In my examination of the Project 2025 document, I wanted to highlight its view on reproductive rights in general and abortion rights in particular. It proved to be too monumental a task, given the time it would have taken to do justice to a discovery effort.
Although the term “reproductive rights” appears only ten times in the document, there are 199 instances of the word “abortion.” Most instances are included in complaints about how “radical” agendas, ideologies, and policies have backslid into allowing and/or promoting abortions where, in the opinion of the Project’s architects, such policies were illegal or, at least, against some regulation. (The term “radical” in one form or another appears 49 times in the document.)
It seems reasonable to assume that the authors of any writing in which a single term appears as frequently as the term “abortion” appears in the Project are... well, fixated on that word. Although most instances are embedded in complaints, there are more than enough instances appearing in recommendations and “promises” to indicate that the Project is categorically opposed to reproductive rights that include access to abortion and will do everything in its power to prevent women from having bodily autonomy.
There is no direct mention of a national abortion ban in the Project 2025 document. Don’t be fooled. Anyone who thinks the Project isn’t headed that way fast needs to read the document. Or maybe just keep reading here.
I’ve captured just a few instances that will sound like threats to... um... people with “radical ideology.” (All highlighting in these excerpts was added by me.) For the sake of brevity, I have not included recommendations pertaining to non-U.S. governments and populations, of which there are many.
A couple of excerpts from the Foreword:
Did you see the term “national abortion ban?” No; neither did I. Read on.
From the section called The General Welfare:
Here are a few excerpts from the section on the Department of Health and Human Services touching on the architects’ version of religious freedom and the monitoring of health care:
Am I wrong, or will tracking women’s reproductive health concerns pave the way toward a national abortion ban?
The Department of Health and Human Services section also included these gems:
Reverse distorted pro-abortion “interpretations” added to the Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act. [EMTALA has to do with requiring hospitals to provide stabilizing care. To “reverse” it means to prioritize stabilization of the fetus, even if at the expense of the mother’s health.]
... eliminate dangerous tele-abortion and abortion-by-mail distribution.
... reinstate earlier safety protocols for Mifeprex that were mostly eliminated in 2016 and apply these protocols to any generic version of mifepristone.
... prohibit abortion travel funding. [That is, stop supporting the financial needs of women who travel from their home states to procure abortions elsewhere.]
Prohibit Planned Parenthood from receiving Medicaid funds. ... Policymakers should end taxpayer funding of Planned Parenthood (this, despite the many other services—not relating to abortions, and some not even relating to women—provided by PPA). Propose rulemaking to interpret the Medicaid statute to disqualify providers of elective abortion from the Medicaid program.
Among other stipulations that interfere with abortion-related services at hospitals for various reasons, the Project would “Rewrite the ACA abortion separate payment regulation.” This would separate abortion-related coverage and require separate, non-insured payment for these procedures.
When it comes to my own options regarding childbearing, I am—as one might say—beyond the age of consent. Nevertheless, the degree to which Project 2025 would reverse women’s rights in general and reproductive rights in particular horrifies me.
If I had become pregnant in extremely challenging circumstances, I don’t know whether I would have sought an abortion. But I know this: I sure as hell wouldn’t have wanted anyone telling me I couldn’t.
You can subscribe for free to Robin Reardon Writes, though I hope you’ll consider becoming a paid subscriber. It’s not expensive, really! You’ll have access to everything I write on Substack. You’ll also have my undying gratitude.
Not ready for a paid subscription but you really liked this post?
One more thing: If you share this post, you’ll get credit for generosity, and I might get more subscribers.
I’m an inveterate observer of human nature, writing novels about all kinds of people, some of whom happen to be gay or transgender or bisexual or intersex—people whose destinies are not determined solely by their sexual orientation or gender identity. Check out my work on my website.