Project 2025 — Abortion and Reproductive Health Care
“Well, you go back to a position like they had where they would perhaps go to illegal places, but we have to ban it.”
(Donald Trump, 2016)
On January 22, 1973, when the Supreme Court handed down its ruling on Roe v. Wade, it was not a lightning bolt out of the blue. That ruling did not just happen. The groundwork had been put in place.
Abortion activists had filed many lawsuits. When it became clear that the courts were not going to side with a woman’s right to an abortion, the lawyers switched tactics. They began to sue on behalf of doctors. According to their arguments, a doctor is the only one who can decide if a person should have an abortion or not. They’re the professionals. And the courts agreed.
Similarly, on June 24, 2022, when SCOTUS handed down the Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, that ruling was also not a bolt from out of the blue. The groundwork had been establish, really from before Roe was even settled.
Conservative individuals and organizations did the work to elect politicians opposed to Roe. They worked to seat judges who were opposed to Roe. And, most importantly, they ensured the nomination and confirmation of Supreme Court Justices who were ideologically opposed to Roe. Oh, the SCOTUS nominees all said on the stand and under oath that Roe was “the law of the land” and that it was “settled law.” They did not believe that for a second.
Since the Dobbs ruling, Trump has taken full credit for overturning Roe. See this video, for example:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-lkj9iXeGV4
So, Trump explicitly states that through his three Supreme Court picks, he was able to “kill” Roe. At times in the past, Trump has said he would favor a “national abortion ban.” Currently on the campaign trail, however, he has backed away from that argument. He knows that the majority of the nation is not in favor of a national ban. Instead, he claims that abortion should be left to each individual state.
On the one hand, that argument might be consistent with a conservative point of view. Conservatives will often argue that issues are best left to the states, not the federal government. On the question of abortion, however, conservatives seem to be more in favor of a federal policy.
So, what does Project 2025 say on the matter? The text of The Conservative Promise uses the word “abortion” 199 times. The authors are clearly concerned about the issue. The document also uses the term “unborn” 12 times, which is frequently another way to talk about abortion. The document mentions Roe only 2 times, and mentions Dobbs 11 times.
In the Preface, Roberts writes:
“the next conservative President should work with Congress to enact the most robust protections for the unborn that Congress will support while deploying existing federal powers to protect innocent life and vigorously complying with statutory bans on the federal funding of abortion.” (6)
Here, Roberts clearly suggests that a federal abortion policy would be the goal of “the next conservative president.” Despite being determined to reduce the size and scope of federal government, he is not interested in a local solution. He is not interested in leaving it to the individual states — the usual conservative argument. In this case, on this issues, he does not elect for a small government solution. Instead, he believes that the conservative president should impose a federal ban.
Further, in the chapter on the Office of the President, Vought writes:
“Abolishing the Gender Policy Council would eliminate central promotion of abortion (‘health services’); comprehensive sexuality education (‘education’); and the new woke gender ideology, which has as a principal tenet ‘gender affirming care’ and ‘sex-change’ surgeries on minors.” (62)
So, they would like a federal ban on abortion, but they would also like to eliminate “comprehensive sexuality education.” However, we know — the evidence is pretty strong on this — comprehensive sex ed WORKS in reducing the number of teen pregnancies, the number of unwanted pregnancies, and the number of abortions. It does not eliminate them. But it significantly reduces them.
From The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists:
“Studies have demonstrated that comprehensive sexuality education programs reduce the rates of sexual activity, sexual risk behaviors (e.g., number of partners and unprotected intercourse), sexually transmitted infections, and adolescent pregnancy.”
IF the goal is to stop or reduce the number of abortions, wouldn’t stopping unwanted pregnancies be consistent with that outcome?
Given that evidence, IF they remain opposed to comprehensive sex ed, then perhaps the goal is NOT about reducing abortions, but rather about controlling people and their behaviors. Much of their objection to sex ed and to sex is the Puritanical notion that non-reproductive sex is bad. Another way to control behaviors.
The authors of The Conservative Promise state in many of the chapters that abortion should not be considered as “health care,” that it has nothing to do with “equality,” and that it does not “empower” women. And, yet, every aspect of conception, gestation, pregnancy, and delivery are very much health care issues. Those hoping to have a baby generally (as long as their work and finances allow it) consult with a doctor when trying to get pregnant. They discuss timing; they discuss optimizing conception; they discuss health and nutrition, etc. All of those are health care issues.
Once a person does become pregnant, that person consults with their doctor, maybe a primary care physician, and eventually an OB-GYN. They discuss progress and expected next steps; they discuss the health of the fetus and of the person gestating the fetus; they discuss possible complications or health consequences. And, in some cases, they decide whether abortion might be necessary. Perhaps because of the development of the fetus. Perhaps because of health risks to the person gestating the fetus. Perhaps for other, personal or medical, reasons.
All of that is health care. All of that should be decided between the person who is pregnant and the physician. They certainly do not need a know-nothing politician telling them what they can and cannot do, nor what they should or should not do. It is that person’s life. It is that person’s health. It is that person’s choice. Their physician is best suited to help them.
Although The Conservative Promise does not say this, many politicians DO say it: they argue from a religious perspective. They argue that they are anti-abortion because their (Christian) faith says so.
Three responses to that:
1) Not everyone in this nation is a Christian, and if they are NOT Christian, they should not be held to Christian morals.
2) Not every Christian agrees that Christianity is opposed to abortion.
3) Christianity cannot agree. The views espoused by contemporary Christian politicians are not the same as espoused by Christians 50 years ago, or 100 years ago, or even further back.
At one point in time, Christianity clearly argued that life began at first breath, or when the breath of life passed the lips.
At another point, life began at “quickening,” or the moment with the person gestating the baby could begin to feel the fetus moving.
Only very recently, and only as a consequence of developments in science and medicine, has anyone argued that life begins at conception. This argument is a novelty. And it is a novelty that cannot be held up for every person in the country.
Until the conservatives can secure a federal ban on abortion, they are left with a state-by-state approach. Their problem: blue states that still allow abortions and the now growing practice of “abortion tourism” (455). In the chapter on Health and Human Services (HHS), Roger Severino argues that the new administration should take every step to curtail the practice:
“Because liberal states have now become sanctuaries for abortion tourism, HHS should use every available tool, including the cutting of funds, to ensure that every state reports exactly how many abortions take place within its borders, at what gestational age of the child, for what reason, the mother’s state of residence, and by what method.” (455)
In other words, the full weight of the federal government will be used to track the movements and actions of people legally seeking an abortion. As I noted above, it is consistent with a desire to control people’s actions and movements. It is the very model of a totalitarian state.
What does all this have to do with Trump? He currently says (see clip above) that he favors a state-by-state approach. However, Trump has already said that he favors a federal ban. In 2018, while he was President, Trump said that he supported a 20-week, federal ban. While he was running for President, he said that any woman seeking abortion should receive some sort of “punishment.” J. D. Vance said that he would like “abortion to be illegal nationally.”
Further, many of the authors of The Conservative Promise have served, and will continue to serve, in a Trump administration. Roger Severino, who wrote the chapter on HHS, was Trump’s Director of Civil Rights at HHS from 2017–2021. The authors of Project 2025 will have an outsized influence in a Trump administration.
Make no mistake about it, Trump, Vance, and Project 2025 want to make abortion illegal and inaccessible at all times and in all places. (Project 2025 spends a lot of time on stopping abortions overseas, as well.) Not satisfied with overturning Roe, they will aggressively seek to end access completely.
Ritch Calvin is an Associate Professor of Women’s, Gender, and Sexuality Studies at SUNY Stony Brook. He is the author of Queering SF: Readings (Aqueduct Press), Feminist Epistemology and Feminist Science Fiction (Palgrave McMillan) and edited a collection of essays on Gilmore Girls (McFarland). His most recent book (2024) is Queering SF Comics: Readings (Aqueduct Press).