminating access for many women** in "ban states."
* 📜  The Comstock Act of 1873, which prohibits mailing items related to abortion, may be revitalized under a Trump administration, threatening to **criminalize the distribution of abortion pills and instruments nationwide**.
* ⚖️  The 2024 Republican Party platform hints at the concept of **"fetal personhood,"** which would grant **full constitutional rights to embryos and fetuses**, effectively banning abortion by overriding the rights of pregnant individuals.
* 🧑‍⚖️  Legal challenges to fetal personhood are expected to arise in the courts, as anti-abortion advocates seek to leverage **newly appointed conservative judges** to advance their agenda.
* 📊  As of April 2024, nearly two-thirds of Americans support legal abortion, yet the anti-abortion movement may not need public consensus, just the **right leadership to enact their plans**.

These are the states in the US that have now banned abortion completely. Along with the states that technically allow it, but severely restrict it, it's about half the states. But now there's a plan to use the federal government to ban abortion everywhere. “There are three branches of the United States government.” That ban could come in the form of a law, passed by Congress. “Congress makes the laws.” But that's not necessarily where we should really be looking. And only partly because huge majorities of Americans say Congress shouldn’t pass a law banning abortion. Instead, it's here. “The executive branch.” What really matters for the future of abortion rights in America is who the president is. “The duties of each branch are established in the Constitution. Let's see how they work.” One of the president's most important roles is overseeing hundreds of agencies within the federal government. For example, the Food and Drug Administration, which is the agency that, back in the year 2000,

approved an abortion pill: Mifepristone. And in the 24 years since its introduction, medication has become the way that most abortions happen in the US. That's why Republicans are laser-focused on abortion pills and trying to eliminate access to abortion pills. Today, about a third of medication abortions are done via telehealth: remote doctor visits, which the FDA has allowed consistently since 2021. But that is a decision Republicans plan to reverse, requiring mifepristone to be prescribed and picked up in person again. They may even revoke approval of the drug entirely. “Would you direct your FDA, for example, to revoke access to mifepristone?” “Sure, you could, you could do things that will be, would supplement. Absolutely.” That is not a very clear answer to that question. But it is also not a no. Limiting mifepristone would cut off a major way that some people who live in what we call “ban states”

are getting abortions. Although some are also doing that by visiting doctors outside of their state. And the ban states really want to know who's doing that, and who the doctors helping them are. Ban states want the possibility of prosecuting people: Abortion providers, abortion funds, organizations that help abortion seekers... A Trump administration could help states get that information, either by lifting the protections that keep doctors from sharing it, or by using the Center for Disease Control to create detailed records on every pregnancy in the country. All these plans are written down in a document called Mandate for Leadership. You probably know it as Project 2025. A plan written by conservative analysts and former Trump administration officials for what they would do in a new Trump administration. The document includes the word “abortion” just about 200 times, and we've only touched on a few of its plans to limit abortion access. But it actually contains one anti-abortion measure that dwarfs all the others. If the other plans in Project 2025 are more piecemeal,

just kind of chipping away at abortion access. This one would come the closest to an actual national abortion ban. And it uses a powerful tool to make that happen. Something that has been kind of hiding in the law of the United States for 150 years. No obscene publication, or any article or thing intended for the prevention of conception or procuring of abortion, shall be carried in the mail. This is the Comstock Act of 1873. It banned the mailing of three things: obscene publications (pornography), and then anything intended for either the prevention of conception, or abortion. In the 150 years after this law was passed, it was weakened by various court cases, and used less and less. And Congress eventually repealed part of it entirely. But the overturning of Roe v. Wade brought this part back. And how, or whether, to enforce it, is now up to the US Department of Justice, overseen by the President. In December 2022,

the Biden administration said that the revived Comstock Act does not prohibit the mailing, or receipt by mail, of mifepristone. In other words, mailing abortion pills, still okay. But a Trump administration would probably feel differently. Not long after that, a group of Republican members of Congress wrote to the Biden administration, urging them to enforce the Comstock Act and stop “the reckless distribution of abortion drugs by mail.” One of those members of Congress was Senator JD Vance, who is now running to be Trump's vice president. It's pretty straightforward to see how the revived Comstock Act could be interpreted to prohibit the mailing of abortion pills from providers to patients. But if that's the case, there's no reason it wouldn't also prohibit the shipping of abortion pills from manufacturers to providers. And for that matter... About two thirds of abortions are done with pills now, but about a third are done with instruments. And mailing those instruments could be a violation of Comstock law.

if the Trump administration interprets Comstock as prohibiting the mailing of anything that could accomplish an abortion. And that would shut down abortion nationwide, in all states. Because every doctor orders things from out of state. An administration enforcing the Comstock Act would probably target the two major manufacturers of mifepristone first. And just going after a few doctors would probably be enough to create a chilling effect on all doctors providing abortions, everywhere in the US. In August, Trump finally addressed this. Kind of. It's kind of been Trump's game plan from the beginning to be confusing about what exactly he means on abortion. “Would you enforce the Comstock Act, which could prohibit the distribution of medication abortion by mail?” First, he said no. “No.” And then... “we will be discussing specifics of it. But generally speaking no”. And that was reported as no. But I don't know what “generally no” means or “we will discuss the specifics.”

Does that mean you're going to prosecute some people but not other people? Like, does it mean you're going to prosecute people sometimes and not others? He hasn't been as clear, I think, as is sometimes reported. Look at what he's done, rather than what he says he will do. Look at who his supporters are. He says what he says to get elected to office, and then he does what he does. We don't know what will happen with the Comstock Act. If Democrats win control of the government, they could repeal it. But after a really quick break, we’re going to talk about one final part of the plan to ban abortion. “There is a third branch.” A longer play. Where the 2024 election is just step one. I’m gonna make this quick. Hi, I’m Adam, I produced this video. If you like when we do this kind of video, where we try to explain a dense, tricky topic,

the best way you can support that is by becoming a Vox member. Our website has member-only benefits that give you greater access to our reporters, and becoming a member will just help allow us to do this kind of original work reporting on challenging subjects. You can support us at vox.com/memberships. Thanks. This is the 2024 Republican Party platform. It barely mentions abortion. What it does say is more interesting. It says, “we stand for families and life,” and that “the 14th Amendment guarantees no person can be denied life or liberty.” Doesn't sound too out there. But that is actually coded language. Anytime you see these phrases together: 14th Amendment, and the repeated use of the word “life,” they are talking about an idea called “fetal personhood.” Fetal personhood gives fetuses, embryos, fertilized eggs, full constitutional rights under the 14th Amendment, with the assumption that those rights would override the rights of pregnant people.

The anti-abortion movement has thought of fetal personhood as the kind of endgame since the 1960s. To the extent that Comstock approximates a national ban, fetal personhood is pretty much a ban, full stop. You can't legally justify abortion if the law says that embryos are people. 19 of the states actually already have some form of personhood law on the books. But on the national level, this is almost certainly not something Congress will be able to pass. And it's not something the president can do, either. It will have to be done through the courts. This is where the anti-abortion movement ultimately wants to go. This is sort of the next Roe v. Wade. In 2019, an anti-abortion group filed a lawsuit in the state of Rhode Island, asking the state's court to block Rhode Island's abortion rights law, on the basis that “human life commences at the instant of conception,” and that “said human life is a person.” In other words,

fetal personhood. They lost. But, after Roe v. Wade was overturned, they appealed that case to the US Supreme Court, again on the basis of fetal personhood. The Supreme Court declined to hear their case. But the Supreme Court can change. And the groundwork has already been laid for that. Over the course of Trump's first administration, he installed right-wing judges throughout the federal court system, which is where future Supreme Court justices will probably come from. And in just four years, Trump was able to replace one third of an already-conservative Supreme Court. Another Trump term could do the same. Behind the red in this map are real people who can't access what most people agree is, really, medical care. As of April 2024, almost two thirds of Americans say abortion should be legal in all or most cases. We really don't want a national abortion ban. But opponents of abortion don't need Americans to agree with them.

Exactly how Trump could ban abortion

Vox helps you understand our world.

Vox video is Bridgett Henwood, Cath Spangler, Adam Freelander, Joey Sendaydiego, Coleman Lowndes, Christophe Haubursin, Kim Mas, Laura Bult, Ed Vega, Rajaa Elidrissi, and with research support from Melissa Hirsch. 

Become a member today: https://www.vox.com/support-now

Check out our FAQ on permissions and licensing of our videos: https://www.voxmedia.com/pages/licensing

✉️ Write us: voxvideo@vox.com


The Federal Government's Role in Abortion Bans

Several US states have completely banned abortion, while others severely restrict it, making up about half the states.

The federal government's role, particularly the president's, is crucial in shaping abortion rights, with a focus on agencies like the FDA that approve abortion medications.

A potential Trump administration could implement measures to limit access to abortion pills, gather information on patients and providers, and prosecute those involved in abortion services, as outlined in the Project 2025 document.

The Comstock Act's Impact on Abortion Access

The Comstock Act of 1873 banned the mailing of obscene publications and anything intended for contraception or abortion.

After being weakened and partially repealed, the law's revival following the overturning of Roe v.

Wade has raised concerns about its enforcement.

The Biden administration has stated that the Act does not prohibit mailing abortion pills, but a potential Trump administration may take a different approach, leading to calls for stricter enforcement.

Trump's Potential Enforcement of the Comstock Act and Its Impact on Abortion

The Trump administration's interpretation of the Comstock Act could lead to a nationwide shutdown of abortion by targeting out-of-state medication orders.

Trump's conflicting statements on enforcing the Act have created confusion about his true intentions.

The potential enforcement could create a chilling effect on doctors providing abortions, while a Democratic win in the government could lead to the Act's repeal.

The 2024 Republican Party Platform and Fetal Personhood

The 2024 Republican Party platform subtly promotes fetal personhood by emphasizing the 14th Amendment and the concept of "life.

" Fetal personhood aims to grant full constitutional rights to embryos and fetuses, potentially overriding the rights of pregnant individuals.

While 19 states have enacted some form of personhood law, achieving this on a national level is likely to be pursued through the courts rather than Congress or the presidency.

The Impact of Fetal Personhood on Abortion Rights

The push for fetal personhood has been a key legal strategy in challenging abortion rights, but the Supreme Court has declined to hear the case.

Trump's judicial appointments have significantly shifted the federal court system, potentially influencing future Supreme Court justices.

Despite a majority of Americans supporting legal abortion, opponents only need the right president to enact their agenda.