One of the most revealing political moments of 2024 was Jonathan Mitchell, the legal architect behind Texas’s 2021 law that effectively banned abortion, telling the New York Times in February, “We don’t need a federal abortion ban when we have Comstock on the books" and adding "pro-life groups should keep their mouths shut as much as possible until the election."
The Comstock Act, an 1873 law that prohibits anything associated with abortion from being sent in the mail, was rendered moot by Roe v. Wade in the '70s but never formally repealed, and now, with Roe gone, some conservatives, including Mitchell and JD Vance, are pushing for its revival. This isn't liberal hyperbole. They put it in writing, they say it on the record to press. (JD Vance co-signed a letter sent to the DOJ last year asking to enforce this law, and reviving Comstock was also part of Project 2025)
It's been a confusing few weeks, with Trump's “free IVF” pledge, Trump saying he'd vote against Florida's abortion rights ballot measure, and Trump claiming in August claim he'd be "“great for women & their reproductive rights."
I have a piece trying to explain all that’s going, and how Trump’s flip-flopping is playing out with parts of the GOP coalition. Can read that here.
And then today we have a new story about funding in the abortion rights world, looking at real practical and ideological battles about the future of abortion access in America.
This is a challenging time for abortion funds, which are mostly volunteer-led organizations that help people end unwanted pregnancies by paying for their abortions as well as practical support like travel costs. They’ve been facing funding cuts and drops in donations over the last two years, even as tens of millions of dollars pour into the election in the name of protecting reproductive rights.
But some advocates say abortion funds need to take more responsibility for their resistance to engaging a broader swath of donors. Abortion rights ballot measure campaigns, by contrast, have worked to appeal to people who broadly support reproductive rights, but are more moderate overall on the issues.
Abortion funds pride themselves on avoiding language they consider stigmatizing or patronizing, like that abortion should be "a decision between a woman and her doctor." They've openly blasted ballot measures with viability standards, and reject the popular "pro-choice" label. Some also speak out on issues not related to abortion, like the war in Gaza and now Lebanon.
These questions about how to communicate are vexing for activists, who debate how much compromise is acceptable in the pursuit of broader support, given the stakes.
“I came from a more traditional philanthropy space where you had to make sure you never hurt anyone’s feelings or made anyone angry because you might lose a dollar,” Alisha Dingus, of the DC Abortion Fund, told me. “Abortion funds I’ve always found to be more liberated spaces where we can speak truth to power and push for change and not have to worry about one funder here or one funder there. But we are also seeing the reality of people not getting the care they need, people are going to be forced to give birth, so I think it’s tough.”
Meanwhile, other leaders in the movement question the whole premise of prioritizing travel for abortion care, given the high costs associated and the emergence over the last two years of cheaper, safe methods through telemedicine + online sites. Many abortion seekers lack knowledge of these new, more affordable options, and funds and clinics also don’t always provide clear guidance on them, driven by a mix of financial and legal self-interest, as well as a belief that in-person abortion care should be prioritized.
"What we’re seeing is patients are very comfortable embracing telemedicine as an option, but people within our movement have not been as flexible,” said Julie Kay, the co-founder of the Abortion Coalition for Telemedicine, which formed after the Supreme Court overturned Roe. Kay formed her more critical perspective while working in Ireland when abortion was criminalized, and witnessed weaknesses of elevating travel as a solution. "It’s alienating, stigmatizing, and expensive," she said.
There are no simple answers, and some activists are wary about prematurely abandoning the long-held goal of restoring accessible in-person clinic care nationwide, while others worry that leaders’ refusal to adapt to new realities will come at the expense of pregnant people in desperate situations. There’s a bunch more about how this is all playing out with the 2024 election.
You can read the full piece here.
Thanks for reading,
Rachel
