What Donald Trump's 2024 victory means for abortion rights in America

Donald Trump's win in the 2024 presidential election against Kamala Harris raises serious concerns about abortion rights in the United States

Donald Trump emerged victorious in the 2024 US presidential election, defeating Kamala Harris, who had placed reproductive rights at the forefront of her campaign. With Trump’s win, the future of abortion rights in the US faces significant uncertainty. The impact may not come from Congress, but rather through executive action, judicial appointments, and the revival of little-known laws.

 

Trump’s shifting position on abortion  

 

As a candidate, Trump sent mixed signals on his abortion policy. While he frequently boasted about appointing the Supreme Court justices who overturned Roe vs Wade, he softened his rhetoric leading up to the election. He claimed he would be “great for women and their reproductive rights” and ultimately stated he would veto a federal abortion ban. However, experts argue that reassurance may be misleading, as the most likely threats to abortion access do not involve new legislation.

 

 

The Comstock Act: A dormant threat resurfaces  

 

One major concern is the potential enforcement of the Comstock Act, an 1873 law that could ban abortion-related items, including pills and medical tools, from being sent by mail. This law, dormant for decades, could be weaponised to restrict abortion access without passing new federal legislation.

 

Jonathan Mitchell, a legal architect behind Texas’s restrictive abortion laws, has suggested this strategy, emphasising its potential to sidestep political hurdles. Although Trump has publicly stated he would not enforce the Comstock Act, many in his circle, including Vice President-elect JD Vance, have endorsed using it as a tool to limit abortion rights.

 

Executive power and federal agencies  

 

Trump could also use executive appointments to impose abortion restrictions. By appointing anti-abortion leaders to agencies like the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), and the Department of Justice (DOJ), his administration could advance policies targeting reproductive healthcare providers and medication access.

 

For example, Kristan Hawkins, president of pro-life advocacy organisation Students for Life of America, is pushing for Trump to appoint anti-abortion leaders to these agencies. This could lead to restrictions on Planned Parenthood funding and tighter regulations on abortion medication like mifepristone, even as the FDA has worked to make these drugs more accessible in recent years.

 

Judicial appointments: A long-term strategy  

 

Federal court appointments remain one of Trump’s most powerful tools for shaping abortion policy. In his previous term, Trump appointed anti-abortion judges like Matthew Kacsmaryk, who attempted to revoke the FDA’s approval of mifepristone. Trump’s close relationship with Leonard Leo, co-chair of the conservative Federalist Society, ensures that judicial appointments aligned with anti-abortion ideologies will continue.

 

The anti-abortion movement’s ultimate goal is establishing ‘fetal personhood’, which would grant embryos and fetuses the same legal protections as people. This concept, which was once considered fringe, is gaining traction, with state courts and conservative judges hinting at its potential inclusion in legal precedents. If codified, fetal personhood could not only ban abortion but also restrict birth control and in vitro fertilisation (IVF).

 

Planned parenthood and federal funding  

 

Hawkins and her allies are also lobbying for the defunding of Planned Parenthood, targeting programmes for contraception, cancer screenings, and other preventive services. Although federal funds are prohibited from financing abortions, the Biden administration restored funding that Trump had previously limited. The second term of Trump could see these funds curtailed once again.

 

The looming uncertainty  

 

Trump’s mixed messaging on abortion has left advocates and critics alike speculating about his true intentions. While he has distanced himself from overt bans, his administration is likely to pursue subtler, more systemic approaches to curtail abortion access, relying on the judiciary, federal agencies, and dormant laws like the Comstock Act.

 

For reproductive rights advocates, the battle ahead will likely focus on fighting these indirect threats and safeguarding access at the state level. As the anti-abortion movement gains momentum, the future of reproductive healthcare in the United States remains precarious.