This approach would have dire consequences for women in anti-abortion jurisdictions, but it would be far better than the nationwide alternative rule that President Trump was reportedly considering.Although it is banned nationwide, some reports have suggested that President Trump supported a measure that would ban abortions after the age of 16 everywhere. A few weeks — sounds reasonable, but it’s definitely not. That would impose a cap on access to abortion, but not a floor, at least as outlined by advocates such as Sen. Lindsey Graham (R.S.C.).
Under Graham’s approach, conservative states that want to impose stricter restrictions are free to do so.The actual impact is limit Access to abortion in states that favor more permissive rules. And while the majority of abortions occur before 15 or 16 weeks, cutting off access to abortion at that point affects women in many situations where fetal abnormalities are not detected until late in pregnancy. It will be.
So, in these dire circumstances, leaving the decision up to the states is the best we can hope for. Except Trump’s newfound praise for states’ rights is completely ridiculous.
First, look at his record. This man is a politically expedient man, from declaring in 1999 that he was “very pro-abortion” to simply claiming in 2016 that “there should be some kind of punishment” for women who have abortions. I’ve made a lot of claims about abortion as a good thing. Mr. Trump may have core beliefs on some issues. However, abortion is not included in that list.
Then look at his words. He said frankly that the new approach to states’ rights is driven by politics. we should believe him. “Even when we think about the subject of life, we must show great love and compassion, but at the same time recognize that we have an obligation to save and win this country, which is currently in deep decline. We must use common sense for this election,” President Trump said in a social media post on Sunday. In short, this is politics, pure and simple.
Third, and most importantly, consider the questions that Trump cannot or will not answer about his newly developed positions. Will the second Trump administration enforce the Comstock Act, the 1873 law that made it a felony to mail any articles or mail? Designed, modified, or intended to cause abortion? ” And will the Food and Drug Administration restrict or eliminate access to the abortion drug mifepristone during President Trump’s second term?
The Comstock Act is a trump card for abortion opponents. This outdated law had become obsolete over the course of half a century. Roe vs. Wade Because the constitutional right to abortion supersedes any attempt to enforce its provisions.
In the aftermath of Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organizationthe Biden Justice Department said it interpreted the Comstock Act to only cover: illegal abortion. The department’s Office of General Counsel concluded in a Dec. 23, 2022, memo that the law does not prohibit the mailing, delivery, or receipt of abortion pills “if the sender does not intend for the recipient to use them illegally.” Ta.
Despite the law’s broad language, the memo says: [the Postal Service] Everyone has settled on an understanding…which is narrower than the literal interpretation. ”
In fact, the memo says abortion pills can be legally sent to states where abortion is prohibited. This is because some women in those jurisdictions may have access to the drug (for example, if their lives are at risk) and the sender may not have access to the drug. I don’t know if the intended use is illegal.
This raises a serious question: Will the Trump administration follow this narrow interpretation of the law? Of course not. And reinstating the Comstock Act could eliminate not only medical abortions, but all of them. The law covers “any article intended for the purpose of abortion,” so it would include medical equipment and materials.
“If Comstock’s plan was set, there would be no need for a federal ban,” said Jonathan F. Mitchell, author of Texas Senate Bill 8, which created a near-total ban on abortion. He told the New York Times in May. His ally, Pastor Mark Lee Dixon, told me the same thing. “I am convinced that every abortion facility in the United States violates these laws,” Dixon said, referring to Comstock.
And then there’s the FDA, which approved mifepristone in 2000 and expanded access to mifepristone in 2016 and 2021. The Biden administration is currently defending that expansion in a case before the Supreme Court. It is safe to assume that the Trump administration will not take the same position.
In fact, there is little doubt that President Trump’s FDA will completely reverse course on mifepristone and revoke the drug’s approval. That would be catastrophic for access to abortion. The Guttmacher Institute reported last month that medication-induced abortions accounted for 63% of abortions, but that figure includes self-administered abortions and abortions by women who received medication in states where abortion is prohibited. The number is on the low side because it is not.
President Trump should be pressed on these two questions: whether his administration will reinstate Comstock and whether it will ban mifepristone. He doesn’t answer because it’s not in his political interest to do so. He wants it to look reasonable, or to be reasonable.
But don’t be fooled by President Trump’s “leave it to the states” rhetoric. No matter where you live, the Trump administration will pose a serious threat to abortion rights. Women’s reproductive freedom is limited to what Donald Trump and his allies allow, and we all know how little it is.
