Physical Address
304 North Cardinal St.
Dorchester Center, MA 02124
President-elect Trump campaigned on leaving abortion decisions up to the states, but that could be a tough promise to keep when he returns to the Oval Office.
Anti-abortion groups want Trump to quickly take executive action to reimpose federal restrictions from his first term; Republicans in Congress are poised to send him new abortion legislation; and his Justice Department will have to decide whether to continue defending Biden-era abortion policies in several ongoing federal cases or abandon them entirely.
Some of these actions could empower states that seek to restrict abortion, making it even more difficult for women to access abortion care, but others could impose new federal blocks on states that seek to expand reproductive rights .
“You could have versions of history where the Trump administration doesn’t really take aggressive action on abortion and does things that are more like reversing the Biden-era policies and restoring the Trump,” said Mary Ziegler, an abortion law expert and professor at the University of California Davis.
“And there’s a scenario where a second Trump administration goes far beyond abortion, in and out of court. And we really don’t know which of those realities we’re going to see, in part because, however that Trump has been telegraphing his plans to return to office, he hasn’t really been particularly eager to talk about reproductive issues,” Ziegler added.
Advocates on both sides of the issue don’t expect the Trump administration to stay out of the fray.
“Until taxpayers no longer pay for abortion and programs no longer mandate abortion, abortion is federal,” said Kristan Hawkins, president of Students for Life Action, an anti-abortion group.
“The Dobbs decision makes it easier for states to participate, and we appreciate that, but it didn’t shift responsibility away from the federal government.”
Nancy Northup, president and CEO of the Center for Reproductive Rights, said in a statement that her organization anticipated “even more extreme actions” by the Trump administration than in his first term, including attempts to make access to medication abortion or cancel the approval of the drugs entirely.
“We’re going to be in court every day for the next four years, if that’s what it takes,” Northup said.
In Congress, the Republican-controlled House and Senate have big plans to pass anti-abortion legislation and send it to Trump’s desk.
First on the list is a measure that would require health care providers to try to preserve a baby’s life in the rare event that a baby is born after a failed abortion.
The bill was criticized by reproductive medicine experts and Democrats for interfering with complex medical decisions between patients and their doctors.
Republicans passed it in the House last year, but it was blocked in the Democratic-controlled Senate. With a three-seat GOP lead this time around, it’s possible the bill could move forward, with the expectation that Trump will sign it.
Similarly, House and Senate Republicans may find an easier path to include abortion restrictions in government spending and mandated policy bills.
It was a strategy of House Republicans tested last year,as they sought to restrict the military’s reimbursement for abortion-related travel, roll back the ability of Department of Veterans Affairs hospitals to provide abortions, and change the way mifepristone was dispensed.
Anti-abortion provisions and amendments never passed the Democratic Senate, but this year could be different.
On the legal front, Trump will inherit lawsuits that could help determine abortion access for millions of women, and voters have little say.
In many cases, the cases are argued before judges appointed by Trump in his first term.
The stakes were made clear Thursday, when a Trump-appointed federal judge in Texas allowed a trio of red states to sue the Food and Drug Administration over its actions to expand access to mifepristone, one of the two pills used in medical abortion.
U.S. District Judge Matthew Kacsmaryk said Idaho, Missouri and Kansas have legal standing to file a case in Amarillo, Texas.
Last year, the Supreme Court dismissed an earlier version of the lawsuit, saying private individuals had no legal basis to challenge access to mifepristone. But Kacsmaryk kept the case alive by allowing the red states to intervene.
Trump’s attorney general nominee Pam Bondi did not respond directly when asked by Sen. Cory Booker (D-N.J.) at her confirmation hearing if she would commit to defending the FDA’s actions in the case, saying he had to do more research. Bondi vowed not to let her personal anti-abortion views influence her actions.
The FDA has repeatedly found that mifepristone is safe and that a medication abortion regimen that includes mifepristone and a second drug, misoprostol, is a safe and effective alternative to surgical abortions.
Advocates hope the administration will stop defending the case and make regulatory changes, but it could be politically unpopular.
“I think this lawsuit is going to be potentially uncomfortable for the Trump administration, because Trump has been dodging questions about what exactly he wants HHS and FDA to do with mifepristone, what exactly he wants DOJ to do about mifepristone. And the lawsuit before Judge Kacsmaryk raises many of those questions,” Ziegler said.
But Eric Kniffin, a fellow at the Center for Ethics and Public Policy and an expert on religious liberty, said the Trump administration can be light-hearted and still get credit from conservatives.
“They could advance a lot of pro-life policies. They don’t have to advance a federal pro-life law. They just have to stop the excesses that this administration has been taking,” Kniffin said.
“Just the Trump administration taking its foot off the gas would be a big step forward in giving states that want the opportunity to enact pro-life policies.”
One of the first cases where this could happen involves a lawsuit by the Biden administration against Idaho.
Biden’s Justice Department argued that Idaho’s near-total ban on abortion during medical emergencies violates the federal medical emergency statute. The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals heard arguments last year, but has not made a decision.
Most observers expect the Trump administration to drop the case and reverse guidance from the Biden administration that tells hospitals they must provide such care to qualify for federal funding.
Amy Williams Navarro, director of government relations for Reproductive Freedom for All, said in an email that Trump is stacking his cabinet with “anti-abortion zealots” linked to the Heritage Foundation’s Project 2025, which calls for an end to the demand
“Following Project 2025’s mandate, we expect the DOJ to quickly withdraw all pending litigation against states that refuse to provide access to emergency abortion care in violation of federal law,” said Williams Navarro in a statement.
