The annual March for Life, held in Washington, D.C. last Friday, is a gathering of fervent anti-abortion activists. Participants fill the streets with signs proclaiming “Abortion is Murder,” “Defund Planned Parenthood,” and “We are the Pro-Life Generation.”
However, this year, a sense of disappointment lingered among some marchers. Donald Trump’s campaign promises of federal-level anti-abortion action hadn’t materialized. A pre-recorded video message from the president and live remarks from Vice President JD Vance did little to alleviate this feeling.
Then, House Speaker Mike Johnson took the stage, shifting the atmosphere. He declared a significant victory for the anti-abortion movement, citing two brief passages within a recently issued, unrelated executive order.
“I don’t know if you saw [Trump’s] executive order on gender,” he announced to enthusiastic applause, “But it defines life as beginning at conception rather than birth!”
Johnson’s statement confirmed the worst fears of many reproductive rights advocates: Republicans, at both federal and state levels, are planning to aggressively restrict reproductive rights using the concept of personhood – the religious belief that life begins at conception, and rights should be granted accordingly. This strategy involves subtly embedding inaccurate language regarding gender and personhood into legislation.
This wasn’t unexpected for long-time reproductive rights advocates. But it represented a stark departure from recent events.
The 2024 election appeared to signal a turning point in the ongoing culture wars. For the first time in years, Republican candidates largely avoided the abortion issue during campaigning. Democrats capitalized on this, using ads to attack their opponents for the overturning of Roe v. Wade and promising further action. In response, leading Republicans released videos pledging not to interfere with reproductive rights. Candidate Trump explicitly stated he wouldn’t support a federal abortion ban.
Instead, the Republican party adopted a new approach, relentlessly attacking the transgender community, claiming they were trying to erase and endanger women. Consequently, Trump’s first executive order addressed gender, asserting that sex is immutable and binary.
The order itself was problematic, aiming to stigmatize and threaten transgender individuals under the pretense of women’s protection. However, buried within the “policy and definitions” section were two words Johnson now celebrated: sex assigned “at conception.” In essence, this signifies personhood.
The implications of personhood are far-reaching – potentially eliminating IVF, prosecuting miscarriages, and granting legal standing to embryos. Most alarmingly, it could necessitate doctors prioritizing a fetus’s life equally with the pregnant woman’s when making medical decisions.
Voters have consistently rejected personhood when it’s been on the ballot, even in deeply conservative states. However, some state abortion bans enacted after the overturning of Roe include personhood-like language. Trump’s executive order marks the first time this concept has been so explicitly stated in a federal decree.
Some legal experts advise against immediate alarm regarding the Trump order. Steven Vladek, a Georgetown law professor and CNN legal analyst, suggests the order is an inept attempt to define gender, not the beginning of life. The order itself, he argues, doesn’t directly impact abortion laws. However, he adds that it could be a precursor to future actions concerning the legal status of life.
Others hold a more pessimistic view. Jill Habig, founder and president of the Public Rights Project, believes the administration is laying the groundwork to define a fetus as a person from conception. They will likely incorporate this language into future regulations, legislation, and legal arguments to broaden its application. She states that establishing fetal personhood would severely restrict abortion access nationwide, along with various birth control methods and fertility treatments like IVF.
Right-wing leaders are celebrating this move. Kristan Hawkins, president of Students for Life, declared: “BREAKING: President Trump’s executive order that proclaims that there are only TWO GENDERS also recognizes that human life BEGINS AT CONCEPTION!” Pro-life lawyer Mike Whitehead praised the measure as “masterfully precise,” calling personhood at conception a “foundational pro-life premise.” Grassroots activists expressed belief this could “end ALL abortions in the United States,” urging continued prayer. But none of these statements were as definitive as Speaker Johnson’s announcement, confirming the Republicans’ intention to pursue personhood under this administration.
For this reason, reproductive rights supporters urge taking this seriously.
“I think they are 100% committed to advancing personhood to criminalize all forms of abortion and will insert this language in every EO and bill they can—regardless of relevance,” says Dr. Dara Kass, a physician and former Regional Director at the Department of Health and Human Services. “There is no role for the term conception in this EO and it is there to confer that one’s rights and fully formed identities are set at conception, not at viability or birth.”
This action aligns with the strategy that initially united anti-choice advocates and Trump: rejecting scientific evidence and truth, imposing radical political and religious views to normalize extreme policies. And this is just the beginning.