By Lauren Rankin for Yes! Media.
Broadcast version by Farah Siddiqi for Ohio News Connection reporting for the Yes! Media-Public News Service Collaboration

Donald Trump didn't deliver on many of his campaign promises as president, but he did achieve one of his administration's stated goals: overturning Roe v. Wade. After appointing three of the five justices who ended the constitutional right to an abortion and unleashed a growing tragedy, Trump has bragged about his role in undoing nearly 50 years of reproductive health care precedent.

But as we face the prospect of another potential Trump presidency, the architects of Project 2025 have made it clear that overturning Roe was just the first in a multistep plan to eradicate access to safe abortion. Though the Republican Party removed a federal abortion ban from its official party platform, there's something more sinister that's been hiding in plain sight for 150 years.

The Comstock Act, signed into law in 1873, made it a federal offense to disseminate contraceptives, abortifacients, and information about either across state lines or through the mail. Named after Anthony Comstock, an anti-obscenity crusader who inspired the title of the biographical book The Man Who Hated Women, the Comstock Law had far-reaching tentacles. Even married couples who used contraception could be sentenced to up to one year in prison.

Over time, various challenges to the Comstock Act, including United States v. One Package in 1936, which made it possible for physicians to distribute contraception across state lines; Griswold v. Connecticut in 1964, which established the constitutional right to contraception; and, of course, Roe v. Wade in 1973, essentially made it unenforceable. However, the law was never repealed and has instead become a "zombie law," a term used to describe laws still on the books that have been overruled by other legal cases. Take, for instance, Arizona's 1864 abortion ban, a zombie law that became legally viable after the Supreme Court struck down Roe v. Wade. Though Arizona's law was repealed in September, it still remained on the books long enough to instill fear in those seeking and providing abortions in the state.

Now, after the fall of Roe, Project 2025 plans to revive the zombie Comstock Act and make it workable. Since it's already on the books, Congress isn't required to pass the Comstock Act. Instead, a president and appointed judges can choose whether to enforce it. Project 2025 architects hope that, if given another term, Trump will do just that.

A Significant Threat to Abortion

Abortion bans are deeply unpopular in the U.S. Since Roe fell in June 2022, voters have supported abortion rights every single time the issue has been on the ballot, even in traditionally conservative states like Kansas, Montana, and Ohio. While a national abortion ban could threaten congressional seats for Republicans, it would also require control of both houses of Congress and the executive branch, a higher threshold than simply winning the presidency. So, it seems, the architects of Project 2025 have developed a workaround to meet their aims.

After Roe was overturned, President Joe Biden's Department of Justice issued guidance about whether the Comstock Act could be used to criminalize someone who receives mifepristone and misoprostol through the United States Postal Service. "We conclude that section 1461 does not prohibit the mailing, or the delivery or receipt by mail, of mifepristone or misoprostol where the sender lacks the intent that the recipient of the drugs will use them unlawfully," the memorandum opinion states. "Federal law does not prohibit the use of mifepristone and misoprostol," the memorandum continues. "Indeed, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration ('FDA') has determined the use of mifepristone in a regimen with misoprostol to be safe and effective for the medical termination of early pregnancy."

But under a Trump presidency, the DOJ would likely have a different view, especially since Project 2025 explicitly calls for the enforcement of the Comstock Act "against providers and distributors of [abortion] pills."

Additionally, the spate of radical, far-right judges Trump appointed during his first term have already proven their willingness to ignore existing case law to curb access to abortion. In 2023, U.S. District Judge Matthew Kacsmaryk, who has deep ties to the anti-abortion movement, defied court precedent to suspend the approval of mifepristone. "The Court does not second-guess FDA's decision-making lightly," he wrote in his decision. "But here, FDA acquiesced on its legitimate safety concerns-in violation of its statutory duty-based on plainly unsound reasoning and studies that did not support its conclusions."

If Trump is able to appoint even more partisan judges like Kacsmaryk to the federal bench, it's possible they would use the Comstock Act to criminalize folks sending or receiving mifepristone and misoprostol (or even information about it) through the mail. "If the Comstock [Act] were enforced, it would seriously impact the work we do," says Sneha S. Nair, partnerships coordinator at Women First Digital, a collection of online platforms that provides abortion and contraception information and services. "We rely on digital platforms to share [sexual and reproductive health] content worldwide, and restrictions like the Comstock [Act] could lead to significant censorship and suppression of vital information."

But even the threat of Comstock being enforced is concerning for abortion advocates and providers. "What people believe the law to be is just as important, if not more so, than what the law actually is," says Farah Diaz-Tello, senior counsel and legal director at If/When/How, a legal organization that aims to transform the policy landscape to make reproductive justice a reality. "When people have to second-guess what their options are and they just know that there's a sort of vague and looming fear of criminalization ... that is not a risk that everybody has the privilege to tolerate."

For Black and Brown people, who have already borne the brunt of criminalization for pregnancy outcomes, even the threat of an enforceable Comstock Law could be enough of a deterrent to prevent them from seeking necessary care.

Refusing to Be Silent

While Project 2025's architects may be banking on the Comstock Act, they will have to contend with a network of providers and advocates refusing to put the genie back in the draconian bottle. For example, Shout Your Abortion's post-Dobbs campaign, "Fuck SCOTUS, We're Doing It Anyway," promotes information about and access to medication abortion online.

Similarly, the Four Thieves Vinegar Collective, a DIY medical collective, has literally turned an information card about medication abortion into medication abortion. Embedded in the cards are three doses of misoprostol, which can be used on its own to induce an abortion, and since it's a paper card, the pills are harder to detect.

Others believe the best way to combat Project 2025's insidious ploy to use the Comstock Act as a backdoor abortion ban is to refuse to be cowed into silence about the revolutionary power of being able to terminate a pregnancy in your own home.

Today, the majority of abortions in the U.S. are induced through medication, most often a combination of the drugs mifepristone and misoprostol. Telehealth for abortion care, in which a provider virtually prescribes these drugs to patients, has become increasingly popular, even in states with abortion bans.

"The number of people served through telehealth has just grown exponentially since the pandemic," says Elisa Wells, co-founder and co-director of Plan C, which promotes access to medication abortion online. "[When people find out] that you can get an abortion by the mail, which is a really new idea ... they think, 'Wow, that's amazing!'"

Research from the Society for Family Planning's WeCount project revealed that in the second half of 2023, more than 40,000 people in states that restrict telehealth or ban abortion were able to receive medication abortion from providers in states that have "shield" laws that protect providers from being criminalized. Plan C's website traffic has surged since Dobbs; Wells says they now receive approximately 2 million visitors annually.

There's also the option of self-managing abortion with abortion pills. For people in states with severe restrictions or bans, self-managed medical abortion with pills has become an option for many who otherwise wouldn't have access to abortion care. Plan C, for example, showcases many sites that prescribe and mail medication abortion to folks directly, including Aid Access and Hey Jane.

There is a vast digital ecosystem of medication abortion information and services that abortion seekers can have mailed right to their door-unless Project 2025 goes into effect.

"What we are most concerned about is that people have access to accurate information about how to get the pills, how to use the pills, and the fact that in some states there might be legal risks associated with using the pills," says Wells. "Every day is a risk assessment, and people can make good decisions about their lives. It's not for me to say about somebody else's life. What's the best choice for you?"


Lauren Rankin wrote this article for Yes! Media.


get more stories like this via email

Illinois serves as a crucial access point for abortion services and sees the most out-of-state patients in the country.

Since Roe v. Wade was overturned in June 2022, Planned Parenthood of Illinois has seen the largest increase in abortion services than any other state. About 25% of its patients are from out-of-state.

Julie Uhal, program manager of strategic initiatives and impact measurement for Planned Parenthood of Illinois, said they planned for an initial surge but sustained high patient volume has strained their resources. She explained they saw up to a dozen out-of-state patients per month before Roe was overturned.

"We're seeing 800, 900, 1,000 out-of-state patients every single month," Uhal reported. "That hasn't changed. That's remained constant for three years now because abortion bans don't stop the need for abortion care. They just make it more difficult for people to access."

Uhal pointed out many out-of-state patients are uninsured or have insurance in other states which cannot be used in Illinois. Combined with rising health care costs, lower reimbursement rates and threats to Medicaid, she said Planned Parenthood faces financial difficulties, which have already forced them to close four clinics this year.

Planned Parenthood is the largest provider of sexual and reproductive health care in the state. More than 40% of local patients use Medicaid to cover the cost of services, which in addition to abortion care includes birth control, cancer screenings, STI treatment and prenatal and gender-affirming care. Without Medicaid funding, Planned Parenthood of Illinois said it would need about $16 million a year to continue providing services at its current rate.

"A lot of people don't realize that many Planned Parenthood clinics are in areas that are otherwise health care provider deserts for access," Uhal emphasized. "For a lot of people, going in for a birth control appointment might be the only time they see a doctor that year."

Uhal stressed the burden of accessing common health care continues to be placed on the patient since states banned abortion services. The recent Supreme Court ruling which set a precedent to allow states to exclude Planned Parenthood from Medicaid will only worsen the burden. She added helping patients to navigate emotional and logistic barriers to care has been just as important as providing them with care.

"One in four people that can get pregnant will have an abortion at some point in their lifetime," Uhal explained. "So it's really important for people to know that they're not alone. There shouldn't be as much shame and stigma surrounding this as there is."

Planned Parenthood of Illinois opened the Carbondale Health Center in 2023 to help meet the increased demand for services, particularly for patients traveling from the South. About 90% of patients there come from out-of-state.


get more stories like this via email

Abortion rights advocates in Kentucky are concerned as the Department of Health and Human Services has revoked a policy requiring hospitals to provide abortion care in emergency situations.

Known as the Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act, the rule offered federal protection for the procedure, particularly in Kentucky and other red states with near total abortion bans.

Tamarra Wieder, Kentucky state director for Planned Parenthood Alliance Advocates, said stripping away protection will be catastrophic for women in rural counties who already face barriers to care.

"We know in a state like Kentucky that people have already turned up at emergency rooms because of our abortion restrictions," Wieder pointed out. "Doctors have been forced to wait until patients were at life-threatening situations, sepsis, hemorrhage, before they are able to provide care."

According to the National Institutes of Health, pregnancy complications are the fifth-most common reason women of reproductive age visit the emergency room.

Weider added rural communities across the Commonwealth suffer the nation's worst family planning and sexual health outcomes and continue to struggle with access to safe and convenient obstetric and reproductive health care.

"I think it's really important to note that 57% of Kentucky's rural hospitals no longer offer obstetric services, 57%," Weider emphasized.

Kentucky's Human Life Protection Act, passed by lawmakers in 2019, banned all abortions except to save the life of the mother and it went into effect immediately after the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade in 2022. The same year, voters in the Commonwealth rejected a ballot measure which would have amended the state constitution to explicitly deny the right to an abortion.

Arizona doctors have filed a lawsuit to overturn a set of restrictions which they argue interfere with access to abortion care. Arizona voters last year passed Proposition 139 which enshrined the fundamental right to an abortion, up until fetal viability, in the state's constitution.

Gail Deady, senior attorney, Center for Reproductive Rights, which is representing some of the plaintiffs in the case, explained that the abortion rights that were secured because of the measure do not go into effect automatically, and existing laws that limit access must be challenged before they can be struck down under Prop 139.

"This lawsuit is intended to honor the will of the voters and it looks to strike down the most onerous abortion restrictions that are currently on the books in Arizona," she said. "The theory behind this case is that these restrictions do not have any medical basis, they do not make abortions safer."

Deady explained that some of the restrictions include forcing doctors to turn away patients if they suspect a fetal genetic diagnosis is the reason for a patient seeking care, requiring patients to wait at least 24 hours before obtaining abortion care, and banning the use of telehealth for abortion. Mailing abortion pills - like mifepristone - is also prohibited. Conservative, anti-abortion advocates have expressed support for the restrictions, its's unclear if they'll oppose the lawsuit.

Deady argues many Arizonans are facing negative consequences as a result of the laws. She adds that it also means a delay in receiving the care most Arizonans supported last year, and added that Arizona has what she calls a "two-trip" law which requires patients make two separate visits to a clinic.

"Just to hear mandatory, state-scripted information about abortion that often is not medically correct, it spreads misinformation and is designed to make people feel ashamed of the decision that they've made which has now been recognized as a constitutional right in Arizona," she explained.

Deady said her organization is currently advocating for the restrictions to be blocked during litigation. The state attorney generals' office is currently examining the complaint.