Vice President Kamala Harris frequently asserts that a potential Trump administration would intrude on women’s pregnancies. In her speeches targeting voters, she has claimed that former President Donald Trump would compel states to monitor women’s pregnancies. On October 29, she specifically referred to “Project 2025” – a conservative policy outline crafted by Trump’s supporters – as evidence for her assertions.
In a campaign event the following evening, Harris reiterated her concerns, echoing remarks from her running mate, Minnesota Governor Tim Walz, who suggested that Project 2025 would mandate women to register with a new federal agency upon becoming pregnant.
Harris’s campaign often highlights Project 2025 in response to inquiries regarding her claims. This document is a policy guideline for a future Republican administration, developed by Trump allies, including The Heritage Foundation and numerous former Trump administration officials. Importantly, it is not an official Trump campaign document.
Contrary to Harris’s statements, Project 2025 does not advocate for sweeping state or federal monitoring of all pregnancies. Rather, it suggests a more rigorous approach to monitoring pregnancies that culminate in fetal death, such as abortions, miscarriages, and stillbirths, in comparison to current federal requirements.
Specifically, the proposal aims to enhance state-level abortion data collection as part of a broader initiative to reshape the Health and Human Services Department into a “Department of Life.” The blueprint suggests that the federal government could withhold funds from states that fail to report comprehensive abortion data to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). This would include various statistics related to abortions, such as the number performed in a state, gestational weeks at which they occur, and the reasons behind them.
At present, while states are not federally mandated to submit abortion data, most do so, with exceptions for California, Maryland, and New Hampshire. Individual state data collection often relies on forms devised by state vital statistics agencies for reporting purposes.
In her recent statements, Harris has become increasingly vague and less accurate than during her address at the Democratic National Convention, where she inaccurately claimed Trump planned to create an “anti-abortion coordinator” to force states to report on women’s miscarriages and abortions.
Furthermore, Trump has distanced himself from Project 2025 recently and has not advocated monitoring pregnancies in any broad sense. When directly asked about whether states should punish women for illegal abortions, Trump indicated that such decisions were ultimately up to the states.
In summary, Harris’s assertion that Trump would compel states to monitor women’s pregnancies is flawed on multiple levels. There is no current proposal from Trump advocating for this kind of oversight, and Project 2025 itself calls for more focused data collection on specific pregnancy outcomes rather than comprehensive monitoring of all pregnancies.
This discourse underscores the contentious landscape of reproductive rights in the United States and highlights the importance of discerning fact from speculation during political discussions. Amidst these disagreements, it is hopeful to see increased public engagement and awareness surrounding reproductive health policies.