Abortion to IVF: Where Harris and Trump stand on reproductive issues
| Washington
Access to abortion is one of the hottest topics in the 2024 election.
When the U.S. Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade in June 2022, former President Donald Trump celebrated the ruling, and took credit for appointing three pivotal justices. He had fulfilled a core campaign pledge to his socially conservative base.
Why We Wrote This
November will mark the first presidential election since the Supreme Court overturned a nationwide right to abortion. The two parties differ not just in position but in voter intensity over where things go next.
But in his campaign to recapture the White House, Mr. Trump has been notably muted on the subject – or tried to indicate he’s not an absolutist. Still, this summer he announced that, as a Florida resident, he would vote “no” on a proposed state constitutional amendment to allow abortion up to fetal viability, about 22 weeks.
Vice President Kamala Harris, in contrast, has been a strong supporter of abortion rights throughout her political career, and she has made it a major talking point in her campaign. At the same time, she has declined to specify whether she approves of any restrictions on abortion – even in the last trimester – allowing opponents to portray her position as extreme.
This election cycle, a record 32% of U.S. voters say they’ll only vote for candidates for major office who share their views on abortion, according to Gallup. More of those single-issue voters support abortion rights than not.
Access to abortion is one of the hottest topics in the 2024 election – the first presidential contest since the U.S. Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade in June 2022.
At the time, former President Donald Trump celebrated the ruling, and took credit for appointing three justices who helped end the nationwide right to abortion. He had fulfilled a core campaign pledge to his socially conservative base.
But in his campaign to recapture the White House, Mr. Trump has been notably muted on the subject – or tried to indicate he’s not an absolutist. Before entering politics, he had supported abortion rights, calling himself “very pro-choice” in a 1999 interview. Just last year, he called Florida’s ban on abortion beyond six weeks’ gestation “a terrible mistake.” Still, this summer he announced that, as a Florida resident, he would vote “no” on a proposed state constitutional amendment to allow abortion up to fetal viability, about 22 weeks.
Why We Wrote This
November will mark the first presidential election since the Supreme Court overturned a nationwide right to abortion. The two parties differ not just in position but in voter intensity over where things go next.
Vice President Kamala Harris, in contrast, has been a strong supporter of abortion rights throughout her political career. It’s an issue on which she speaks comfortably and fluently – more so than President Joe Biden, who is Roman Catholic – and she has made it a major talking point in her campaign. At the same time, she has declined to specify whether she approves of any restrictions on abortion – even in the last trimester – allowing her opponents to portray her position as extreme.
Polling shows that a majority of Americans support abortion rights. Pew Research Center’s latest survey found 63% of U.S. adults say abortion should be “legal in all or most cases,” while 36% say it should be “illegal in all or most cases.”
This election cycle, a record-high 32% of U.S. voters say they’ll only vote for candidates for major office who share their views on abortion, according to Gallup. And more of those single-issue voters support abortion rights than not.
Voters who favor abortion rights appear to care more now than they did in 2020 about a candidate’s stance on abortion, while anti-abortion voters seem to care less, Gallup analysts write. As a result, “voters’ greater intensity on the issue today ... is explained mainly by Democrats, while Republicans and independents have shown little change.”
How Harris would address abortion
For Ms. Harris, if elected president, having the opportunity to appoint three new Supreme Court justices and see an abortion-rights case rise to the high court could take years – if it happens at all.
She has focused primarily on hewing a legislative path to restoring nationwide abortion rights, with a bill “codifying Roe,” or guaranteeing a right to abortion up to fetal viability.
In September, she proposed eliminating the legislative filibuster in the Senate in order to pass such a bill with a simple majority and not the 60 votes required on most bills. But such a move could have consequences down the road. A Republican president with Republican majorities in both chambers could potentially pass a nationwide ban on abortion with just a simple majority.
Trump’s stand on the issue
Mr. Trump’s statements on an abortion ban have varied over time. His default position is to leave the matter up to the states. But in his Sept. 10 debate with Ms. Harris, he would not explicitly say whether he would veto a federal abortion ban if reelected.
On Oct. 1, during the vice presidential debate, Mr. Trump wrote on X.com that he would veto a federal abortion ban, “because it is up to the states to decide based on the will of their voters.”
He also stated, “I fully support the three exceptions for rape, incest, and the life of the mother.”
What about abortion medication?
In June, the Supreme Court unanimously declined to ban a medication that now accounts for nearly two-thirds of abortions in the United States. But the ruling was based on “standing” – meaning the plaintiffs did not have the right to sue – and not the merits of the case. Advocates of reproductive rights suggest Republican attorneys general in conservative states could launch a new effort to ban the medication, known as mifepristone.
The Biden-Harris administration has expanded access to medication abortion, including via telehealth.
Mr. Trump, meanwhile, has made contradictory statements on medication abortion. In the June 27 presidential debate with Mr. Biden – right after the Supreme Court punted on mifepristone – he said he would not block access to abortion drugs if elected. But in August, in a news conference at his estate in Florida, Mr. Trump would not rule out revoking access to mifepristone.
Another avenue for blocking access to abortion pills would be for the government to enforce the Comstock Act, a 150-year-old federal law that bans the shipment of abortion-related materials. The Biden-Harris administration has not enforced the Comstock Act.
In August, Mr. Trump said he would not invoke the Comstock Act. But the Heritage Foundation, in its Project 2025 recommendations for a future Trump presidency, called for an end to medication abortion and prosecuting people who violate the Comstock Act. In public statements, Mr. Trump has distanced himself from Project 2025.
What about in vitro fertilization?
In February, an Alabama Supreme Court ruling that frozen embryos are children opened a new front in the war over reproductive rights and technologies. The decision initially put a halt to in vitro fertilization (IVF) in that state, as the procedure can result in embryos that are discarded. The state legislature then passed a law aimed at legally protecting IVF patients and providers.
But the dustup shined a light on reproductive technologies and raised larger questions over the beginning of life. And it quickly became a campaign issue. Ohio Sen. JD Vance, Mr. Trump’s running mate, was found to have written the foreword for an anti-IVF report by the Heritage Foundation in 2017.
Mr. Trump himself supports IVF, and said in an NBC interview in August that, if elected, his administration would not only protect access to the procedure but also require that either the government or insurers cover the cost.
“Under the Trump administration, we are going to be paying for that treatment,” Mr. Trump said before adding, “We’re going to be mandating that the insurance company pay.”
Ms. Harris has expressed skepticism that Mr. Trump could deliver on that promise, and called the Alabama Supreme Court decision “shocking.” Her own campaign has highlighted support for reproductive technologies through the experience of her running mate, Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz. Although after claiming he and his wife had used IVF to conceive their two children, he had to correct the record, saying they had used a different technique.
