It is not surprising that the Republican Party has removed support for a national abortion ban from its platform after decades.
It’s not that Donald Trump and his new vice presidential running mate, Sen. J.D. Vance of Ohio, have had some epiphany and given up their longstanding opposition to reproductive rights. It’s more likely that party leaders have realized that the stance risks alienating the millions of voters in conservative, swing states who support reproductive rights. States that voted for Trump in 2020, like Ohio and Kansas, have more recently voted to enshrine abortion rights in their state constitutions or rejected measures that would ban it after the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade in 2022.
Instead, the party included in its platform, which delegates approved this week at the Republican National Convention, a seemingly innocuous statement about defending “families and life.” That sounds reasonable, but it is far more sinister than it seems.
The statement goes on to note that the 14He The amendment “guarantees that no person may be denied life or liberty without due process and that states are therefore free to pass laws protecting those rights.” It then proclaims: “After 51 years, because of us, that power has been vested in the states and a vote of the people.” This is a reference to the Supreme Court’s decision to eliminate the federal right to abortion.
It may be subtle, but it's a clear sign that the party hasn't changed its values. It's a call for more laws recognizing fetal personhood, which can be far more extreme and far-reaching than abortion bans. These laws give fetuses in the womb (and sometimes just fertilized eggs) the same rights as any other person walking around. More importantly, the rights of the fetus trump those of the pregnant woman.
It is outrageous that anyone would support laws that deprive pregnant women of their rights as persons and grant that status to their fetuses. As with all anti-abortion laws, they turn the pregnant woman into little more than an incubator.
According to Pregnancy Justice, an organization that advocates for the rights of pregnant people, 18 states now have some form of fetal personhood law or court-mandated fetal personhood protection law. Depending on how they are interpreted, fetal personhood laws could affect access to abortion, in vitro fertilization (IVF) procedures, and certain types of contraception such as IUDs, because they sometimes kick in after fertilization.
Laws granting legal personhood to fetuses, embryos, and fertilized eggs were kept in check after Roe v. Wade. Now that Roe has been overturned, it's possible that these laws could be used to ban abortion. For example, just days after the Supreme Court's decision in Dobbs, abortion services stopped in Arizona because there is a law granting legal personhood to fetuses, embryos, and fertilized eggs. Advocates were successful in blocking part of the law in federal court. More legal battles are likely ahead here and in other states with similar laws.
But the reason to be concerned about these laws is that they could be used not only to prevent a person from getting an abortion, but also to criminalize a pregnant person for falling down a ladder, using legal drugs or suffering a miscarriage. “You’re turning that person into a walking crime scene,” says Karen Thompson, legal director of Pregnancy Justice.
Laws recognizing fetal personhood may also end up halting IVF procedures. The Alabama Supreme Court’s decision this year that frozen embryos have the same rights as children sparked a national outrage and caused the state’s IVF clinics to suddenly suspend their services. (Alabama then passed a law protecting IVF providers from civil and criminal liability for embryo loss during treatments.) Interestingly, the Republican Party platform also specifically states that the party supports IVF.
Trump continues to take credit for appointing three Supreme Court justices who were instrumental in overturning Roe v. Wade. While he seeks to renege on his past support for a national ban, he declined to tell Time magazine in April whether he would veto such a ban if he becomes president. His running mate opposed Ohio’s ballot measure last year enshrining abortion rights in the Ohio Constitution. Last year he signed a letter from a group of Republican senators and members of Congress calling on Attorney General Merrick Garland to enforce part of a dying 1990 law.He 19th century law, the Comstock Act, which could be used to ban the mailing of abortion pills.
This new platform statement is just a change in language, not values. The Republican Party will not protect a woman's right to control her own body. And voters should not believe otherwise.
