The political landscape surrounding abortion and reproductive health in the United States is poised for significant changes following the election of President Donald Trump. Although Trump made promises during his campaign to delegate abortion decisions to the states, his administration is set to have a profound impact on national policies regarding abortion access. His previous campaign focused heavily on the abortion issue, and he consciously sought to appoint Supreme Court justices who would be inclined to overturn Roe v. Wade—landmark legislation that previously guaranteed the right to have an abortion across the country.
The Supreme Court’s ruling in 2022 within the case of Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization catalyzed a political backlash that Trump has sought to avoid in his new term. However, this decision introduced new legal challenges that will require careful navigation by his administration moving forward. Specific issues central to this debate include two significant cases that have already encountered the Supreme Court and are likely to resurface. One concerns federal regulations allowing easier access to abortion pills. The other addresses the contentious matter of whether an emergency room patient in a state that prohibits abortion can seek one if complications threaten her health.
The Trump administration will also face pressure from anti-abortion activists keen to reverse Biden-era policies aimed at enhancing access to abortion in the aftermath of the Dobbs decision. Additionally, there may arise contentious discussions about potential changes to the regulation of mifepristone, a medication often used in medical abortions. In a statement regarding the upcoming administration’s position on abortion policy, a spokesperson reiterated Trump’s consistent stance that the issue should be left to the states. Nonetheless, the federal government inherently possesses a sizeable influence over abortion policy through several means—ranging from overseeing the approval and distribution of abortion medications to managing federal funds related to public health and creating regulations that aim to facilitate access to these procedures following the Supreme Court’s pivotal ruling.
Proponents of abortion rights argue that if Trump’s new Justice Department declines to defend federal policies established by the Biden administration, it would signify an abandonment of his prior assurances to voters. They caution that undermining such policies through court decisions would essentially enact the nationwide reductions in abortion access that Trump had vowed not to execute. In contrast, advocates within the anti-abortion movement are rallying behind calls for actions that would return to the previous administration’s stringent abortion policies without violating Trump’s campaign pledges.
Thought leaders like Eric Kniffin from the Ethics and Public Policy Center frame potential regulatory changes as a means to grant states the autonomy to dictate their own abortion policies while curtailing the perceived overreach of the administrative state experienced under Biden. Indeed, Trump has signaled his belief that abortion policy should largely be a state issue, suggesting a potential retreat from some of the aggressive federal regulations introduced in light of the Supreme Court’s ruling.
The ongoing case regarding the abortion pill, mifepristone, is particularly noteworthy as it continues to unfold within a federal court based in Amarillo, Texas. The outcome of these battles, including a case initiated by three GOP-led states deliberating the legality of mifepristone and associated regulations, poses critical questions for an incoming Trump administration. They must decide whether to uphold the regulations or allow them to be dismantled by challengers in court.
With a litigious landscape emerging, the administration’s decisions might include employing the regulatory framework to implement desired changes to abortion policies, such as reinstating requirements for in-person consultations regarding mifepristone. In particular, any regulatory shifts would likely face backlash and challenge from manufacturers and advocates for reproductive rights.
As the legal landscape develops, challenges to Biden-era policies will come to the forefront, including regulations surrounding public health funding distributions and workplace rules aiding travel for abortion services. The anticipated ongoing legal battles, including those arising from Idaho’s stringent abortion laws, could easily be dropped by a Trump administration DOJ, but external parties involved in the discussions may step in to maintain legal pressure.
Notably, some abortion rights activists hold skepticism regarding Trump’s commitment to uphold the previous administration’s restrictive policies, especially given the appointment of Robert F. Kennedy Jr. as HHS secretary. Historically viewed as more favorable toward abortion rights, his role raises questions about how robustly the Trump administration will pursue anti-abortion policies in practice. The coming months will be crucial as the intricate interplay between federal regulations, state laws, and the evolving judicial landscape shapes the future of reproductive health access and rights in America.
