Republicans Face Challenges on Abortion Issue
Republicans have been struggling to uphold reproductive rights in recent years, losing numerous ballot measures on the abortion issue. GOP primary candidates are now attempting to avoid the topic altogether, acknowledging that the next president may not have the power to make significant changes regarding abortion. Donald Trump, the leading candidate, has made unrealistic claims about implementing a nationwide ban that would please both sides of the debate. In reality, he has tried to neutralize the issue by criticizing a six-week ban while still appealing to evangelical voters. Another GOP hopeful, Nikki Haley, has emphasized that a national ban is unlikely and discussing one alienates swing voters. In essence, Republican candidates are suggesting that a Republican president won’t take significant action on abortion.
However, conservative activists hold a different view. “Project 2025,” a policy playbook developed by the Heritage Foundation and other conservative groups, argues that the United States already has a national ban on abortion. According to Heritage, all that is needed is a conservative president who is willing to enforce it. This approach offers a quick solution to the Republican Party’s political challenges – campaign on maintaining the status quo but enforce the supposed national ban once in office.
The basis for Heritage’s claim can be traced back to the 19th century, with the passage of the Comstock Act, which criminalized the mailing or receiving of items related to abortion. Over the years, courts have interpreted the Act to have implied health exceptions for physicians. However, this interpretation is not relevant to the groups behind “Project 2025.” They believe that, with the repeal of Roe v. Wade, a Republican administration can enforce the Comstock Act from day one, leading to potential prosecutions of anyone involved in abortion-related activities.
Implementing this plan may face legal challenges. Defendants in potential prosecutions will argue against Heritage’s interpretation, claiming it contradicts precedent and may be unconstitutional. This could lead to involvement from the Supreme Court, but there is no guarantee that they will agree with Heritage’s broad reading of the law. The Comstock Act does not include any exceptions for life or health and applies to anyone involved in receiving abortion-related items in the mail. It also does not define abortion and extends to speech about abortion and other “indecent” items. This interpretation goes beyond current state abortion bans.
While voters may question whether Trump would enforce the Comstock Act or if the Supreme Court would support Heritage’s interpretation, the architects of “Project 2025” are confident that a second Trump term could significantly impact abortion rights. Regardless of Congress’s actions, an abortion ban is on the ballot, whether voters want one or not.
