Project 2025: A Vision for Advancing Women’s Health in the Future

A sweeping conservative policy blueprint, developed by the Heritage Foundation, aims to reshape key aspects of American life. This extensive agenda could significantly alter healthcare access, particularly for marginalized groups. With ties to the previous administration, the plan seeks immediate implementation post-2025.

The framework emphasizes restoring traditional family structures while limiting reproductive rights. Over 200 mentions of abortion highlight its focus on restricting coverage and criminalizing assistance. Such changes may disproportionately impact communities already facing barriers to care.

Global implications mirror domestic concerns, potentially expanding policies like the Global Gag Rule. These shifts could erode decades of progress in women’s autonomy. The full scope of this policy warrants careful examination as it moves toward realization.

For detailed analysis of these proposed changes, review the complete Project 2025 documentation. Subsequent sections will explore specific impacts on reproductive rights, economic security, and healthcare systems.

What Does Project 2025 Say About Women’s Health?

Conservative policymakers aim to redefine women’s healthcare through restrictive measures. The agenda prioritizes traditional family models, often at the expense of individual autonomy. Key proposals include rebranding federal agencies and limiting access to critical services.

Restructuring Reproductive Rights

The plan seeks to codify the Hyde and Weldon Amendments, permanently banning federal abortion funding (p.474). It also proposes renaming HHS as the “Department of Life” (p.489), signaling a focus on fetal rights over maternal health.

Language shifts are equally significant. Terms like “reproductive rights” would disappear from federal documents (pp.4–5). This erasure could weaken legal protections for decades.

Policy Themes and Broader Impacts

Three core themes emerge:

• Religious exemptions: Expanded moral opt-outs for contraception coverage (pp.483–484)
• Education: Abstinence-only programs replacing comprehensive sex ed (p.477)
• Funding: Medicaid used to penalize abortion providers (pp.471–472)

These changes connect to broader conservative goals, including biblical marriage definitions (p.489) and global rights restrictions. The Comstock Act could further limit access to medical supplies.

Project 2025’s Direct Impact on Abortion Access

A 19th-century law might soon dictate 21st-century reproductive rights. Proposed changes target three critical areas: medication abortion, emergency care, and patient privacy. Each could reshape access for millions.

Banning Medication Abortion and the Comstock Act

Medication abortions account for 63% of U.S. procedures. The plan seeks to revoke FDA approval of mifepristone (p.459) and weaponize the Comstock Act to ban mailing abortion pills.

This 1873 law could block distribution nationwide, even in states protecting abortion care. Low-income patients, who rely on mail-order options, would face the steepest barriers.

Eliminating Emergency Abortion Protections Under EMTALA

Current EMTALA guidelines require hospitals to provide emergency abortions. Reversing this (pp.473–474) would prioritize fetal life over maternal health.

In Idaho, similar policies forced patients to travel out-of-state for life-saving care. Nationwide, delays could prove deadly.

Surveillance and Data Collection on Abortions

States would be forced to report detailed data—gestational age, patient demographics—or lose funding (p.455). This mirrors Texas’s controversial reporting system.

Providers fear the information could fuel lawsuits or criminal charges. “Surveillance chills care,” warns a National Partnership for Women report.

• Disproportionate harm: 57% of Black women live in states with restrictive laws.
• Global precedent: Unsafe abortions rose 38% post-restrictions in other regions.

Restrictions on Contraception and Family Planning

Millions could lose contraceptive coverage under proposed policy shifts. These changes target both employer-provided insurance and federally funded clinics, risking access contraception for vulnerable populations.

Rolling Back the Affordable Care Act’s Contraception Mandate

The ACA currently requires insurers to cover birth control without copays. Proposed expansions to religious exemptions (pp.483–484) would let employers deny this coverage based on moral objections.

Ella, an emergency contraceptive, may be excluded entirely. “This isn’t just about pills—it’s about autonomy,” notes a Guttmacher Institute report. Over 48 million people rely on ACA-compliant plans for contraception.

Reinstating the Domestic Gag Rule for Title X Clinics

Title X clinics faced a 60% patient drop under the 2019 gag rule. If reinstated, providers couldn’t refer patients for abortions—or even mention the option.

• Clinic closures: 1,200+ left the network last time, shrinking rural access contraception.
• New requirements: Promote marriage and fertility tracking over effective birth control.

Physical separation rules would further isolate abortion services, complicating care for low-income patients.

These shifts mirror global trends. In Zimbabwe, MSI clinics saw unsafe abortions spike after funding cuts. Similar outcomes could follow in U.S. communities already struggling with access.

Threats to IVF and Fertility Treatments

Fertility treatments face unprecedented challenges under proposed policy shifts. IVF procedures, relied on by 2% of U.S. births annually, could become collateral damage in ideological battles. The agenda explicitly aims to render these methods “obsolete and ethically unthinkable” (p.461).

“Personhood” language poses the gravest risk. If embryos gain legal life status, discarding unused ones might equate to criminal acts. Clinics fear lawsuits over standard practices like genetic testing or embryo freezing.

Three critical IVF vulnerabilities emerge:

• Insurance barriers: Federal funding bans could mirror Hyde Amendment restrictions, pricing out low-income patients.
• Storage dilemmas: Frozen embryos may require indefinite maintenance, escalating costs.
• LGBTQ+ exclusion: Same-sex couples often depend on third-party reproduction, now at higher risk.

Global precedents warn of consequences. Italy’s 2004 fertility treatments ban saw success rates plummet by 30%. Similar restrictions in the U.S. could worsen declining birth rates.

Ethical debates are being weaponized. “This isn’t theology—it’s medicine,” argues ASRM President Dr. Marcelle Cedars. Yet policy drafts reframe embryo disposal as “fetal loss,” chilling provider speech.

Ultimately, these changes align with broader traditional family goals. By limiting rights to reproductive autonomy, the agenda reshapes who can build families—and how.

Global Consequences of Project 2025’s Policies

U.S. policy shifts could trigger healthcare crises worldwide. Proposed expansions of restrictive measures threaten services for millions in developing nations. These changes mirror past actions with proven harmful consequences.

Reinstating the Global Gag Rule

The expanded Mexico City Policy would cover all foreign assistance—including humanitarian aid. This marks a 700% funding increase from previous versions, affecting $51 billion annually.

Three critical impacts emerge:

• Clinic closures: Zimbabwe’s MSI program could lose 80% of its funding, shutting down 12 rural health centers
• Service restrictions: Providers receiving U.S. funds couldn’t discuss abortion—even in countries where it’s legal
• Data gaps: Reporting requirements might expose patients to legal risks in restrictive regions

“When clinics close, women don’t stop needing care—they seek dangerous alternatives,” reports a 2023 WHO study on African maternal health.

Defunding International Reproductive Health Programs

UNFPA faces complete defunding, mirroring Trump-era cuts. This agency provides 25% of global maternal health services in crisis zones.

Key vulnerabilities include:

• Antenatal care reductions in refugee camps
• Contraception stockouts in Latin America
• Midwife training cancellations across Africa

The Geneva Consensus Declaration revival could cement these changes. This policy framework equates abortion rights with human rights violations—a stance rejected by 70 UN member states.

Ultimately, these measures risk reversing decades of global health progress. The consequences will be measured in lives lost, warns a former UN health director.

How Project 2025 Uses Disinformation to Shape Policy

Federal documents may soon erase decades of reproductive health terminology. This strategic removal of terms like “abortion” (pp.4–5) aims to reframe public discourse. Such disinformation tactics obscure medical realities while advancing ideological goals.

Erasing Reproductive Health Language

The plan mandates deleting government references to reproductive rights. Phrases like “gender-affirming care” would vanish, replaced by terms like “fetal life protection.” This linguistic shift could:

• Restrict access to accurate medical information
• Enable policies criminalizing standard procedures
• Complicate insurance coverage claims

Historical parallels exist. “Language control precedes rights erosion,” notes ACLU’s reproductive justice director. Similar tactics targeted LGBTQ+ health terms in 2017.

Abstinence-Only as Anti-Pornography

Comprehensive sex education faces reclassification as “pornography” (p.5). Schools teaching contraceptive methods risk losing funding. This disinformation campaign:

• Promotes medically inaccurate curricula
• Expands crisis pregnancy center funding
• Links transgender healthcare bans to broader censorship

Texas’s recent textbook revisions show the danger. Biology chapters now omit HPV vaccine details, correlating with rising cervical cancer rates.

“When facts become debatable, public health suffers,” warns a 2023 JAMA report on medical misinformation.

Patient privacy also erodes. Proposed data collection would track abortion seekers—a tactic previously used to target providers. These changes mirror global authoritarian playbooks, not democratic norms.

Conclusion

Reproductive autonomy faces unprecedented threats under proposed federal changes. From abortion bans to IVF restrictions, these policies target rights at every level.

Global health systems will feel the ripple effects. The Dobbs decision previewed this trajectory—now amplified by 140+ former officials shaping Project 2025.

The 2024 election will determine the future of access. Advocacy groups like Howard Brown Health urge voter mobilization to protect existing protections.

Complacency risks irreversible harm. International solidarity and local action are critical to counter systemic erosion. The time to defend rights is now.