Inside Project 2025's Attack On Reproductive Rights

INSIDE
PROJECT 2025'S
ATTACK ON
REPRODUCTIVE
RIGHTS
Media Matters for America 1

Table of Contents
Executive Summary 3
Project 2025’s extreme anti-choice agenda 4
Project 2025 partners have argued against access to abortion pills like mifepristone 5
Project 2025 partners have argued against access to contraception 7
Project 2025 partners have argued against access to IVF 8
Project 2025 partners have argued against surrogacy 9
Appendix 10
The Heritage Foundation 10
1792 Exchange 13
ACLJ Action 13
Alabama Policy Institute 13
Alliance Defending Freedom 14
American Association of Pro-Life Obstetricians and Gynecologists 16
American Compass 17
The American Conservative 17
American Cornerstone Institute 19
American Family Association 19
America First Legal 21
American Legislative Exchange Council 21
American Principles Project 21
Americans United for Life 23
AMAC Action 25
California Family Council 25
Center for Family and Human Rights 27
Center for Renewing America 27
The Claremont Institute 28
Concerned Women for America 28
Discovery Institute 29
Eagle Forum 31
Ethics and Public Policy Center 32
Family Policy Alliance 33
Family Research Council 34
First Liberty Institute 36
ForAmerica 36
The Frederick Douglass Foundation 37
The Heartland Institute 37
Independent Women’s Forum 38
Intercollegiate Studies Institute 39
Dr. James Dobson Family Institute 39
Liberty University 40
Media Research Center 41
Mississippi Center for Public Policy 42
The National Center for Public Policy Research and Project 21 Black Leadership Network 42
Students for Life of America 43
Susan B. Anthony Pro-Life America 44
Tea Party Patriots 46
Texas Public Policy Foundation 46
Turning Point USA 47
Young America’s Foundation 48
Executive Summary
Organizations involved in Project 2025 —
a broad effort from more than 100 groups within
the conservative movement to provide staffing
and policy positions to a potential second Donald
Trump administration — have advocated for extreme
rollbacks to reproductive rights and access to health
care.1
Project 2025 is a radical right-wing transition plan organized by conservative think tank
The Heritage Foundation.2 The initiative’s nearly 900-page policy book, titled Mandate for
Leadership: The Conservative Promise, describes — among many other issues — Project
2025’s plan to attack reproductive rights from several angles. The proposals put forward
include removing the term “abortion” from all federal laws and regulations, reversing
approval of abortion medications, punishing providers by withdrawing federal health
funding, and restricting clinics that provide contraception and STD testing. A chapter
in Mandate for Leadership also calls for the next Republican administration to use the
Comstock Act, “an 1873 anti-vice law banning the mailing of obscene matter and articles
used to produce abortion,” to effectively end “mail-order abortions.” 3,4
The Heritage Foundation has been publishing Mandate for Leadership policy books
coinciding with presidential elections since 1980, but this is the first year Heritage has
included more than 100 right-wing partner organizations, making it a conservative
coalition effort.5 Beyond what’s in the official policy book, many of the Project 2025
partner organizations — including those with strong ties to Christian nationalism — have
also leveled other attacks on reproductive rights.6 These groups have collectively called
for massive restrictions on access to contraception, in vitro fertilization, surrogacy, and
abortion drugs such as mifepristone — which are now used in 63% of abortions in the
United States.7
¹ The Heritage Foundation, “Project 2025 Reaches 100 Coalition Partners, Continues to Grow in Preparation for Next President, 2/20/24, https://www.heritage.
org/press/project-2025-reaches-100-coalition-partners-continues-grow-preparation-next-president
² Sophie Lawton, Jacina Hollins-Borges, Jack Wheatley, John Knefel, and Ethan Collier, Media Matters, “A guide to Project 2025, the extreme right-wing
agenda for the next Republican administration,” 3/20/24, https://www.mediamatters.org/heritage-foundation/guide-project-2025-extreme-right-wing-
agenda-next-republican-administration#paragraph--section-heading--3459067
³ Melissa Gira Grant, The New Republic, “Conservatives Plan to Ban Abortion and Cut LGBT Rights Starting Next January,” 2/8/24, https://newrepublic.com/
article/178848/ban-abortion-trump-lgbtq-project-2025
⁴ Mabel Felix, Laurie Sobel, and Alina Salganicoff, KFF, “The Comstock Act: Implications for Abortion Care Nationwide,” 4/15/24, https://www.kff.org/womens-
health-policy/issue-brief/the-comstock-act-implications-for-abortion-care-nationwide/
⁵ Kim Phillips-Fein, The Nation, “The Mandate for Leadership, Then and Now,” 6/4/24,https://www.thenation.com/article/archive/the-conservative-promise/
6
John Knefel, Media Matters, “Mainstream media outlets are ignoring the Christian nationalism behind the push to destroy the federal civil service,” 4/27/23,
https://www.mediamatters.org/diversity-discrimination/mainstream-media-outlets-are-ignoring-christian-nationalism-behind-push
7
Rachel K. Jones and Amy Friedrich-Karnik, Guttmacher Institute, “Medication Abortion Accounted for 63% of All US Abortions in 2023—An Increase from
53% in 2020,” March 2024, https://www.guttmacher.org/2024/03/medication-abortion-accounted-63-all-us-abortions-2023-increase-53-2020
Specifically Project 2025 partner groups have:
∙ Spread misinformation about contraceptive methods or championed limiting
access to contraception, largely on religious grounds.8
∙ Published written content, supported legal efforts, or had organizational
leadership make comments against the use of safe and effective abortion pills,
specifically mifepristone.9
» Additionally, The Heritage Foundation, America First Legal, and the
Center for Renewing America have endorsed reviving the Comstock Act
to restrict access to abortion by potentially banning the mailing of all
materials that could be used for the procedure.10
∙ Publicly criticized in vitro fertilization.11
∙ Published and publicly presented anti-surrogacy arguments.12
Taken together, it’s clear that the policies advocated by Project 2025 and its members
represent a grave threat to reproductive rights and autonomy throughout the country.
Project 2025’s extreme anti-choice agenda

Project 2025 has laid out extreme far-right policy suggestions around reproductive
rights. The group’s published policy book includes proposals such as removing the term
“abortion” from all federal laws and regulations, reversing abortion pill approval, punishing
providers by withdrawing federal health care funding, and restricting clinics that provide
contraception and STD testing.13
The Mandate for Leadership policy book suggests:

∙ Striking any mention of “abortion, reproductive health, [and] reproductive rights” from
government laws, policies, and regulations.14
∙ Reinstating the Comstock Act to end “mail-order abortions.” 15,13
∙ Restructuring Medicaid to avoid providing reproductive health care and penalize providers
who do.13
8
Charis Hoard, Jasmine Geonzon, and Audrey McCabe, Media Matters, “Inside Project 2025's attack on reproductive rights: Contraception,” 6/24/24, https://
www.mediamatters.org/project-2025/inside-project-2025s-attack-reproductive-rights-contraception
9
Sophie Lawton, Jacina Hollins-Borges, and Jack Wheatley, Media Matters, “Inside Project 2025's attack on reproductive rights: Mifepristone and alternative
abortion pills,” 6/24/24, https://www.mediamatters.org/project-2025/inside-project-2025s-attack-reproductive-rights-mifepristone-and-alternative-
abortion
10
Mabel Felix, Laurie Sobel, and Alina Salganicoff, KFF, “The Comstock Act: Implications for Abortion Care Nationwide,” 4/15/24, https://www.kff.org/womens-
health-policy/issue-brief/the-comstock-act-implications-for-abortion-care-nationwide/
11
Sophie Lawton, Jacina Hollins-Borges, and John Knefel, Media Matters, “Inside Project 2025's attack on reproductive rights: IVF,” 6/24/24, https://www.
mediamatters.org/project-2025/inside-project-2025s-attack-reproductive-rights-ivf
12
Jacina Hollins-Borges and Sophie Lawton, Media Matters, “Inside Project 2025's attack on reproductive rights: Surrogacy,” 6/24/24, https://www.
mediamatters.org/project-2025/inside-project-2025s-attack-reproductive-rights-surrogacy
13
Sophie Lawton, Jacina Hollins-Borges, Jack Wheatley, John Knefel, and Ethan Collier, Media Matters, “A guide to Project 2025, the extreme right-wing
agenda for the next Republican administration,” 3/20/24, https://www.mediamatters.org/heritage-foundation/guide-project-2025-extreme-right-wing-
agenda-next-republican-administration#paragraph--section-heading--3459067
14
Project 2025, “Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise,” 2023, https://cloudfront.mediamatters.org/static/D8File/2024/03/26/2025_
mandateforleadership_full.pdf
15
Melissa Gira Grant, The New Republic, “Conservatives Plan to Ban Abortion and Cut LGBT Rights Starting Next January,” 2/8/24, https://newrepublic.com/
article/178848/ban-abortion-trump-lgbtq-project-2025
∙ Restarting Trump-era “religious and moral exemptions to the contraceptive mandate”
through the Affordable Care Act that would allow employers to deny coverage.16
∙ Eliminating any CDC programs or projects that are deemed pro-abortion.14
∙ Subtly promoting anti-surrogacy positions, writing that “all children have a right to be raised
by the men and women who conceived them.” 13
∙ Reinstating an expanded, Trump-era version of a longtime Republican presidential policy
barring nongovernmental organizations receiving U.S. aid from providing abortion services
or advocating for legal abortion.13,17
∙ Reversing a Biden administration policy that requires hospitals to offer abortions in medical
emergencies regardless of state bans.18
∙ Ending all fetal tissue research.19,13
∙ Eliminating emergency contraceptives such as ella or “the week-after pill” from being
protected by the Affordable Care Act’s contraceptive mandate.13,20
∙ Calling for the Food and Drug Administration to “reverse its approval of chemical abortion
drugs” falsely claiming the drugs are unsafe for women and approval was “illegal from the
start.” 13
∙ Reverting back to stricter restrictions around mifepristone, including an in-person
dispensing requirement.13
Project 2025 partners have argued against access to

abortion pills like mifepristone
At least 31 Project 2025 partners have published

written content, supported legal efforts, or had
organizational leadership make comments against the
use of safe and effective abortion pills, specifically
mifepristone.9
Additionally, 10 partner organizations led by the

Alliance Defending Freedom were involved in a
Supreme Court case against the FDA for approving
mifepristone and subsequent regulatory actions
easing access. The case was unanimously rejected by
the court, which ruled that the parties who challenged
the FDA’s approval of mifepristone did not have legal
standing for the lawsuit.21
16
Center for Disease Control and Prevention, “Classifications for Fertility Awareness–Based Methods,” accessed 3/19/24, https://www.cdc.gov/
reproductivehealth/contraception/mmwr/mec/appendixf.html
17
KFF, “The Mexico City Policy: An Explainer,” 1/28/21, https://www.kff.org/global-health-policy/fact-sheet/mexico-city-policy-explainer/
18
Alice Miranda Ollstein, Politico, “The anti-abortion plan ready for Trump on Day One,” 1/29/24, https://www.politico.com/news/2024/01/29/trump-abortion-
ban-2024-campaign-00138417
19
Nathaniel Weixel, Brett Samuels, The Hill, “Ex-Trump officials plot out sweeping abortion restrictions for return to office,” 2/26/24, https://thehill.com/
policy/healthcare/4485313-ex-trump-officials-plot-out-sweeping-abortion-restrictions-for-return-to-office/
20
ella, “ella® FAQs,” accessed 6/5/24, https://www.ella-now.com/faqs/is-ella-an-abortion-pill/
21
Jordan Rubin, MSNBC, “Supreme Court rejects mifepristone abortion pill challenge on standing grounds,” 6/13/24, https://www.msnbc.com/deadline-white-
house/deadline-legal-blog/supreme-court-abortion-pill-mifepristone-ruling-rcna155625
The case, U.S. Food and Drug Administration v. Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine, sought to reverse
FDA approval of mifepristone, or alternatively more recent relaxations of restrictions, accusing
the FDA of hastily approving it in 200022. The American Association of Pro-Life Obstetricians and
Gynecologists is a member of the Alliance, and ACLJ Action, Americans United for Life, the Ethics
and Public Policy Center, Family Policy Alliance, the Dr. James Dobson Family Institute, Susan B.
Anthony Pro-Life America, the Texas Public Policy Foundation, and Young America’s Foundation
submitted amicus briefs in support of the case.
In targeting mifepristone, these allied organizations advance false claims about the drug’s
safety:
∙ Mifepristone is an overwhelmingly safe and effective drug, with less than 1% of patients
experiencing serious side effects after
taking it.23 Nevertheless, the Heritage
Foundation and at least 20 other “States can use “police
Project 2025 partner organizations
have published or said publicly that
power to restrict or
abortion medication is unsafe for
women, calling them “high-risk drugs”
prohibit abortion—
that are “exceedingly hazardous,” and including particular
claiming there is “nothing safe about
DIY abortion.” methods of abortion,
∙ Some have embraced a legislative
approach to restrict mifepristone,
such as by pill.”
celebrating Louisiana’s new law
that reclassifies mifepristone and -Sarah Parshall Perry,
misoprostol under the state’s Uniform The Heritage Foundation
Controlled Dangerous Substances
Law.24 These medications have other
uses, such as to aid in labor and
delivery, postpartum hemorrhaging, and for miscarriage care, and the 2023 law creates
legal uncertainties that could delay or even prevent care in such situations. The law would
make carrying the medications without a prescription punishable by prison time and
requires physicians to have a specific license to prescribe them.
∙ Project 2025 partners often push a bogus “abortion reversal” process for those who have
taken mifepristone, which the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists says
“is not supported by science.”25
∙ In 2017, Americans United for Life’s Vice President of Legal Affairs Denise Burke
testified in favor of a Colorado law that would require abortion providers to tell
patients about abortion reversal as part of a requirement for “informed consent.”9
22
Jasmine Geonzon, Ethan Collier, and Rob Savillo, Media Matters, “A looming court decision could revoke abortion pill access nationwide: MSNBC is the
only cable channel adequately covering it,” 3/3/23, https://www.mediamatters.org/health-care/looming-court-decision-could-revoke-abortion-pill-access-
nationwide-msnbc-only-cable
23
American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, “ACOG Leads Amicus Brief Calling Mifepristone Conclusively Safe and Effective,” 2/10/23, https://
www.acog.org/news/news-releases/2023/02/acog-leads-amicus-brief-calling-mifepristone-conclusively-safe-and-effective
24
Daniella Silva and Natalie Obregon, NBC News, “Louisiana governor signs bill classifying abortion pills as controlled dangerous substances,” 5/24/24, https://
www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/louisiana-law-abortion-pills-controlled-dangerous-substances-rcna153937
25
The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, “Facts Are Important: Medication Abortion ‘Reversal’ Is Not Supported by Science,” accessed
6/10/24, https://www.acog.org/advocacy/facts-are-important/medication-abortion-reversal-is-not-supported-by-science
Project 2025 partners have argued against access to
contraception
At least 34 Project 2025 partner organizations have spread misinformation about contraceptive
methods or championed limiting access to contraception, largely on religious grounds.8
∙ Several Project 2025 partners have pushed back against Obama and Biden
administration policies expanding access to birth control, targeting a section of the
Affordable Care Act that mandates employers provide health insurance coverage for
contraception.26 Removal of the contraceptive mandate or even portions of the mandate
from the ACA would allow employers to refuse coverage of contraceptives due to religious
or moral exemptions.
∙ Some partner groups have
suggested policies to restrict
contraceptives or expressed the
∙
desire to ban them.
These organizations often “Birth control, like, really
fearmonger with false information
to justify restricting various
screws up female brains,
contraceptives, such as claiming
IUDs and emergency contraception
by the way.”
pills act as “abortifacients” (a
substance used to terminate a -Charlie Kirk,
pregnancy) or suggesting that daily Turning Point USA founder
hormonal birth control can cause
future infertility.
26
Laurie Sobel, Alina Salganicoff, and Ivette Gomez, KFF, “State and Federal Contraceptive Coverage Requirements: Implications for Women and Employers,”
3/29/18, https://www.kff.org/womens-health-policy/issue-brief/state-and-federal-contraceptive-coverage-requirements-implications-for-women-and-
employers/
Project 2025 partners have argued against access to IVF
At least 22 partner organizations of Project 2025 have publicly criticized in vitro fertilization,
according to a Media Matters review.11
The procedure has been in the political spotlight following a ruling by the Alabama Supreme Court
that extended de facto personhood rights to frozen embryos, severely curtailing access to IVF in
the state. The decision caused significant public backlash, though many of Project 2025’s partner
organizations praised the ruling.27
Other opposition to the procedure from Project 2025 partners has included fearmongering that
IVF is a form of eugenics, suggesting that it exploits women, or claiming that it is commodifying
children — even arguing in some cases that the procedure should be restricted to only married
heterosexual couples. Some Project 2025 partner organizations have also baselessly claimed that
IVF is underregulated, ignoring the multiple federal and state guidelines and licensing requirements
that providers must meet.
∙ Many of Project 2025 partner organizations praised the Alabama Supreme Court ruling
which held that frozen embryos cultivated through IVF treatment have the same rights as
living children, and that a person can be held liable for destroying embryos.28
∙ The Heritage Foundation’s Emma Waters published two articles celebrating the
decision, calling it “an unqualified victory.”
∙ Some suggested implementing laws or regulations limiting IVF that have proven to be
unsuccessful in states or countries where they have already been implemented.
∙ Partner organizations extensively fearmongered about IVF, comparing it to eugenics or
claiming it will lead to more extreme technologies such as cloning.
∙ Students for Life of America even claimed IVF encourages “targeted killing” based
on “undesirable traits.”
∙ Eagle Forum and Susan B. Anthony Pro-Life America claimed that relaxing
restrictions on IVF will lead to cloning or genetic engineering of human embryos.
∙ Others condemned IVF on religious and moral grounds. A few of the organizations claimed
IVF should be restricted to married heterosexual couples and used the issue to espoused
anti-LGBTQ views.
“We cannot ignore the

plight of our embryonic
brothers and sisters.”
-California Family Council
27
Kim Chandler, The Associated Press, “Facing backlash over frozen embryo ruling, Alabama lawmakers look for a fix,” 2/23/24, https://apnews.com/article/
alabama-ivf-embryo-frozen-aec76246aad81bc58cd9e51e422a4521
28
Sophie Lawton and Jacina Hollins-Borges, Media Matters, “Trump claims he supports IVF access. The think tank behind the next GOP administration
is strongly opposed.” 3/1/24, https://www.mediamatters.org/heritage-foundation/trump-claims-he-supports-ivf-access-think-tank-behind-next-gop-
administration
Project 2025 partners have argued against surrogacy
The Heritage Foundation and at least 17 partner organizations of Project 2025 have published and
publicly presented anti-surrogacy
arguments, according to a Media
Matters review.12
The Heritage Foundation has been a

leading voice in the right-wing anti-
surrogacy campaign. Fellow Emma
Waters has published multiple pieces
arguing that surrogacy exploits
women and is morally wrong. Other
Project 2025 partners have argued
against surrogacy because it allows
for LGBTQ families to have children.
Right-wing groups not affiliated with
Project 2025 have also argued against
expanding access to surrogacy,
claiming it is “modern day slavery” and
arguing that banning surrogacy is part
of the “pro-life” agenda because it
creates “a motherless child.”29,30
∙ The majority of the partner
organizations who publicly
opposed surrogacy made
unsubstantiated claims
that the surrogacy industry
is exploiting women
in a transactional or
dehumanizing procedure
that causes damage to the
mother or child.
∙ Many partner
organizations also
opposed the procedure
“There are parallels between
because of explicitly human trafficking and
anti-LGBTQ views or due
to religious and moral surrogacy”
objections, such as
suggesting surrogacy is
part of the “destruction of -Alliance Defending Freedom white paper
the family.”
29
Christopher Ingraham, Minnesota Reformer, “Minnesota conservative groups liken surrogacy to slavery,” 3/22/24, https://minnesotareformer.
com/2024/03/22/minnesota-conservative-groups-liken-surrogacy-to-slavery/
30
Katy Faust, The Federalist, “The Conservative, Pro-Life Case Against Surrogacy,” 12/4/23, https://thefederalist.com/2023/12/04/the-conservative-pro-life-
case-against-surrogacy/
Appendix
The following is a list of Project 2025 partner organizations’ public comments and stances against
abortion medication, contraceptives, IVF, and surrogacy.
The Heritage Foundation
Mifepristone/Abortion Drugs
∙ In an article about the Supreme Court case on the FDA’s mifepristone regulations,
Heritage senior legal fellow Thomas Jipping claims abortion pills are “dangerous
drugs.” Jipping opened the piece saying that “abortion poisons everything it touches,” and
goes on to argue that the FDA violated the Comstock Act, a 19th-century law considered
“dead” by some in Congress who support its repeal. [The Heritage Foundation, 1/17/24; The
Hill, 4/2/24]
∙ In a post on X (formerly Twitter), The Heritage Foundation wrote, “Think the abortion pill
is safe? Think again.” [Twitter/X, 12/13/23]
∙ The Heritage Foundation hosted a panel on abortion pills moderated by senior legal
fellow Sarah Parshall Perry that included Rep. Bob Good (R-VA), ADF senior counsel
Erik Baptist, and American Association of Pro-Life Obstetricians and Gynecologists
CEO Christina Francis. Francis claimed that mifepristone users visit the emergency room
more often than those who get surgical abortions, even claiming up to 35% of chemical
abortions result in an ER visit. These claims are the same as those from a retracted 2021
study. Francis repeated this claim later in the panel, stating abortion drugs have “high
complication rates.” [YouTube, 11/13/23, 11/13/23; Salon, 3/20/24]
∙ In a piece celebrating the U.S. District Court ruling against both the initial approval of
the drug and the FDA’s relaxation of mifepristone regulations, Perry called Texas Judge
Matthew Kacsmaryk’s opinion a “recognition of the dangers of mifepristone to both
mother and child.” [The Heritage Foundation, 8/13/23]
∙ In a 2023 post on X, Heritage stated “FACT: The abortion pill poses serious health risks
to women. The FDA should never have authorized it.” [Twitter/X, 3/20/23]
∙ In another article by Perry on the Heritage site, she claimed states can use “police
power to restrict or prohibit abortion—including particular methods of abortion, such
as by pill.” [The Heritage Foundation, 2/22/23]
∙ Perry wrote in a 2023 article that states should be working to ban abortion drugs,
despite the FDA calling them “safe and effective.” She also claimed the Supreme Court
overturning Roe v. Wade means “states can close off chemical abortions altogether.” [The
Heritage Foundation, 1/11/23]
∙ In an article on the Heritage website about the Biden administration allowing
pharmacies to distribute mifepristone, visiting fellow Melanie Israel wrote that
“abortion pills aren’t safe.” [The Heritage Foundation, 1/6/23]
∙ In 2022, The Heritage Foundation published a coalition letter to members of Congress
in an effort to “legislate abortion policy at the federal level.” The letter called on the
federal government to “limit the interstate flow of dangerous abortion drugs” and falsely
claimed abortion pills put “women’s health and safety at risk.” The letter was also signed
by other Project 2025 partner organizations including Susan B. Anthony Pro-Life America,
Americans United for Life, the Ethics and Public Policy Center, and Concerned Women for
America. [The Heritage Foundation, 12/4/22]
Contraceptives
∙ The Heritage Foundation’s Emma Waters falsely claimed that hormonal birth control
could harm the future fertility of those who use it because “birth control actually tells
your body that it’s pregnant all the time.” “For women who have been on birth control
for a long time, it can impact your fertility. There are cases of women who have been
on birth control for a decade or more, and then they go off of it and are ready to start a
family with their partner and then find that it’s a lot harder than they thought,” Waters
said. “What happens is birth control actually tells your body that it’s pregnant all the time.
And so rather than functioning in a normal state of the potential to become pregnant and
then not, it just tells your body that it’s constantly pregnant. And so then after a decade
or more of that, when you’re actually trying to get pregnant, it doesn’t work right for your
body because it’s like, ‘Oh, well we’ve been in this state for a decade. You want us to do
something different now?’” According to Cleveland Clinic, most hormonal birth control
methods have not been found to harm future fertility. [The Heritage Foundation, Heritage
Explains, 7/19/23; The Washington Post, 3/21/24; Cleveland Clinic, 1/16/23]
IVF
∙ In a post to X, The Heritage Foundation appeared to express support for the Alabama
IVF ruling, writing, “FACT: The Alabama Supreme Court decision does not threaten
access to IVF,” and claiming that the decision “reassures parents” that frozen embryos
will be safer. [Twitter/X, 3/7/24]
∙ Senior legal fellow Thomas Jipping wrote that the Alabama Supreme Court ruling on
embryos that imperiled IVF “got it right” and further suggested that abortion should
not be legal. Jipping also denied the ruling is “an attack on IVF technology itself ... or
could have revolutionary ripple effects,” belittling “the media, politicians, and activists”
who discussed the ruling’s consequences. He concluded that while this case was about
destroyed embryos, “causing the death of an unborn child by abortion is legal [in] more
than half of the United States.” [The Heritage Foundation, 4/2/24]
∙ The Heritage Foundation’s Emma Waters has written extensively against assisted
reproductive technologies, particularly IVF and surrogacy. Her opposition draws on
unsubstantiated concerns about possible harms to children who lack access to both
biological parents and on biblical teaching about proper procreation. [Media Matters,
3/1/24, 4/2/24]
∙ In a March article titled “Why the IVF Industry Must Be Regulated,” Waters laid out policy
recommendations that would impose heavy medical restrictions on IVF and make the
procedure more difficult for couples to access and harder for facilities to perform.
[Media Matters, 3/19/24]
∙ In an article describing her biblical reasoning for not supporting IVF, Waters argued
that it is important for Protestants specifically to “take a firm and authoritative stance
on reproductive technology” because “Protestants necessarily hold a central place in
America’s political and institutional life.” [The Heritage Foundation, 1/24/24]
∙ Waters celebrated the Alabama Supreme Court ruling on IVF, calling it “an unqualified
victory” and claiming “parents should be grateful that their embryos will receive
greater protection.” In another piece on the ruling, Waters suggested states adopt
stricter laws around IVF procedures, like those that exist in some European countries.
[The Heritage Foundation, 2/27/24, 2/28/24]

∙ In a 2023 article, Waters complained about a California bill that would allow single
parents or same-sex couples to access IVF through their health care service plans,
stating, “No amount of technology or health insurance coverage can alter God’s created
order.” She also claimed that allowing more widespread use of IVF procedures would
create a “human trafficking market.” [The Heritage Foundation, 6/20/23]
∙ Waters repeated her complaints about LGBTQ couples using IVF and other assisted
reproductive technologies in another article titled “Radical ‘Right to Build Families Act’
Would Unleash IVF and Commercial Surrogacy.” In the article, Waters claimed that “the
pro-abortion and the LGBTQ coalitions” are pushing assisted reproductive technologies,
writing that both coalitions “have been quite hostile to the rights of children and the
unborn.” [The Heritage Foundation, 1/13/23]
Surrogacy
∙ Heritage Foundation senior research associate Emma Waters has written extensively
against assisted reproductive technologies, particularly IVF and surrogacy. Her
opposition draws on unsubstantiated concerns about possible harms to children who
lack access to both biological parents and on biblical teaching about proper procreation.
[Media Matters, 3/1/24, 4/2/24]
∙ Waters argued that surrogacy and IVF translate to “concubinage” and “a form of
slavery.” In the same piece, she wrote that the surrogacy and IVF “industry functions as a
form of commercialized and contractual baby selling.” [The Heritage Foundation, 2/1/24]
∙ Waters cites the Bible to attack surrogacy, writing that “such actions produce pain,
hardship, and sin in the lives of those who partake.” Waters referenced Genesis 2, in
which “God gave man and woman strict boundaries through which to procreate.” She
went on, writing that using a surrogate or gamete donation is “a violation of the seventh
commandment” and likening the procedure to adultery. [The Heritage Foundation, 1/24/24]
∙ Writing for Heritage, Waters directed Christians to “move beyond the superficial view
that if surrogacy and assisted reproductive technology result in the birth of a live child,
then it must be good.” [The Heritage Foundation, 1/24/24]
∙ In a piece titled “California Creates Baby-Selling Market Through ‘In Vitro Fertilization
for All,’” Waters leaned on the right-wing talking point that same-sex parent
households supposedly create worse outcomes for children. She argued that
surrogacy “reinforces the myth that a synthetic same-sex coupling is equivalent to the
natural family” and that it “creates children in relationship arrangements it knows will
be much more likely to be anxious, depressed, and at risk for physical and sexual abuse
compared to children raised by their natural, married mothers and fathers.” [The Heritage
Foundation, 6/20/23]
∙ Waters has said that commercial surrogacy serves to “erase biological mothers” and
contributes to “the erasure of motherhood.” Her language echoes anti-trans rhetoric,
which frequently accuses transgender people of “erasing women.” [The Heritage
Foundation, 1/8/24; American Moment, Moment of Truth, 12/12/22]
∙ Waters attributed “the recent push to expand IVF and commercial surrogacy rights”
to groups “quite hostile to the rights of children and the unborn,” including “the pro-
abortion and the LGBTQ coalitions.” [The Heritage Foundation, 1/13/23]
∙ During a 2022 appearance on American Moment’s Moment of Truth podcast, Waters said
it was “a big problem” that taxpayer-funded military insurance provides for surrogate
mothers. [American Moment, Moment of Truth, 12/12/22]

∙ Waters called on the government to ban international commercial surrogacy, saying it
“devalues the meaning of citizenship” and promotes “the commodification of women
and children.” [The Heritage Foundation, 11/30/22]
1792 Exchange
∙ Right-wing nonprofit 1792 Exchange wrote in its corporate bias rating report on CVS
Health that the company is “high risk” because it continued to dispense mifepristone
at some pharmacies in spite of a related wrongful termination lawsuit from a former
employee. 1792 Exchange also criticized CVS Health because it supposedly “pushes
for the use of abortion-inducing drugs across the country.” [1792 Exchange, accessed
4/16/24]
Surrogacy
∙ 1792 Exchange published a corporate “spotlight bias report” on Netflix, criticizing the
streaming service for offering “adoption, surrogacy and parental leave for same-sex
couples.” [1792 Exchange, accessed 4/2/24]
ACLJ Action
∙ ACLJ’s Jay and Jordan Sekulow called mifepristone “deadly abortion pills” while
describing the organization’s position in U.S. Food and Drug Administration v. Alliance
for Hippocratic Medicine. [ACLJ, 6/22/23]
∙ In a piece explaining why the organization filed an amicus brief in that case, ACLJ
senior counsel Walter M. Weber wrote that “mailing abortion pills is an act of
racketeering that violates the federal RICO statute.” The ACLJ’s brief asked the court
“to uphold an injunction against federal approval of abortion pills and against federal
loosening of restrictions on abortion pills.” [ACLJ, 5/12/23; U.S. Supreme Court, U.S.
Food and Drug Administration v. Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine, Brief of Amicus Curiae,
5/09/23]
Alabama Policy Institute
IVF
∙ In an interview with the Family Policy Alliance, Alabama Policy Institute president and
CEO Stephanie Smith claimed, “The Alabama Supreme Court ruled — correctly, in our
opinion — that those embryos were children and should be treated as children under our
wrongful death statutes.” Referencing Louisiana’s strict IVF laws, she went on to suggest
new parameters that would make the treatment more difficult to receive. [YouTube,
2/29/24, 2/29/24]
∙ API released a joint statement with Susan B. Anthony Pro-Life America criticizing
Alabama’s stop-gap measure to protect providers of IVF from criminal charges. The
statement said, “It is unacceptable the Alabama Legislature has advanced a bill that falls
short of pro-life expectations and fails to respect the dignity of human life.” [The New York
Times, 2/28/24]
Alliance Defending Freedom
∙ Along with other anti-abortion medical groups and doctors, Alliance Defending
Freedom is a plaintiff in the lawsuit against the FDA to limit access to mifepristone.
[The Guardian, 5/17/23]
∙ ADF has defended plaintiffs in at least 22 cases in 10 states and the District of Columbia
which challenged the Obama-era requirement for employers to provide insurance that
covers mifepristone and other reproductive care. [ADF, accessed 4/18/24]
∙ ADF intervened to defend a nurse practitioner named Chelsea Mynyk who offered
abortion pill reversal in Colorado in spite of a state law barring the protocol, arguing
that “by banning Chelsea from providing this care, Colorado is violating her religious
freedom.” [ADF, 4/12/24]
∙ In a piece that criticized retail pharmacies dispensing mifepristone, ADF senior counsel
Erin Morrow Hawley wrote that looser restrictions on the medication “all but ensure
the abortion drug will be unsafe for many women, ubiquitous, and routinely mailed into
states where it is unlawful.” She added that CVS and Walgreens have removed “important
safeguards on abortion drugs.” [ADF, 3/26/24]
∙ ADF CEO Kristen Waggoner said that the data on mifepristone “suggests that it
endangers women.” [Politico, 3/25/24, 11/18/22]
∙ In an article titled “The FDA’s Unforgivable Deceptions on Chemical-Abortion Drugs,”
Hawley wrote that “no one should be okay with the FDA leaving pregnant women to take
these high-risk drugs all alone.” She then urged the Supreme Court to “put the health
and well-being of pregnant women first by reinstating necessary safeguards for abortion
drugs.” [ADF, 3/15/24]
∙ In a piece titled “What the FDA Hasn’t Told You About Mifepristone,” ADF senior
counsel Erik Baptist claimed that “the FDA has ignored” that abortion pills “can cause
significant and serious complications.” [ADF, 3/14/23]
Contraceptives
∙ ADF counsel Rory Gray defended a Minnesota pharmacist who refused to dispense
emergency contraception, asserting the religious views of the pharmacist means he
“cannot provide or facilitate the use of any potential abortion-causing drugs.” Gray
suggested that the “devout Christian” pharmacist was being denied his “constitutionally
protected freedom to act consistent with his beliefs at work.” [CBS News, 3/19/24]
∙ In 2014, ADF announced that it would represent the anti-abortion group March for Life
in a lawsuit over the Affordable Care Act’s preventive services mandate. According
to the Charlotte Lozier Institute, the mandate would force March for Life to act in
contradiction to its anti-abortion mission by making it provide insurance coverage for
“drugs and devices that can prevent or dislodge the implantation of a human embryo after
fertilization” such as emergency contraception and IUDs. Kevin Theriot, senior counsel at
the ADF, said that the group’s “legal fight for March for Life is a fight for the rights of pro-
life organizations everywhere.” [Alliance Defending Freedom, 9/4/14; The Charlotte Lozier
Institute, 7/18/14]
IVF
∙ In an article titled “In IVF case, Alabama Supreme Court protects life from conception,”
ADF senior counsel Denise Burke claimed the Alabama ruling was “a victory for life and
the rights of parents.” Burke argued, “Cases like this one demonstrate that being pro-
life entails more than just protecting unborn children from abortion.” [Alliance Defending
Freedom, 3/18/24]
∙ In a statement, Burke called the Alabama ruling “a tremendous victory” for “unborn
children created through assisted reproductive technology.” [The New York Times,
2/22/24]
Surrogacy
∙ The Alliance Defending Freedom published a white paper titled “Surrogacy, Law &
Human Rights” in which the organization claimed, “Surrogacy violates the human rights
and inherent dignity of women,” and suggested there are various “health dangers” of
surrogacy that are not talked about. The white paper asserts that there are “parallels
between human trafficking and surrogacy” and between “surrogacy and prostitution.”
In an apparent policy suggestion, the ADF stated, “In order to fulfil their obligations to
protect the human rights and fundamental dignity of women, States are required to
prohibit the act of surrogacy in their national legislation.” [Alliance Defending Freedom
International, 2022]
∙ ADF was reportedly consulted by the European Court of Justice about surrogacy laws
in France. ADF international director of European advocacy Robert Clarke was quoted
as saying, “It is important to uphold these laws protecting children and the family from
the raw, undignified commercialization of the human person by the surrogacy industry.”
[BioEdge, 5/26/19]
∙ Former ADF senior counsel Jeff Shafer appeared on a panel at a Heritage Foundation
event where he referred to surrogacy as the ability to “rent women to gestate these
children that are desired.” He also criticized surrogacy and alternative reproductive
technologies for opening the door to same-sex couples to conceive children. [YouTube,
12/13/18]
∙ Shafer published an article in The Federalist titled “Babies For Sale, In A Market Near
You.” He claimed, “The surrogacy industry exists to decouple child-creation from conjugal
relations, to separate gestation from enduring motherhood, and to make biological ties
irrelevant to legal child custody.” [The Federalist, 10/6/15]

American Association of Pro-Life Obstetricians and Gynecologists
∙ The American Association of Pro-Life Obstetricians and Gynecologists is a plaintiff
in the Alliance Defending Freedom’s lawsuit against the FDA to suspend the use of
mifepristone. [Washington State Standard, 2/6/24]
∙ AAPLOG runs a program called “Abortion Pill Reversal” that invites “pro-life medical
professionals” to “provide urgent care to women who regret starting medication
abortions.” The idea of reversing an abortion pill’s effect with progesterone is not
supported by science. A 2012 study on the protocol had just six participants and no control
group, and was not supervised or reviewed. A later 2020 study was ended early “due to
safety concerns among the participants.” In its statement on abortion pill reversal, the
organization included statistics on serious complications from abortion medication
and referred to reversal as “another reproductive choice for women facing the abortion
decision.” It repeatedly emphasizes that abortions are reversed with a “natural hormone.”
[AAPLOG, accessed 4/17/24, 2019; ACOG, accessed 4/19/24]
∙ In response to efforts to ban abortion “reversal” treatments in Colorado, AAPLOG
released a statement which said: “Efforts by abortion proponents to outlaw
progesterone therapy after mifepristone consumption are not based on science or
good medical ethics.” [AAPLOG, 9/27/23; Reuters, 10/23/23]
∙ AAPLOG often attacks mifepristone as a way for “abusers and traffickers” to easily
coerce patients into abortion. In a response to the Fifth Circuit of Appeals ruling to
reinstate restrictions on mifepristone, AAPLOG wrote that the previous “deregulations
have placed women and girls at greater risk of life-threatening complications, as well as
coerced abortion by abusers and traffickers.” [AAPLOG, 8/16/23]
∙ In a “Myth vs. Fact” piece on “maternal medical care,” AAPLOG wrote that “the
dangerous push in recent years to dispense abortion pills through the mail or without a
doctor’s visit presents a grave threat to women’s health.” [AAPLOG, 8/29/22]
∙ Now-CEO Christina Francis warned in 2021 of “mounting evidence of significant
adverse events and maternal deaths” from mifepristone, in a piece originally published
by Deseret News. [AAPLOG, 5/18/21; Salt Lake Tribune, 11/18/23]
∙ Throughout the 2000s and early 2010s, AAPLOG argued through letters, press releases,
and articles that mifepristone is dangerous. [AAPLOG, 1/25/10]
Contraceptives
∙ AAPLOG has falsely claimed that “the IUD has been well documented to act after
fertilization, causing embryo death” and that “IUDs clearly can cause the death of
embryos both before and after implantation.” According to the Guttmacher Institute,
IUDs prevent implantation of a fertilized egg, which is not considered an abortion by
medical standards. “A contraceptive method, by definition, prevents pregnancy by
interfering with ovulation, fertilization or implantation. Abortion ends an established
pregnancy, after implantation,” Guttmacher wrote. “This scientific definition of
pregnancy—which reflects the fact that most fertilized eggs naturally fail to implant in
the uterus—is also the legal definition, and has long been accepted by federal agencies
… and by U.S. and international medical associations.” [American Association of Pro-Life
Obstetricians and Gynecologists, 1/15/20; Guttmacher Institute, 12/9/14]
∙ In a 2013 NPR story, AAPLOG’s Donna Harrison falsely suggested that ella, a brand of
emergency contraception, “kills embryos before they implant, and it kills embryos after
they implant.” Harrison, who currently leads the Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine (the
organization suing the FDA over mifepristone), also stated that ella’s chemical similarity
to mifepristone, sometimes referred to as RU-486, means that “an equal dose of ella and
RU-486 … cause equal actions.” According to ella, its pill only prevents ovulation from
occurring; ella “can not cause an abortion and it will not have any effect in a case where an
egg has already been fertilised.” [NPR, 2/21/13; ella, accessed 4/12/24]
∙ A 2018 report from Reproductive Freedom for All (formerly NARAL Pro-Choice America)
detailed some of the misinformation spread by AAPLOG, including the well-debunked
false claim “that Plan B emergency contraception causes abortion.” The Guttmacher
Institute explained in 2014 that studies produced after Plan B’s FDA approval “have led to
the conclusion that [Plan B] does not cause changes to the endometrium (uterine lining)
that would hamper implantation.” The FDA updated Plan B’s label to reflect this research
in 2022. [Reproductive Freedom for All, accessed 4/5/24; Guttmacher Institute, 12/9/14;
Reuters, 12/23/22]
Surrogacy
∙ AAPLOG filed an amicus brief asking the Supreme Court to take up a surrogacy case
and stop the “exploitation” of mothers and children. [The Hill, 9/30/17; The Washington
Post, 5/24/18]
American Compass
Surrogacy
∙ In an article on American Compass’s site, Newsweek’s Philip Jeffery wrote that
surrogacy is one of “the ways in which sex and children are treated and discussed as
consumer commodities.” [American Compass, 10/2/20]
The American Conservative
∙ The American Conservative celebrated U.S. Food and Drug Administration v. Alliance
for Hippocratic Medicine, saying that banning access to mifepristone would be “a
major blow to abortion activists’ cause” and would create precedent to change “an
untouchable federal agency.” Contributing editor Carmel Richardson wrote that the anti-
abortion movement “has been all but apologizing for” overturning Roe v. Wade “at the ballot
box ever since,” but the possibility of a mifepristone ban is a “positive step forward.” [The
American Conservative, 5/19/23]
∙ After the Supreme Court said that mifepristone should stay broadly available as the
case is litigated, Richardson called on Congress to ban abortion, “including a ban
on drugs prescribed for the purpose of inducing the death of a pre-born child.” [The
∙ Richardson has also claimed that mifepristone is dangerous for patients, writing that
“the lives of unborn babies, and those of several of their mothers” are at stake in the
mifepristone case. [The American Conservative, 4/14/23]
Contraceptives
∙ A 2023 piece from the right-wing magazine The American Conservative argued that
there is “an undeniable connection between free-and-easy birth control and the
unraveling of American order.” Reacting to news of the FDA green-lighting the first
contraceptive pill allowed to be sold over the counter, the author fearmongered, “The
FDA’s move here will make children, trafficking victims, and anyone else with limited
agency more available for sex than ever before.” It also cited the Supreme Court decision
protecting contraception in Griswold v. Connecticut as an example of “which terrible
SCOTUS precedent should be overturned next.” [The American Conservative, 7/15/23]
∙ Another piece from the magazine warned readers, “Don’t believe it when people say
Plan B isn’t abortifacient.” The piece said the medication’s prevention of a fertilized
egg implanting in the uterus is akin to abortion “for people who believe life begins at
conception.” [The American Conservative, 12/8/11]
IVF
∙ An article in The American Conservative by contributor Carmel Richardson claimed IVF
is helping the “LGBT movement” distort the meaning of family. Richardson wrote, “To
limit the baby-making industry is to give hard answers to those who would like a chicken
in every pot and a baby in every lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender arm.” Richardson
later disparaged IVF for allowing even a “transgender pedophile” to have a child. [The
∙ Contributor Christopher Brunet argued in a piece titled, “A personal IVF story” that he
“should be allowed to condemn IVF” because “while one may born as the result of a
rape, for example, it does not mean that they can’t condemn rape.” Brunet called IVF
“the hope and despair of professional women in middle management” and “propaganda
against nature, persuading a generation of collegiate women that they’re not losing
fertility every day after they turn 20.” Brunet also admonished Republicans for caving to
pressure to support IVF, writing, “Just as there is now no going back on IVF, there is also
no going back on gay marriage, civil rights, demographic replacement.” [The American
Conservative, 2/28/24]
∙ Them Before Us President Katy Faust published a story in The American Conservative
titled “Alabama sets the stage for a Supreme Court fight over IVF,” in which she praised
the Alabama ruling and claimed Louisiana has similar guidelines about embryos.
Faust claimed these laws “protect children from their rampant destruction at the hands
of #BigFertility” and called on fellow pro-life supporters to “not only challenge the baby-
taking industry, but the baby-making industry.” [The American Conservative, 2/24/24]
Surrogacy
∙ The American Conservative published a story bemoaning the possibility that some
transgender women might become mothers and complaining that surrogacy is opening
the door for LGBTQ families to have children. The article also claimed that “surrogacy
should also be an easy target for the conservative movement” as the “next big culture war
battle.” [The American Conservative, 12/22/23]
∙ Various authors writing for The American Conservative have made derogatory claims
about surrogacy, including calling it a “moral abomination” and “relegation of women
to the status of incubators.” In a piece from 2016, columnist Rod Dreher called surrogacy
“inhuman” and “unnatural.” In 2022, Dreher called it “an abomination.” Them Before Us
founder Katy Faust wrote a piece for The American Conservative in which she compared
surrogacy with child trafficking, claiming that “the process can be indistinguishable.” [The
American Conservative, 3/19/22, 2/16/16, 6/28/22, 5/18/22]
∙ A 2021 article by former American Conservative editor Declan Leary argued,
“Surrogacy is an unmitigated and unconscionable evil.” Leary also denounced the idea of
gay couples having children and reprimanded adoption agencies for placing children with
them. [The American Conservative, 9/8/21]
American Cornerstone Institute
Contraceptives
∙ In an opinion piece for The Washington Times, ACI’s founder and former Trump official
Ben Carson called the Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Supreme Court decision that allows
employers to decline to cover contraception on religious grounds “fortunate.” Carson
praised the court, writing that the court majority “still thinks that religious beliefs and
personal choice have a valid place in American society,” and argued, “Legally requiring
the side opposed to a form of birth control to be financially responsible for its distribution
to any employee who wants it is distinctly un-American and abusive to the concept of
freedom of religion.” [The Washington Times, 7/8/14]
American Family Association
∙ American Family Association’s news outlet, American Family News, published an
article on the Louisiana law categorizing mifepristone as a controlled dangerous
substance that called the drug “Fetus-killing abortion pills” and failed to include that
the law will likely inhibit access to the drug and ensure harsher penalties for people
who obtain it without a prescription. The piece misleadingly implies the new law would
mainly be used to punish people for “misusing” the drugs by coercing a pregnant person
to take them or slipping it unknowingly to a pregnant person. [American Family News,
5/28/24; CNN, 5/24/24]
∙ Jordan Chamblee, a writer for American Family Association’s publication The Stand,
claimed that the Biden administration paving the way for retail pharmacies to dispense
abortion pills is “prioritizing the interests of the abortion industry over women’s health
and safety.” He claimed that “chemical abortions are dangerous,” as they “can result in
serious complications such as sepsis, hemorrhaging, and even death.” Chamblee also
promoted The Abortion Pill Rescue Network (APRN), which offers abortion pill reversal.
[American Family Association, 4/10/23]

∙ After the FDA allowed mifepristone to be dispensed by mail, AFA Executive Vice
President Ed Vitagliano said that this promoted “an agenda of wanton destruction
eliminating tens of thousands of people who would become innovators and creators.”
[American Family Association, 12/20/21]
∙ An AFA article criticized abortion clinics for not advertising the existence of abortion
reversal, and claimed that they “fail to inform their patients about what to expect after
they take the pill and leave the clinic.” [American Family Association, 7/15/19]
Contraceptives
∙ An article published by the American Family Association falsely conflated
contraceptive methods like the IUD and Plan B pill as “abortifacients.” The article hit
science educator Bill Nye for supposedly suggesting he “thinks fertilized eggs aren’t
humans,” noting that his “argument that personhood begins at the point of implantation
… would serve as an argument to support the use of abortifacients (pills, like Plan B
morning-after pill, or devices like the IUD – designed to stop a fertilized egg from attaching
to the womb).” [American Family Association, 2/19/18; Guttmacher Institute, 12/9/14]
∙ NPR’s Terry Gross said then-conservative radio host Bryan Fischer advocated for
making “contraception available only to married couples” during his time as director
of issues analysis for the American Family Association. In an article he wrote for U.S.
News & World Report, Fischer said Plan B’s over-the-counter availability has “created a
predator’s paradise,” claiming that “a predator, thanks to this dangerous decision, can now
take advantage of a vulnerable teenage girl and then send her into the local Walgreens to
cover his own criminal tracks.” Fischer has been credited for shifting Republican Party
officials, particularly Mitt Romney during his 2012 presidential run, further right on issues
like contraception, which were previously seen as uncontroversial. [NPR, 6/14/12; U.S.
News & World Report, 5/3/13]
IVF
∙ In a call to action against Mississippi’s “anti-life” bill HB 1688, American Family
Association claimed the bill would grant an “unrestricted right to destroy unborn
children” through procedures such as IVF. The organization called it a “very bad
amendment” and asked readers to contact their local lawmakers about the bill. HB 1688
would protect the right to assisted reproductive procedures in Mississippi. [American
Family Association, 3/8/24; Mississippi Today, 3/7/24]
∙ In a second call to action against Mississippi’s HB 1688, AFA Vice President Walker
Wildmon stated that the bill “creates an unrestricted right to destroy unborn children as
part of very broadly defined ‘treatments or procedures.’” [American Family Association,
3/11/24]
∙ On his podcast At The Core, Wildmon claimed, “The ruling in Alabama had to do with
wasting embryos, or dumping embryos or discarding” and went on to state “eyes are
being opened to how much of a disregard as a culture we’ve had for babies with this IVF
discussion.” [American Family Radio, At The Core, 2/28/24]
∙ In a Facebook live panel hosted by AFA about the Alabama IVF ruling, Wildmon claimed,
“An embryo is a baby,” and stated, “IVF is not being threatened here.” [Facebook,
American Family Association Action, 3/1/24]

America First Legal
∙ Project 2025 contributor and vice president of America First Legal Gene Hamilton, who
wrote the section of Mandate for Leadership on the Department of Justice, pushed in
that section to enforce the Comstock Act, which could be used to restrict abortion
medication nationwide. [Rolling Stone, 12/22/23; Teen Vogue, 2/7/24]
Contraceptives
∙ America First Legal in March celebrated “a massive victory in our lawsuit against
the Biden admin for attempting to provide birth control to minor children without
parental consent.” America First Legal provided counsel for a parent who argued that the
availability of birth control to minors through the federal program Title X “nullifies his right
to consent to his children’s medical care, infringing on his state-created right.” [Twitter/X,
3/15/24; U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, Deanda v. Becerra, 3/12/24]
∙ In 2022, America First Legal provided counsel in a lawsuit that endangered Americans’
guaranteed access to free contraception under the Affordable Care Act. The plaintiffs
represented by America First Legal argued that the ACA’s contraceptive mandate goes
against their religious beliefs because it includes medications enabling “homosexual
behavior, drug use, or sexual activity outside of marriage between one man and one
woman.” The lawsuit’s ruling ended the requirement that insurance plans cover essential
health care such as contraception and health screenings for cancers and prediabetes.
[NPR, 8/9/22; Protect Our Care, 3/31/23]
American Legislative Exchange Council
Contraceptives
∙ American Legislative Exchange Council said the Affordable Care Act’s contraceptive
mandate “dilutes [the] fundamental right” to “religious profession and worship.”
[American Legislative Exchange Council, 11/13/15]
American Principles Project
∙ The American Principles Project backed the bill of Reps. Diana Harshbarger (R-TN) and
Kevin Hern (R-OK) to tighten restrictions on mifepristone, with the APP President Terry
Schilling arguing that easier access to abortion pills means dispensing “dangerous pills
online” and “empowering abusers by making it even easier for them to get their hands
on abortion drugs.” [Website of Rep. Diana Harshbarger, 1/18/23]
∙ On Twitter, APP shared an article promoting abortion pill reversal: “#Abortion Pill
Reversal: When ‘Pro-Choicers’ Don’t Support a Woman’s Choice.” [Twitter/X, 9/14/17]
∙ During the Obama administration, APP celebrated the fight against what it calls “the
abortion pill mandate,” the Department of Health and Human Services requirement for
employers to provide insurance that covers abortion pills. [Twitter/X, 3/6/13, 7/10/12]
Contraceptives
∙ American Principles Project President Terry Schilling raised concern over the
possibility of the Biden administration requiring anti-abortion employers to
provide contraception in their health coverage plans. Fox News reported that the
Biden administration is considering repealing a moral exception to the coverage rule
but maintaining a religious exemption. Schilling “said it is unclear how far the Biden
administration would be able to use its proposed rule against organizations who oppose
contraception on moral grounds as opposed to religious grounds” and quoted him saying,
“It is frightening to consider how this rhetorical loophole could and likely will be abused.”
[Fox News, 1/31/23]
∙ In a piece about college campuses beginning to dispense the Plan B pill via vending
machines, Schilling claimed that “we’ve been teaching kids that the worst possible
sexually transmitted disease” is “pregnancy, as if the worst thing in the world anyone
could get as a surprise is a baby.” Schilling argued, “Most of us weren’t planned, and
some of us weren’t even wanted, but these factors don’t change the status of our human
dignity.” [Washington Examiner, 6/6/23]
IVF
∙ American Principles Project President Terry Schilling tweeted about IVF: “If America
isn’t careful, we could actually create a government backed institution of buying and
selling human beings. Which, I thought, we decided long ago was wrong.” American
Principles Project previously tweeted a statement by Schilling where he told Republicans
to “come up with reasonable policy” and that “they should come up with what they actually
believe and support and stand for.” [Twitter/X, 3/7/24, 2/27/24]
Surrogacy
∙ On the American Principles Project website, a page titled “The Contract with American
Families” rebukes surrogacy. It claims the process “facilitates the deliberate separation
of children from one or both of their biological parents.” [American Principles Project,
accessed 4/2/24]
∙ APP President Terry Schilling posted to X, “Surrogacy is a great euphemism for baby-
snatching and womb renting.” He added: “Also, BUYING HUMAN BEINGS.” [Twitter/X,
11/29/23]
∙ In a 2019 report, APP claimed surrogacy “creates an underclass of victimized women
… and turns children into commodities.” The report suggested Republican politicians
“oppose all efforts to legalize commercial surrogacy” and build “an effective coalition to
fight commercial surrogacy.” [American Principles Project, 2019]
∙ Former executive director of APP Marion D. Boteju published a story with Public
Discourse in 2014 that claimed there are “unseen evils” in surrogacy and that legalizing
surrogacy will take away women’s rights. Boteju went on to compare surrogacy to
“indentured servitude and slavery.” [Public Discourse, 1/28/14]
Americans United for Life
∙ Americans United for Life federal policy director Jesse Southerland told Politico
that fighting against “chemical abortion” is a “priority” for the organization. [Politico,
3/27/24]
∙ AUL drafted a model law for anti-abortion lawmakers to restrict or ban telehealth
prescriptions for abortion pills. [Politico, 3/27/24; Stateline, 1/30/23]
∙ In February, AUL filed two amicus briefs in support of the Alliance for Hippocratic
Medicine in its case against the FDA. [Americans United for Life, 2/29/24]
∙ AUL listed the court battle to re-restrict mifepristone as one of its “top ten
developments in the Life arena of 2023.” [Americans United for Life, 12/20/23]
∙ Chief legal officer and general counsel of AUL Steven H. Aden said that loosening
regulations on mifepristone “has been a healthcare disaster for women and has
normalized the wholesale destruction of human life.” [Americans United for Life,
12/13/23]
∙ AUL filed multiple amicus briefs to the Fifth Circuit asking the court to uphold the U.S.
District Court’s suspension of mifepristone’s approval. Aden, the counsel of record on
the brief, explained that abortion pills are “dangerous drugs,” and suspending them “is in
the interest of patient welfare.” AUL has made similar arguments in several pieces on its
amicus briefs regarding this case. [Americans United for Life, 5/16/23, 4/18/23, 4/12/23]
∙ Carolyn McDonnell, litigation counsel at AUL, accused the FDA of “promoting its radical
abortion agenda at the expense of patient health and safety” by relaxing mifepristone
restrictions. [Americans United for Life, 2/13/23]
∙ AUL submitted testimony in support of Wyoming’s attempt to ban abortion pills
partially because it was “consistent with the American legal tradition on abortion.” In
its related explainer on mifepristone, AUL emphasized possible complications resulting
from consumption of the drug. [Americans United for Life, 2/9/23; The Associated Press,
6/22/23]
∙ AUL wrote that receiving mifepristone through the mail is the “new back-alley,” as
patients are receiving pills “from a stranger on the internet.” The piece makes sure to
emphasize that “women have died taking chemical abortion pills.” [Americans United for
Life, 12/17/21]
∙ In 2021, AUL celebrated South Dakota Gov. Kristi Noem’s executive order to ban
abortion pills from being prescribed via telemedicine, calling it a measure “to protect
South Dakota women from the threat of chemical abortion drugs.” [Americans United
for Life, 9/7/21]
∙ In the same piece, the organization attributed relaxed restrictions on mifepristone to
“corporate greed.” Similarly, in 2016, AUL said that “abortion industry profits” were the
motivator behind the updated guidelines. [Americans United for Life, 9/7/21; 11/1/16]
∙ After the FDA loosened restrictions on mifepristone in 2021, AUL accused the agency
of “playing politics with women’s health.” In another piece on the issue, it said the FDA
was “abandoning women to suffer through the physical and psychological impact of
chemical abortion without medical supervision or support.” [Americans United for Life,
4/13/21, 1/12/21]
∙ In 2017, AUL’s vice president of legal affairs, Denise Burke, testified in favor of a
Colorado law that would require abortion providers to tell patients about abortion
reversal, which it calls “informed consent.” According to Burke, because they are not
told about so-called abortion reversal, “many women are physically and psychologically
harmed by the abortion process.” [Americans United for Life, 2/9/17]
∙ AUL called on state lawmakers to repeal what it called a “discriminatory rule” and an
“unconstitutional abuse of power” from the Washington State Board of Pharmacists
that required pharmacists to keep abortion pills stocked. The organization joined an
amicus brief in support of pharmacists against “drugs misleadingly called ‘emergency
contraceptives,’ specifically Plan B and ella.” [Americans United for Life, 6/28/16]
∙ AUL has been involved in multiple cases related to state laws seeking to restrict
mifepristone, with AUL’s president referring to looser restrictions as “patient
abandonment.” In a press release celebrating an Arkansas law restricting mifepristone,
AUL wrote that “the abortion industry consistently puts profits over people.” [Americans
United for Life, 3/23/15, 10/4/13]
∙ The organization filed amicus briefs in support of embattled North Dakota and
Oklahoma bills that restricted access to mifepristone. [Americans United for Life,
10/4/13, 8/21/13, 10/9/12]
Contraceptives
∙ In 2012, The New York Times wrote that Charmaine Yoest, then-president and CEO
of Americans United for Life, “believes that embryos have legal rights and opposes
birth control, like the IUD, that she thinks ‘has life-ending properties.’” The Times also
reported that Yoest does not support increasing access to contraceptives as a means of
reducing abortion rates. [The New York Times Magazine, 11/2/12]
∙ In 2015, Reuters quoted then-Americans United for Life staff counsel Mailee Smith
as saying “IUDs are a life-ending device.” Reuters reported that Americans United Life
supported a “religious challenge to contraceptives coverage under President Barack Obama’s
healthcare law” and that Smith argued, “The focus of these cases is that requiring any life-
ending drug is in violation of the Religious Freedom Act.” [Reuters, 12/1/15]
∙ In a profile of the organization, The Washington Post described Americans United for
Life’s attorneys as aiming “to be a resource for state legislatures on seemingly every
issue under the ‘pro-life’ banner: access to abortion, contraception, stem cell research,
bioethics, assisted suicide and end-of-life decisions.” [The Washington Post, 5/31/19]
IVF
∙ In a February statement posted to its website, Americans United for Life praised
Sen. Cindy Hyde-Smith (R-MS) for blocking legislation that would protect the right to
reproductive treatments. The statement claimed that “embryonic children are typically
treated as property rather than persons” and that there is a “near-total lack of patient
health and safety regulations and meaningful regulatory oversight” in the IVF industry.
[Americans United for Life, 2/28/24]
∙ Chief legal counsel for AUL Steve Aden spoke with The Washington Post, criticizing
Trump’s statement about IVF treatments and stating that “the ethical approach to IVF
is to ensure that human lives are not wantonly created and destroyed in the process.”
The Post also highlights the “model legislation to limit the number of embryos created per
IVF cycle” that AUL previously drafted. [The Washington Post, 2/24/24]
∙ In 2022, Aden compared IVF treatments to “eugenics,” telling The Guardian he
considers “most” kinds of IVF “untenable in a culture that respects all human life.” [The
Guardian, 5/12/22]
Surrogacy
∙ In a post on the Americans United for Life site, former legal assistant Hannah Ward
referred to surrogacy as “incompatible with a free society and the human right to life.”
Ward went on to decry the “artificial, mercenary character of surrogacy.” [Americans
United for Life, 5/16/23]
AMAC Action
∙ In a 2023 article on the Association for Mature American Citizens website, author Ben
Solis repeated false claims made by Fox News host Rachel Campos-Duffy that “40
percent of abortions are chemical abortions that are likely to end with complications.”
More than 60% of all abortions are performed with the abortion pill and around 2% of
all abortions have complications. [AMAC, 4/8/23; Guttmacher Institute, 3/19/24; Pew
Research Center, 3/25/24]
∙ AMAC hosted an interview with Jeanne Mancini, president of March for Life, to talk
about how chemical abortions are supposedly “dangerous.” In the interview, AMAC
CEO Rebecca Weber claimed the expansion of abortion pill access is really pro-abortion
activists “taking advantage of frightened young women.” Mancini argued that access to
mifepristone is “dangerous in a lot of different ways” claiming the drug is “actually much
harder on women’s health than surgical abortion.” [YouTube, 11/9/22]
IVF
∙ In a piece on the Association of Mature American Citizens Action website, author John
Moor suggested giving the Alabama Supreme Court credit for “having the courage”
to make the ruling limiting IVF. He went on to compare a “preborn child” to people who
“fall under a government protected characteristic,” claiming the government protects
individuals from discrimination “based on age, mental capacity and appearance like skin
color” and therefore should protect embryos as well. [AMAC Action, 3/18/24]
California Family Council
∙ In a story on its site, the California Family Council (CFC) wrote about the recent
Supreme Court case regarding mifepristone, saying that “true reproductive freedom
includes access to comprehensive information about fertility, pregnancy, and the
support available for women experiencing a crisis pregnancy.” CFC Vice President Greg
Burt remarked, “This case is not merely about regulatory oversight; it’s about reaffirming
the foundational values that respect life and prioritize genuine healthcare that serves
both mothers and their children.” [California Family Council, 3/29/24]
∙ On its Instagram account, the group declared, “The abortion pill is not a form of
contraception; rather, it is an exceedingly hazardous drug, particularly when used
without medical supervision.” The post added, “The abortion pill leads the death of an
unborn baby and potential dangers to the mother.” [Instagram, 12/13/23]
∙ The group falsely claimed, “Mifepristone and misoprostol put women at risk for
infection, injury, loss of fertility, depression, and other life-threatening complications.”
It concludes that “women deserve to know about their options and have access to life-
saving medication,” referring to abortion pill reversal. [California Family Council, 9/25/23]
∙ In at least two other publications on its website, the group pushed misleading
information about the safety of the abortion pill, calling it “dangerous,” and “highly
controversial.” [California Family Council, 11/29/22, 2/7/22]
Contraceptives
∙ Last year, the California Family Council released an article arguing that the FDA is
“playing games with women’s health” by saying that Plan B “cannot cause abortions.”
The piece read, “Women deserve to know exactly what a drug they are taking is capable of.
Some women may innocently think they’re not ending a human life, but merely preventing
ovulation.” [California Family Council, 1/4/23]
IVF
∙ On Instagram, the California Family Council claimed, “By the numbers the IVF Industry
is responsible for the loss of more embryonic life every year than the abortion
industry.” [Instagram, 3/6/24]
∙ In a statement on its website, the CFC claimed there are “grave moral concerns
inherent to IVF,” and, “We cannot ignore the plight of our embryonic brothers and
sisters.” The statement heavily doubled down on the idea that embryos are humans and
advocated for the adoption of laws like those regulating IVF in Louisiana and countries
like Germany, Italy, France, Poland, New Zealand, and Australia. [California Family Council,
3/8/24]
∙ In 2023, CFC attacked a California bill it claimed “would require employers to provide
insurance plans that cover all nonexperimental fertility treatments, including … for a
surrogate hired by any couple or single person.” The CFC statement criticized the bill
for expanding fertility treatments to include LGBTQ families, stating, “Children have the
natural right to their biological father and mother, and they suffer tremendously in every
area of life when this right is infringed upon.” [California Family Council, 6/19/23]
Surrogacy
∙ California Family Council released a statement in response to a California bill
complaining that it “would require employers to provide insurance plans that cover
all nonexperimental fertility treatments” including the cost of in vitro fertilization for
a hired surrogate. CFC argued the bill would allow LGBTQ families to have children and
“further erode the father, mother, and child nuclear family.” [California Family Council,
6/19/23]
∙ In 2022, CFC attacked another California bill, the Equal Access to Reproductive
Care Act, for providing reproductive care to LGBTQ families. CFC claimed the bill is
“disregarding basic science and natural law” and “irresponsible and immoral.” The report
argued that the “use of technology to bring children into the world” has “serious moral
implications” and that “surrogacy … intentionally separates a child from one or both of his
biological parents.” [California Family Council, 9/27/22]
∙ CFC has repeatedly complained about removing children from their biological parents
and allowing LGTBQ families to have children in various reports. One such report, titled
“Surrogacy Strips Children of Their Basic Rights,” claims that surrogacy “inflicts a
family wound.” [California Family Council, 8/15/22, 12/12/22, 7/17/23]
Center for Family and Human Rights
∙ In a 2023 article on the Center for Family and Human Rights (C-FAM) website, director
of research Rebecca Oas wrote that “period pills” or medication used to “induce
menstrual bleeding or early pregnancy loss” are used for “the intentional destruction of
an unborn life.” [Center for Family and Human Rights, 2/10/23; PeriodPills.org, accessed
5/15/24]
∙ In an article complaining about expanding access to abortion pills during the COVID-19
pandemic, Oas called use of mifepristone a “dangerous procedure.” [Center for Family
and Human Rights, 5/8/20]
∙ C-FAM published multiple articles condemning the World Health Organization and
Doctors Without Borders for supporting the distribution of abortion pills. In one piece
C-FAM argues “mail-order abortion pills” put patients at risk of getting an abortion “without
[their] consent by abusive partners, parents, or others, such as human traffickers.”
[Center for Family and Human Rights, 6/28/19; 2/28/20]
∙ In an article for Pacific Standard on the WHO’s endorsement of mifepristone, Oas is
quoted repeating her argument that expanding access to abortion pills will result in the
use of the drugs by “abusive partners” for nonconsensual abortions. [Pacific Standard,
7/15/19]
Contraceptives
∙ In a 2014 essay for Crisis Magazine, Center for Family and Human Rights President
Austin Ruse wrote, “Contraception is one of the great scourges not just of our time
but of all time.” Ruse described his decades-long experience “fighting contraception”
and fearmongered about a “few hundred stories about the evils of contraception.” [Crisis
Magazine, 2/28/14]
Center for Renewing America
∙ In a policy issue primer published on Center for Renewing America’s site, the
organization supported the Fifth Circuit’s ruling against the FDA’s interpretation of
the Comstock Act, and claimed the “weaponized agency is willing to violate the law
to advance its abortion agenda.” CRA also suggested Congress attempt to “prohibit
chemical abortions at the federal level.” [Center for Renewing America, 5/2/23]

Contraceptives
∙ Writing for The Federalist, Center for Renewing America policy director Paige Hauser
identified “the advent of the birth control pill and the legalization of abortion” as “major
fault lines,” along with no-fault divorce, in stoking the sexual revolution in a piece
titled “Mike Johnson is right: No-fault divorce destroys kids, sex, and society.” [The
Federalist, 11/13/23]
The Claremont Institute
Contraceptives
∙ In 2020, the Claremont Institute’s Center for Constitutional Jurisprudence filed
an amicus brief in support of a Catholic organization attempting to reverse a
court decision that would require the group to provide birth control to employees.
Claremont’s John Eastman and Tom Caso wrote in the brief that the First Amendment
“reflects the founding generation’s view that the duty one owes to the Creator is both prior
to and higher than any duty owed to government.” [The Claremont Institute, 3/12/20]
∙ An article from the Claremont Institute condemned a sex education video shown at a
middle school in Idaho, complaining that presentations about contraception “included
information about the abortifacient Plan B.” [The Claremont Institute, 1/19/23]
∙ A recent article published by the Claremont Institute criticized Plan B, saying a “deep
and widespread misunderstanding of pregnancy risk, ovulation, and overall fertility”
has led the public to change its view of the medication “from a last resort in true
emergencies into a ‘better safe than sorry’ precautionary measure.” The author also
chastised “the transformation of Plan B into a TikTok accessory or a vending-machine
trinket.” [The Claremont Institute, 2/20/24]
Surrogacy
∙ In its publication The American Mind, The Claremont Institute claimed surrogacy is
a tool used by “oligarchs” to “attack the concept of motherhood.” Author Tara Thieke
argued that the idea of surrogacy as “liberation” constitutes “warfare upon vernacular
traditions” and will lead to “further overall misery and enslavement.” [The American Mind,
10/19/21]
Concerned Women for America
∙ In a piece on its website, Concerned Women for America noted its support for stricter
abortion pill regulations alongside other anti-abortion groups, against the FDA in the
ongoing Supreme Court case. The piece describes the agency’s actions as “reckless
disregard for women’s safety.” [Concerned Women for America, 3/25/24]
∙ CWA wrote a piece directly focused on the case heading to the Supreme Court,
calling mifepristone “dangerous” and the FDA’s approval of it “reckless.” CWA CEO
and President Penny Nance said, “Let’s be clear; there is nothing safe or effective about
allowing people to perform their own DIY abortion.” [Concerned Women for America,
12/13/23]
∙ On CWA’s podcast, Nance said supporters of the medication “want there to be abortion,
as I’ve said before many times, any time, any reason, in any number, all paid for by you.”
She continued, “They don’t want a girl to even leave her dorm room to have it. They’re
happy for her to struggle for several days to actually miscarry this baby alone and to be
traumatized and maybe, you know, have consequences that render her sterile later or
maybe even death.” Later on, she added, “This is not nearly over. We have a lot of work to
do. We are winning.” [Concerned Women for America, 4/19/23, 4/19/23]
∙ CWA’s Deanna Drogan wrote for the website, “We can see that increasing the ability to
perform DIY abortions results in many health risks for mothers (known and unknown)
and an increasing number of babies innocently murdered from abortion.” [Concerned
Women for America, 4/23/21]
∙ In an opinion piece for Newsmax, Nance wrote that there is “nothing safe about DIY
abortion.” She added, concerning the Texas case, “Americans who are concerned for the
safety and well-being of young women should be grateful that this judge had the courage
to make this decision.” [Newsmax, 5/15/23]
Contraceptives
∙ In 2019, Concerned Women for America issued a call to action condemning a piece
of state legislation that would make birth control available over the counter at
pharmacies in Iowa. An op-ed released by the organization criticized contraception,
drawing attention to “potentially long-lasting detrimental health effects,” and suggested
that the “collateral damage of SF 513 [the legislation] could be women’s health.”
[Concerned Women for America, 3/31/19]
∙ CWA attacked a mandate in the Affordable Care Act requiring employers to provide
employees with contraception-covering health plans as “bureaucratic overreach” and
stated, “The Obama Administration failed to respect the conscience rights of religious
employers.” [Concerned Women for America, 11/15/18]
IVF
∙ Valerie Bynog, a legislative strategist for Concerned Women for America Legislative
Action Committee, wrote in a blog on the organization’s website, “An embryo … is a
living being.” Bynog criticized the American IVF industry for not having laws like “many
European countries” that have “common sense regulations” around IVF. [Concerned
Women for America, 2/29/24]
Discovery Institute
∙ Discovery Institute’s Center on Human Exceptionalism fellow Arina Grossu Agnew
appeared on The Lars Larson Show to discuss “How many babies do abortion pills like
Mifepristone kill?” In the interview, Grossu claimed the FDA “looked at flawed studies,
irrelevant studies” when approving the drug “and there are a lot of complications that can
happen.” She went on to call mifepristone “a very dangerous abortion drug.” [KXL, Lars
Larson Show, 5/1/23]
∙ Senior fellow of the Discovery Institute’s Center for Natural and Artificial Intelligence
Michael Egnor wrote in an article for The Stream that abortion drugs “cause significant
physiological and behavioral harm.” Egnor’s article is based on a study by Dr. Stephen
Sammut, whose research also pushes the unsupported science of “abortion-pill reversal.”
[The Stream, 7/10/19; Franciscain, accessed 5/15/24]
Contraceptives
∙ The Discovery Institute published a piece titled “Birth control pretext for destroying
religious liberty.” In it, Wesley J. Smith, senior fellow at the Discovery Institute’s Center on
Human Exceptionalism, argued against the Affordable Care Act’s contraceptive mandate,
arguing that “once a legal precedent is established, one day there could be a free abortion
rule, a free IVF rule, or a free sex-change operation rule.” [Discovery Institute, 4/1/23]
∙ Another piece from Smith reads, “To a disturbing degree, healthcare public policy
is becoming a means of imposing a secularist, anti–sanctity-of-life ideology on all
of society.” Smith lamented what he called a “culture of death” in the medical field and
mentioned “studies that indicate” Plan B “might act as an abortifacient.” [Discovery
Institute, 7/22/16]
IVF
∙ Discovery Institute Chair and Senior Fellow Wesley J. Smith wrote in 2017 that IVF is
lacking the “moralistic restriction” of only being used by infertile married couples, and
referred to the treatment as “positive eugenics.” [Discovery Institute, 10/27/17]
∙ Smith previously wrote in 2013 that IVF opens the door for “polyamorous threesomes
or lesbian couples” to have children and claimed it must be stopped. He also claimed,
“We already know that children born via IVF have poorer health outcomes than children
conceived naturally,” and compared IVF treatments to cloning animals. [Discovery
Institute, 9/26/13]
Surrogacy
∙ In a piece published by National Review, Discovery Institute senior fellow Wesley J.
Smith wrote that “the fertility industry has helped unleash a sort of ‘new eugenics’”
with surrogacy. [National Review, 7/7/22]
∙ In earlier pieces published to the Discovery Institute’s site, Smith argued that surrogacy
makes a “legal, emotional, and moral mess” of “family life” and compared surrogate
mothers to “workers exploited in sweatshop conditions.” [Discovery Institute, 10/20/14,
8/21/13, 10/4/13, 10/27/17]

Eagle Forum
∙ President of Eagle Forum Kristen A. Ullman published an article in March arguing
against use of the abortion pill. In the article, Ullman called mifepristone “dangerous” and
repeated unverified claims that the abortion pill has a notably high number of documented
negative effects. [Eagle Forum, 3/24/24]
∙ Eagle Forum joined a coalition of anti-abortion groups who called on Congress to send
cease-and-desist letters to pharmacies mailing abortion pills. [Eagle Forum, 3/12/24]
∙ In an article fearmongering about mifepristone titled “Danger Lurks in Local Drug
Stores,” Ullman called the drug a “dangerous pill that not only kills an unborn child but
causes serious side effects and even death to countless women.” [Eagle Forum, 3/4/24]
Contraceptives
∙ In response to a House bill offering federal birth control protections, an Eagle
Forum blog claimed that “the left has expanded the term ‘contraception’ to include
abortion-inducing drugs.” The Right to Contraception Act (H.R. 8373) “forces all medical
professionals to dispense contraceptive drugs regardless of their beliefs,” the blog said,
adding, “Now, the left has expanded the term ‘contraception’ to include abortion-inducing
drugs. Pills such as RU-486, Plan B, and mifepristone were only created within the last few
decades to terminate a pregnancy.” According to Scientific American, when the Supreme
Court failed to defer to the medical standard that pregnancy begins after implantation it
gave anti-choice legislatures the ability to legally declare contraception methods like Plan
B abortifacients. [Eagle Forum, 7/21/22; Scientific American, 6/8/22]
∙ In 2012, Eagle Forum founder and anti-feminist activist Phyllis Schlafly called
the Affordable Care Act’s contraception mandate “draconian.” “If the Obama
Administration’s contraceptive mandate remains intact, then liberals will continue to
demand that Americans pay for objectionable items and services that are not really
medical care,” Schlafly said. “We call on all Americans to urge President Obama to back
down from this draconian mandate.” [Eagle Forum, 3/1/12]
IVF
∙ In a statement on its website, Eagle Forum claimed, “Other states and countries are
performing IVF in ethical ways,” referencing Louisiana and European countries, and
claimed Louisiana’s IVF regulations “clearly haven’t deterred fertility clinics.” The
statement attacked Sen. Tammy Duckworth’s (D-IL) Access to Family Building Act, saying
it expands reproductive protections too widely to include “not only IVF, but cloning, gene
editing, experimentation on embryos, commercial surrogacy, ‘designer babies’, and more,”
and that it removes “religious conscience protections” around IVF. [Eagle Forum, 2/29/24]
∙ Appearing as a guest on a Facebook live panel hosted by the American Family
Association, Eagle Forum executive director Becky Gerritson claimed the Alabama
ruling “did not stop IVF, it did not regulate IVF” and told the panel that Eagle Forum is
“promoting and pushing” more regulation of the IVF industry. [Facebook, American
Family Association Action, 3/1/24]

Ethics and Public Policy Center
∙ Ethics and Public Policy Center fellows submitted two amicus briefs for the Supreme
Court case on mifepristone supporting Alliance of Hippocratic Medicine in its case
against the abortion drug. The briefs claimed the FDA and Biden administration are in
“violation of federal and state law” by expanding access to mifepristone. [EPPC, 3/1/24]
∙ President of EPPC Ryan T. Anderson, previously a visiting fellow at The Heritage
Foundation, published an article with National Review titled “Making Abortion
Illegal and Unthinkable,” in which he argued, “We’ll need laws to prevent cross-state
transportation of abortion pills.” [National Review, 6/11/22; The Heritage Foundation,
accessed 4/19/24]
Contraceptives
∙ Writing for an anti-abortion journal, Ethics and Public Policy Center fellow Alexandra
DeSanctis characterized oral contraception as a “supposed panacea” that medical
professionals prescribe “with little concern for its many side effects.” “Those who draw
attention to the negative effects of birth control are typically dismissed as at best over-
zealous religious conservatives or at worst crusaders to ban birth control,” she wrote,
adding, “But within the past decade, conversation has begun to shift, and it seems as if a
new generation might be waking up to the harms of both the sexual revolution and the pill
that enabled it.” [Human Law Review, 9/7/23
∙ Ethics and Public Policy Center fellow David Gortler wrote a Newsweek column
titled “Over-the-counter birth control pills won’t improve America’s public health.”
In the article, Gortler also argued that “no prescription-grade hormone has ever been
proposed as a long-term, daily, OTC product,” and tied the use of birth control to various
types of cancer and mental health disorders. “If approved by the FDA, making hormonal
contraceptives available without medical supervision will be another in a list of recent
unscientific federal public health decisions,” Gortler claimed. [Newsweek, 6/29/23]
IVF
∙ The Ethics and Public Policy Center published a piece on its website by fellow Patrick
Brown in which he claimed that Republicans are making “a mistake” by criticizing the
Alabama ruling and called for Republicans to refuse “broad progressive legislation that
would make access to IVF an ‘individual right.’” Brown pushed back on calls for IVF to
be an individual right, claiming that it has “weakened” the “family as an institution,” and
suggested policy that would cover IVF for only “legally married couples using their own
sperm and egg.” He also called the Alabama ruling a “modest” case against IVF. [Ethics and
Public Policy Center, 3/2/24]
∙ EPPC President Ryan Anderson published a piece titled, “The truth about Alabama’s
ruling on IVF” wherein he claimed that “the media … falsely claimed IVF was about to
be banned— and Republicans fell for the claim.” Anderson’s whole piece referred to IVF
embryos as “frozen embryonic children” and called IVF “morally and emotionally fraught.”
[Ethics and Public Policy Center, 2/28/24]
∙ EPPC fellow Andrew Walker criticized Christians and pro-life Americans for not having
a stronger stance against IVF. He called IVF “morally problematic” for taking sexual
intercourse out of conception, breaking a “holy and inviolable seal,” and for creating
embryos that won’t be used, claiming, “In Christian language, these embryos are our
neighbors.” [Ethics and Public Policy Center, 2/28/24]
∙ EPPC fellow Aaron Kheriaty wrote a piece for Newsweek titled “After Alabama ruling,
it’s time for a serious look at the ethics of the IVF industry,” in which he claimed that
“there is no morally just solution” for modern IVF treatments. [Newsweek, 2/29/24]
Surrogacy
∙ Ethics and Public Policy Center analyst Natalie Dodson wrote that the assisted
reproductive technology industry, which includes surrogacy, “poses serious risk to
both women and children.” [Ethics and Public Policy Center, 1/29/24]
∙ EPPC fellow Brad Littlejohn celebrated Pope Francis’ call for a global ban on what
Littlejohn deemed “the despicable practice of surrogacy,” saying the pope had
observed “that surrogacy represents a form of human trafficking.” [Ethics and Public
Policy Center, 1/26/24; The Associated Press, 1/8/24]
∙ In a piece titled “The Future of Manufactured Children,” EPPC fellow Carl Trueman wrote
that “surrogacy has attenuated the relationship between conception, pregnancy, and
childbirth.” [Ethics and Public Policy Center, 11/2/23]
∙ EPPC fellow Nathanael Blake wrote for The Federalist that commercial surrogacy
“breeds children like livestock.” [The Federalist, 6/13/22]
∙ In another article, Blake called commercial surrogacy “just a form of concubinage for
the well-off.” [Ethics and Public Policy Center, 5/10/22]
∙ In 2013, as Washington, D.C., was considering a bill to decriminalize surrogacy by lifting
a longstanding ban on the reproductive option, EPPC senior fellow George Weigel
argued that it “treats the child as a thing, a commodity that can be bought and sold.”
Weigel described the bill as “pushed by the same people who brought ‘gay marriage’ to the
shores of the Potomac River.” [Ethics and Public Policy Center, 10/23/13]
Family Policy Alliance
∙ Focus on the Family’s lobbying arm, the Family Policy Alliance, submitted an amicus
brief for the Supreme Court case on mifepristone in which it argued the FDA’s current
mifepristone guidance is “dangerous for women” and claimed, “Medical Emergencies
Caused by Mifepristone are Increasing” and cites the declaration of Dr. Christina
Francis, the AAPLOG CEO. [U.S. Supreme Court, U.S. Food and Drug Administration v.
Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine, Brief of Amicus Curiae, 2/28/24]
∙ After Biden supported access to mifepristone in January, FPA called on its audience
to push back against the dispensing of abortion pills in pharmacies, seemingly citing a
now-retracted study that led FPA to falsely claim that “women who use abortion pills
are 50 percent more likely to visit an ER than with a surgical abortion.” [Family Policy
Alliance, 1/24/23; National Library of Medicine, 11/9/21]
∙ FPA also called on pharmacies to refuse to distribute abortion pills. The FPA director
of government affairs claimed in the statement, “Abortion drugs are a health and safety
threat to women and their children.” [Family Policy Alliance, 1/6/23]
Contraceptives
∙ The Family Policy Alliance has amplified claims that the ACA’s contraception mandate
forced religious organizations to cover “abortion-inducing drugs.” “When the Obama
Administration attempted to force nuns to provide contraception and Christian-owned
company Hobby Lobby to cover abortion-inducing drugs, it became clear that more work
needed to be done in the area of religious freedom,” the group’s website reads. [Family
Policy Alliance, accessed 4/3/24]
∙ FPA has also expressed support for organizations that had “deep moral concerns”
about providing contraceptive care in employer-issued insurance plans. In March 2023,
the organization launched an initiative to fight the Biden administration’s enforcement
of the ACA’s contraception mandate, claiming that the rule “completely undermines the
moral fabric of many faithful organizations, including overtly pro-life groups, that serve
women, children, and the public.” [Family Policy Alliance, 3/30/23]
IVF
∙ In a Family Policy Alliance podcast, Director of Public Policy Joseph Kohm stated, “Each
of those fertilized embryos that are frozen is a unique human life,” before praising the
Alabama Supreme Court for addressing the issue of IVF. [YouTube, 2/29/24]
Surrogacy
∙ Family Policy Alliance wrote on its website that surrogacy contracts include “stripping
the true biological parents of their right to parent their child.” Elsewhere on its website,
FPA stated that assisted reproductive technologies, including surrogacy, have “grown
into a wildly unregulated multi-billion dollar industry,” which, it warned, “single people,
transgender individuals and, especially, gay couples,” can use. [Family Policy Alliance,
accessed 4/2/24, accessed 4/2/24]
Family Research Council
∙ In an episode of Family Research Council’s Washington Watch with Tony Perkins, Senior
Vice President Jody Hice interviewed Louisiana state Sen. Thomas Pressly about his
legislation to classify mifepristone as a dangerous substance in Louisiana. Hice called
the passing of the law “good news” and called it a “model” for other states. Hice went on
to congratulate Pressly and claimed the “abortion industry” is “fearmongering” over the
legislation. [Family Research Council, Washington Watch with Tony Perkins, 5/24/24]
∙ FRC’s affiliated blog The Washington Stand published a piece similarly praising the
Louisiana law, which claims abortion pills “are not safe.” [The Washington Stand,
5/28/24]
∙ FRC filed an amicus brief in the Supreme Court case over mifepristone claiming that
the FDA was “reckless” in approving the drug and that use of mifepristone creates
“long-lasting psychological and spiritual distress.” [Family Research Council, 3/5/24]
∙ In 2022 FRC published an issue analysis on medication abortion, which it called “The
Next Abortion Battleground.” The analysis summarized FRC’s issues with abortion pills,
leveling claims that there are “profound dangers such poorly supervised medical care
poses to women’s health” and that “the abortion industry” is pushing abortion pills for
“political, ideological, and financial goals.” [Family Research Council, 2/22]
∙ Also in its analysis on abortion pills, FRC argued that easing regulations of mifepristone
would “complicate the detection of sexual abuse and sex trafficking.” In a section on
“Sexual Abuse and Sex Trafficking” FRC claimed, “Abusers, along with those in the sexual
exploitation industry ... would love an environment in which they can compel women to
repeatedly have abortions.” The section also claimed that Planned Parenthood is aiding
sex traffickers by providing abortions. [Family Research Council, 2/22]
∙ The analysis also laid out policy suggestions, such as “complete removal of the
chemical abortion regimen from the market,” forcing manufacturers of the drug to
“report all adverse events” from mifepristone, and prohibiting the prescription of
abortion pills over telehealth. FRC claims its final goal is “to see the sale and the approval
of drugs meant to intentionally kill life in the womb eliminated from our society.” [Family
Research Council, 2/22]
∙ In a 2021 report, legislative assistant Chantel Hoyt claimed expansion of access to
mifepristone means “the abortion industry seems willing to gamble with women’s lives
and health” in order to expand access to abortion. [Family Research Council, 7/19/21;
FRC, accessed 5/15/24]
Contraceptives
∙ The Family Research Council amplified Sen. Ted Cruz’s (R-TX) claim that birth control
pills can “cause abortions.” The organization also claimed that emergency contraception
pills like Plan B and ella can induce abortions. “Not all forms of birth control cause
abortions. However, some do, including the notorious ‘morning-after pill’ Plan B and a
newer, lesser-known FDA-approved drug called Ella (also known as ulipristal acetate
or Ella-One),” an FRC blog read. “The FDA misleadingly labels Ella a more effective
‘Emergency Contraception.’ Like Plan B, Ella can cause an abortion by preventing a
fertilized egg (embryo) from implanting in the uterus.” [Family Research Council, 10/15/20;
ella, accessed 4/12/24]
∙ FRC’s Mary Szoch: “Birth control has led to the objectification of women — to women
being used as mere tools for men’s gratification.” Birth control “has also led to the
devaluing, and even hatred of, the natural consequence of sex — children,” Szoch
continued in a quote posted to FRC’s X account. [Twitter/X, 1/6/24]
IVF
∙ Family Research Council President Tony Perkins told The Associated Press that the
Alabama Supreme Court’s decision was “a beautiful defense of life.” [The Associated
Press, 2/23/24]
∙ On X, Perkins asserted that Sen. Tammy Duckworth’s (D-IL) bill protecting
reproductive services was “an overreach designed to advance the Democrats’ radical,
Frankensteinian agenda.” He also claimed the bill would legalize “creation of animal-
human hybrids (‘chimeras’)” and “trafficking and destruction of human embryos.” In a later
post, Perkins pushed for more “IVF safeguards.” [Twitter/X, 2/28/24, 2/28/24]
∙ On his podcast, Washington Watch, Perkins claimed Duckworth’s bill “raises numerous
moral and bioethical issues that go far beyond ensuring the IVF issue” and again
claimed it would allow the creation of human-animal hybrids. [YouTube, Washington
Watch, 2/28/24]
Surrogacy
∙ The organization tweeted in 2019, “The reality of surrogacy … is a multitude of health
risks and psychological and medical harms.” [Twitter/X, 5/9/19]
∙ In 2017, Family Research Council’s Arina Grossu called on the Supreme Court to “review
the constitutional violations inherent” in surrogacy, which she said “preys upon women
and children.” She attacked surrogacy, saying it creates children “with a plan in advance
… to deprive them of the love and support of their mother.” [Family Research Council,
9/30/17]
∙ According to a 2014 New York Times article, the Family Research Council lobbied for
the sort of protections now causing the legal difficulties that those involved with
surrogacy must endure, as the group lobbied for protections for embryos created
through in vitro fertilization. [The New York Times, 9/7/14]
First Liberty Institute
∙ Starting in 2013, First Liberty Institute represented Joe Holland in a case against the
federal government challenging the so-called “Abortion Pill Mandate.” First Liberty
argued he should not have to provide insurance coverage for abortion pills because of his
faith. [First Liberty Institute, accessed, 4/16/24]
Contraceptives
∙ In 2013, First Liberty Institute filed a federal lawsuit against CVS Pharmacy for
terminating a Texas nurse practitioner who sought “a religious accommodation from
prescribing any medication that could intentionally end the development or life of an
unborn child.” [First Liberty Institute, 1/11/23]
∙ First Liberty Institute has stated its opposition to contraceptive care access and
abortion on the basis of religious freedom and in 2014 filed a lawsuit on behalf of two
nonprofit ministries seeking an exemption from the ACA’s contraception mandate.
In a case summary on its website, the nonprofit legal firm argued that the mandate was
forcing “nonprofit ministries to violate their conscience and provide insurance coverage
for abortion-inducting drugs.” [First Liberty Institute, accessed 4/3/24]
ForAmerica
∙ ForAmerica president David Bozell joined a Washington Times podcast to attack the
use of mifepristone, calling it “unfathomable.” He went on to claim, “The left will not stop
until there is abortion on demand funded by the United States taxpayer up to and perhaps
even including the moment of birth.” [The Washington Times, 3/29/24]

The Frederick Douglass Foundation
∙ Liberty Counsel, an anti-abortion legal organization, filed an amicus brief on behalf of
the Frederick Douglass Foundation to the Supreme Court asking it to uphold the Fifth
Circuit’s decision to reinstate restrictions on mifepristone. [World News Group, 3/12/24]
Contraceptives
∙ In an amicus brief filed to the Supreme Court, the foundation alleged, citing Justice
Clarence Thomas, that “modern abortion advocacy arose out of the birth control
movement, which was ‘developed alongside the American eugenics movement.’” [U.S.
Supreme Court, Dobbs vs. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, Brief of Amicus Curiae,
accessed 4/3/24; U.S. Supreme Court, Box v. Planned Parenthood of Indiana and Kentucky,
Inc., 5/28/19]
The Heartland Institute
∙ Ashley Bateman, a policy writer for the Heartland Institute, wrote a piece for The
Federalist regarding anti-abortion activists protesting at the Supreme Court about the
FDA case, describing mifepristone as a “high-risk drug.” [The Federalist, 3/27/24]
∙ Heartland Daily News, a publication affiliated with the Institute, has been attacking
abortion medication for years. Recently Bateman published an article where she labeled
mifepristone a “high-risk drug” and a different piece by Harry Painter attempted to raise
concerns about the safety of telemedicine prescriptions for mifepristone while conflating
the use of the medication with “back-alley abortions.” [The Heartland Daily News, 4/15/24,
3/27/24, 12/6/22, 9/18/21]
Contraceptives
∙ The Heartland Institute’s Ashley Bateman fearmongered about the safety of hormonal
contraceptives, claiming that they have been found to act as a “chemical abortifacient”
by “[preventing] implantation of a fertilized egg.” [The Federalist, 7/21/23; Guttmacher
Institute, 12/9/14]

Independent Women’s Forum
Contraceptives
∙ Independent Women’s Forum’s Hadley Heath Manning on birth control: “Despite its
benefits to society, and particularly to women, widespread use of contraception has
in my view come with a cost, facilitating a culture of cheap sex.” “This, along with the
relatively high typical-use failure rates of the most traditionally popular forms of birth
control, has disproportionately harmed women,” Heath Manning wrote in a New York
Times guest essay. She did not mention that birth control’s effectiveness is directly tied to
correct use of the medication. [The New York Times, 9/13/14, 6/24/23]
∙ The IWF filed amicus briefs to the Supreme Court that sided with religious groups’
efforts to oppose the ACA’s contraception mandate. [Ms., 8/17/24]
IVF
∙ On the Independent Women’s Forum’s She Thinks Podcast, Natural Womanhood editor
Grace Emily Stark argued that “all across the board people, even medical professionals,
have this really inflated idea of how successful IVF is that does not match reality.”
[Independent Women’s Forum, She Thinks Podcast, 2/17/23]
∙ On the High Noon podcast, IWF senior fellow Emily Jashinsky argued, “The pro-
life movement should lead with the reality that there is a way for IVF to be done
ethically where you’re not discarding embryos.” Later, host Inez Stepman asked: “Do
we really want to live in a world where we’re eugenically selecting babies, where we are
commodifying the act of pregnancy?” [Independent Women’s Forum, High Noon, 2/28/24]
∙ IWF cross-posted an article originally written for Fox News by IWF visiting fellow Emma
Waters, warning that “AI will fuel disturbing ‘build-a-child’ industry.” Waters claimed:
“Seventy-five percent of IVF clinics in the U.S. offer genetic testing. This allows parents
to create multiple embryos and select the one that matches their preferred sex and eye,
hair, and skin color.” She added: “They can also gauge if a child will develop certain health
problems. In one controversial case, deaf parents tried to create a child who would inherit
their deafness. Of course, clinics destroy the unwanted embryos.” [Independent Women’s
Forum, 8/4/23]
Surrogacy
∙ In a piece for National Review, Independent Women’s Forum visiting fellow Madeleine
Kearns wrote that in “the use of donor gametes and surrogacy … the child created is,
in effect, an orphan.” Kearns has also said that she opposes surrogacy “regardless of the
sex of the aspiring parents.” [National Review, 12/11/23; 1/17/24]

Intercollegiate Studies Institute
Contraceptives
∙ The Intercollegiate Studies Institute has published a book review asserting that “the
sexual free-for-all made possible by abortion (and perhaps contraception) harms
both men and women.” The review also states that widespread access to abortion
and contraceptive care has “turned sex into a kind of sport, detached from its natural
consequences of pregnancy, childbirth, and (one hopes) family life.” [Intercollegiate
Studies Institute, 5/30/23]
Dr. James Dobson Family Institute
∙ The James Dobson Family Institute in a piece titled “Baby-Killing Pills” claimed
the Biden Administration wants to distribute mifepristone “like candy,” and said it
continues to “use every tool it has to keep the number of abortions in America as high
as possible.” Later on, the author describes the medication as a “killer abortion pill.” [Dr.
James Dobson Family Institute, 4/14/23]
∙ The institute was one of many organizations to sign an amicus brief to the Supreme
Court on the FDA battle over the drug. [U.S. Supreme Court, U.S. Food and Drug
Administration v. Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine, Brief of Amicus Curiae, 2/29/2024]
∙ A commentary piece for the organization described mifepristone as “death by mail,”
and attacked pro-choice organizations, writing, “See you in court, NARAL! JDFI proudly
signed onto an amicus brief in the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, and we look forward
to making the case for life before the U.S. Supreme Court.” [Dr. James Dobson Family
Institute, 8/30/23]
∙ A 2021 piece by Dobson himself endorsed a bill that aimed to strip universities of their
federal funding if they distribute reproductive medication to students. [Dr. James
Dobson Family Institute, 8/3/21]
Contraceptives
∙ The Dr. James Dobson Family Institute sought an exemption to the Affordable
Care Act’s contraceptive mandate, arguing that it violated the Religious Freedom
Restoration Act. [Alliance Defending Freedom, 3/28/19]
IVF
∙ In a Q&A post on the Dobson Digital Library, James Dobson declared that he is “strongly
opposed to the practice of creating fertilized eggs from ‘donors’ outside the immediate
family (this would include the donation of sperm or eggs from a brother or sister of
the husband and wife wishing to conceive),” because such activity would be to “play
God.” Dobson added that IVF is “less problematic” if “all the fertilized eggs are inserted into
the uterus (i.e., no ova are wasted or disposed of after fertilization.” He also argued that
implanting an already existing frozen embryo is akin to “adoption.” [Dobson Digital Library,
accessed 4/2/24]
Liberty University
Contraceptives
∙ Liberty University sought an exemption from the Affordable Care Act’s contraception
mandate, arguing that the mandate was a violation of its religious freedoms. [United
Press International, 12/2/13]
IVF
∙ Liberty University posted a summary of a law school panel discussion on reproductive
rights after the Dobbs decision, highlighting comments from The Justice Foundation’s
Allan Parker on “how to advance that victory [Dobbs] by abolishing in vitro fertilization
to protect frozen eggs that have already been fertilized, which he explained is an
expansion of the idea that life begins at conception.” Parker said: “I think we need more
scholarly research and more public education (on this topic) before the Supreme Court
is willing to accept the argument that the right to life under the constitution protects life
from the moment of conception.” He added, “It takes time to change culture. But we need
to do the historical research, get the education about it to where the judges, based on the
appropriate case with the appropriate evidence, will be comfortable making that judicial
determination.” [Liberty University, 2/14/24]
Surrogacy
∙ William Wolfe, of Liberty University’s Standing for Freedom Center, attacked the
Department of Veterans Affairs for offering surrogacy options for single people and
same-sex couples “all on your dime,” calling it “taxpayer-funded trampling of children’s
rights and the government-sponsored destruction of the family.” [Standing for Freedom
Center, 3/14/24]
∙ In the same piece, Wolfe argued that “surrogacy violates God’s good design for child-
rearing by turning children into commodities to be manufactured in a lab, implanted
in rented wombs, and then purchased by the highest bidder.” [Standing for Freedom
Center, 3/14/24]
∙ Wolfe has published several anti-surrogacy pieces, arguing, “Christians should rightly
understand surrogacy as fundamentally immoral, unethical, and sinful.” [Standing for
Freedom Center, 12/4/23, 10/6/22, 3/23/24
∙ Wolfe has also attacked surrogacy on the basis of his opposition to same-sex marriage.
He wrote: “Surrogacy tells humanity that they can try to make babies anywhere, at any
time, and for anyone — and whether or not that child is going to be both the product, and
placed in, a man-woman marriage becomes irrelevant.” [Standing for Freedom Center,
12/28/23]
∙ In a piece titled “Christian: Let The World Call Us Fools — So Long As God Calls Us
Faithful,” Wolfe wrote that “rent-a-womb surrogacy is a perversion of God’s good plan
for procreation.” [Standing for Freedom Center, 10/6/22]
∙ According to Wolfe, surrogacy is an “unethical, exploitative industry that causes harm
to everyone involved except for the intended parents.” [Standing for Freedom Center,
4/21/22]
Media Research Center
∙ Media Research Center’s affiliated news outlet, NewsBusters, published an article
claiming NBC “fear mongers” about Louisiana’s new law classifying mifepristone and
misoprostol as dangerous substances. The piece said an NBC correspondent stating the
new law will create confusion around the safety of the drugs is “fear-mongering” and tries
to rebut the idea by claiming the law “isn’t banning the drugs.” [NewsBusters, 5/22/24]
∙ The right-wing “media watchdog” organization has been releasing content railing
against abortion and mifepristone for years. In many pieces, the titles refer to the drugs
as “harmful,” dangerous”, and “deadly.” [NewsBusters, 3/20/24, 4/24/23, 4/22/23, 3/24/23,
11/18/22]
∙ The organization has also cherry-picked stories to bolster its fearmongering about
the pill. In one example, it describes a “chemical abortion nightmare” where a woman on
YouTube described witnessing the heartbeat of the fetus and the health issues she faced
afterward. The Media Research Center used the story as an opportunity to attack Planned
Parenthood for what it describes as “its prioritization of killing babies over keeping women
out of harm’s way.” [Media Research Center, 1/5/24]
Contraceptives
∙ Media Research Center defended a group that spread misinformation about birth
control pills on TikTok. After TikTok removed posts from a group marketing a “detox
vitamin regime” to “wean” oneself off hormonal birth control, Media Research Center
speculated that the platform was shilling for the pharmaceutical industry and its various
ploys to exploit women. “Think about it, women needing to detox from a drug [oral birth
control] may make them stay on it longer to avoid having to wean themselves off,” the site
wrote. “That brings in more money for big pharma. Similarly, when women are on ‘the pill,’
they could become more depressed, then boom, more money for anti-depressants and
therapies. Women may fall in love with less masculine men, which makes society weaker.
Women may not be able to get pregnant on their own as a result of the drug, so ...more
money goes to IVF.” [NewsBusters, 3/27/24; Cleveland Clinic, 7/7/22]
∙ Media Research Center on abortion funds passing out emergency contraceptives at
an Olivia Rodrigo concert: “If you don’t think this is a blatant and targeted attack to
not only brainwash young girls into thinking abortion is normal and casual but also to
continue killing babies, your eyes must be shut.” [NewsBusters, 3/15/24]
IVF
∙ Media Research Center’s Tierin-Rose Mandelburg responded to the Alabama Supreme
Court decision in a blog post, writing, “This is a good thing. Regardless of whether
a child is conceived naturally or by artificial implantation, that child has value and
has sanctity and deserves to be treated as such. Throwing embryos away should be
considered murder, as, now in Alabama, it is.” Mandelburg’s blog began with the line,
“Sweet Home Alabama just got even sweeter for babies.” [NewsBusters, 2/19/24]
∙ Media Research Center’s Jorge Bonilla argued that the mainstream media’s response to
Alabama’s ruling was disingenuous and simply a cover to advocate for abortion rights,
writing, “The panic point for the media is the Court’s grant of personhood to human
embryos.” “Such a finding, were it to be upheld by the United States Supreme Court, drives
a dagger into efforts to codify Roe,” he continued. He later added: “Personhood, even if
not uttered out loud, is the whole ball game and the media know it. It’s hard to imagine the
liberal media caring too much about IVF except that these stories enable advocacy for a
Roe restoration. Personhood gets in the way of that.” [NewsBusters, 2/23/24]
Mississippi Center for Public Policy
IVF
∙ Similar to the Heritage Foundation, the Mississippi Center for Public Policy argued
more than a decade ago in support of a proposed “personhood amendment” to the
state’s constitution, claiming it was “unlikely” to “be used to justify a ban on in vitro
fertilization (IVF).” MCPP added: “IVF procedures can be performed without destroying
human embryos, and therefore would still be permissible under Initiative 26. As is
currently being done in many cases, any excess embryos not implanted in the womb could
be frozen and implanted later or adopted out to other parents.” [Mississippi Center for
Public Policy, 11/3/11]
The National Center for Public Policy Research and Project 21

Black Leadership Network
∙ In a commentary piece for its parent organization, the National Center for Public
Policy Research, Project 21 member Patrina Mosley described mifepristone as a “lethal
regime,” and compared the fight to end abortion with the fight to end slavery. She went
on to claim the medication “has led to untold physical and psychological harm” to patients.
Mosley also went on to claim drugs like mifepristone are an easy way for pharmaceutical
organizations to make quick profits, and allow for “sexual abusers and partners who are
unwilling fathers” to coerce people into taking the drug. [The National Center for Public
Policy Research, 4/20/23]
∙ Both groups also signed an amicus brief to the Supreme Court asking it to reverse the
approval of the drug. In a concurring statement, Project 21 chairman Horace Cooper said,
“Project 21 supports ending the FDA’s attempt to radically expand the use of mifepristone
into some sort of ‘morning after’ abortion pill.” He went on to call the medicine “dangerous”
and claimed that pro-life doctors should be exempt from prescribing the medication as
it would make them “an accessory to an evil act.” [The National Center for Public Policy
Research, 3/26/24]

Contraceptives
∙ A 2012 National Center for Public Policy Research blog argued that the Affordable Care
Act’s contraception mandate was “unconstitutional” and “defies the religious liberty
predicate that this nation is founded upon.” The blog also asserted that the mandate
“threatens our long-held belief that all Americans may worship and serve God free from
governmental interference.” [National Center for Public Policy Research, 2/1/12]
Students for Life of America
∙ Students for Life of America has been a leading force behind a push to prohibit
reproductive medication — the organization’s website even has a “chemical abortion”
landing page, which fearmongers about the safety of mifepristone. [Students for Life of
America, accessed 5/15/24; Politico, 4/19/23]
∙ Students for Life Action, the political arm of the organization, released a statement
praising Louisiana’s new law categorizing mifepristone and misoprostol as controlled
dangerous substances. The statement called the drugs “dangerous” and repeated claims
that chemical abortions result in significantly more complications and death than surgical
ones. [Students for Life Action, 5/23/24]
∙ Students for Life president Kristan Hawkins posted on X praising the Louisiana law and
calling abortion pills “dangerous” and, in another post, claimed Vice President Kamala
Harris was “protecting sexual predators” by speaking out against the law. [Twitter/X,
5/22/24, 5/23/24]
∙ In a press call reported on by NPR, Hawkins described the process as tantamount to
“death by mail delivered to your doorstep.” [NPR, 12/16/21]
∙ The group has spread debunked claims about medication abortion having a harmful
impact on wildlife and the environment, and filed a petition with the FDA to require
providers of the medication to be responsible for the disposal of fetal tissue similar
to medical waste. Hawkins was quoted in an organization blog saying that “tainted
blood, tissue, and human remains have been flushed away, without any hard look at what
happens next, or what happens to us and the environment.” [Media Matters, 3/12/24; USA
Today, 12/12/22; Students for Life for America, 11/23/22]
∙ A different blog post focused on the supposed dangers of using abortion medicine
and the “abortion pill myths perpetuated by the abortion industry.” It argued that it is
a “myth” that the majority of patients who take the medication don’t experience “serious
complications,” and claimed that it is illegal and unsafe for the medication to be sent
through the mail. Additionally, the group said abortion medicine is “uniquely traumatic” to
patients. [Students for Life for America, 4/26/23]
Contraceptives
∙ Kristan Hawkins, president of Students for Life of America, said IUDs and birth control
pills should not be legal. During a 2017 interview with MSNBC host Joy Reid, Hawkins
claimed that IUDs “put women at risk and they kill children.” According to The Washington
Post, fearmongering by anti-choice organizations has caused an increase in patients
coming to doctors believing misconceptions about the safety of birth control, despite the
low prevalence of rare adverse side effects. [Reveal News, 10/8/22; The Washington Post,
3/21/24]
∙ On its website, SFLA falsely claims that some forms of birth control — including
birth control pills, IUDs, and emergency contraceptives — are “abortifacient.” The
organization has also amplified the debunked claim that Plan B, a pill used to prevent
ovulation from occuring, is “capable of ending the life of a conceived human.” [Students
for Life of America, accessed 4/2/24, accessed 4/2/24; CNBC, 12/24/22; Guttmacher
Institute, 12/9/14]
IVF
∙ Students for Life of America argued that a “consistent, intellectually-honest stance
holds that human life begins at conception/fertilization,” and views discarding
embryos as “a human rights violation,” claiming that the current process of IVF
encourages “targeted killing” based on “undesirable traits” and “leads to eugenics.”
[Students for Life of America, 1/27/22, 4/21/22, 2/23/24]
∙ In a blog post, Students for Life of America prepared supporters to discuss IVF by
raising the argument that “more die from IVF than abortion.” [Students for Life America,
2/23/24]
Surrogacy
∙ Students for Life of America wrote on Instagram that “surrogacy creates a broken
circumstance” for children. [Instagram, 6/1/23]
∙ On Students for Life of America’s Unapologetic podcast, host Autumn Higashi said that
surrogacy feels “transactional because that’s exactly what it is.” She went on to argue
that surrogacy is “a vanity of self, of ‘I want a baby, I don’t want to do the work.’” Higashi
voiced similar opposition to surrogacy in another episode of the podcast, titled “Surrogacy
Makes Women Incubators.” [Students for Life of America, Unapologetic, 5/31/23, 10/31/22]
∙ In a blog post on babies who had been delivered via surrogate in Ukraine and
subsequently trapped there due to the ongoing war, contributing writer for Students
for Life of America Anna Reynolds lamented the “unintended consequences” of
surrogacy, calling it a “heavily commercialized baby market.” [Students for Life of
America, 4/6/22]
Susan B. Anthony Pro-Life America
∙ Susan B. Anthony Pro-Life America released a statement congratulating Louisiana for
the The Catherine and Josephine Herring Act categorizing abortion drugs as controlled
substances. The statement, by Southern Regional Director Caitlin Connors, claims “pro-
abortion Democrats have enabled abusers to coerce and poison mothers with dangerous
abortion drugs,” seemingly referencing the FDA easing restrictions on the drugs. The
organization repeated these claims in a blog posted to Substack. [Susan B. Anthony Pro-
Life America, 5/21/24; Substack, Susan B. Anthony Pro-Life America, 5/23/24]
∙ In March of 2024, SBA published a piece on its site titled “Five big lies about the
Supreme Court mail-order abortion drug case” in which it focuses on potential harmful
side effects of the drug and the effects on patients. [Susan B. Anthony Pro-Life
America, 3/25/24]
∙ Notably, two publications cited as key studies in the Texas lawsuit against the drug,
produced by the research arm of SBA, the Charlotte Lozier Institute, were retracted
from a medical journal for issues regarding flaws and conflict of interest. [The
Associated Press, 2/7/24]
∙ The SBA was also one of several organizations to sign an amicus brief in support of
reinstating the rule requiring an in-person visit to be prescribed mifepristone. [U.S.
Supreme Court, U.S. Food and Drug Administration v. Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine,
Brief of Amicus Curiae, 2/24]
∙ According to Vox, SBA has been reaching out to right-wing governors in numerous
states to discuss restrictions on the shipment of abortion medication. The
organization’s state director of affairs told Vox that she expects states to be “creative” in
finding ways to enforce restrictions against reproductive rights. [Vox, 1/9/23]
∙ SBA has released numerous press releases following the litigation of abortion
medication, in many cases describing the pills and their distribution as “dangerous”
and “reckless” [The Susan B. Anthony Pro-Life America, 4/13/23, 2/8/23, 1/25/23, 1/19/23,
1/3/23, 11/18/22]
∙ In January 2022, SBA, alongside a coalition of other organizations, released a letter
to the Senate arguing against the nomination of Dr. Robert Califf for commissioner of
the FDA due to his support of abortion pills. The letter claimed Califf approved “unsafe
mail-order abortion.” The letter was also signed by other Project 2025 partners such as
Concerned Women for America, Americans United for Life, Family Policy Alliance, and The
Ethics and Public Policy Center. [Susan B. Anthony Pro-Life America, 1/12/22, 2/14/22]
Contraceptives
∙ Dr. Ingrid Skop, director of medical affairs at Susan B. Anthony Pro-Life America’s
research arm, claimed that a birth control drug called Opill was an “abortifacient” — it
is not — and she was tapped by the state of Texas to be an “expert witness” in a lawsuit
filed by Texas women denied abortions due to the state’s abortion bans. [ABC News,
7/20/23; Ms. Magazine, 8/17/23; Guttmacher Institute, 12/9/14]
∙ In 2016, an SBA-PLA spokesperson confirmed that the organization opposed certain
forms of contraception, including IUD coils and the morning after pill. According to
The Telegraph, Susan B. Anthony List, the lobbying branch of SBA-PLA, is “opposed to
some kinds of birth control – namely, IUD coils and the morning after pill – because in
both instances, there’s a chance they could prevent a fertilised egg from implanting. It’s
a strict reading of Roman Catholic teaching that would make many practising Catholics
uncomfortable.” [The Telegraph, 9/26/16]
∙ A 2014 press release from the organization suggested that “IUDs and so-called
‘morning after pills’ have been shown to occasionally prevent newly created embryos
from implanting in the uterine wall, therefore facilitating early abortion.” The statement
decried “the most popular emergency contraceptives,” claiming they “can cause the death
of embryos.” [Susan B. Anthony Pro-Life America, 1/16/14; Guttmacher Institute, 12/9/14]

IVF
∙ Susan B. Anthony Pro-Life America is adamant about protecting embryos from being
discarded, and as lawmakers drafted bills to protect IVF after the Alabama ruling,
the organization criticized proposed legislation for not protecting embryos. SBA Pro-
Life America argued against Rep. Nancy Mace’s (R-SC) legislation, arguing that it “leaves
no room for reasonable laws like the one in Louisiana that for decades has protected
human embryos while also allowing IVF.” The organization heavily criticized Sen. Tammy
Duckworth’s (D-IL) bill, saying it “would even codify a right to human cloning and genetic
engineering of human embryos.” [Susan B. Anthony Pro-Life America, 2/28/24]
Tea Party Patriots
Contraceptives
∙ Tea Party Patriots’ website on its opposition to the Affordable Care Act’s contraception
mandate: “This is about everyone’s right to practice their religion without the
government stepping in and telling them what to do.” In 2014, the group organized a rally
in front of the Supreme Court to voice its support for craft supplies chain Hobby Lobby,
the company that took its fight for a religious exemption from the ACA’s contraception
mandate to the court. Co-opting the language used by reproductive rights activists, the
Tea Party Patriots called the event the “Freedom of Choice” rally. [Mother Jones, 3/25/14]
Texas Public Policy Foundation
∙ In 2023, The Texas Public Policy Foundation filed an amicus brief in U.S. Food and
Drug Administration v. Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine defending other Project 2025
partners’ efforts to limit access to mifepristone. [U.S. Supreme Court, U.S. Food and
Drug Administration v. Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine, Brief of Amicus Curiae, 2/29/24]
Contraceptives
∙ A policy analyst associated with the Texas Public Policy Foundation voiced opposition
to the Affordable Care Act’s contraceptive mandate, arguing that it was an “attempt to
narrow the definition of religious liberty.” The Texas Public Policy Foundation described
the mandate as “an attempt to narrow the definition of religious liberty, and if successful
would further confine dissent over these kinds of issues to houses of worship, effectively
banning it from the public square.” [Politico, 7/23/2013; First Things, 2/14/13]

Turning Point USA
∙ Turning Point USA has published several opinion pieces from contributors attacking
mifepristone. In one piece titled “NY Passes Law Requiring Public Universities to Provide
the Abortion Pill to Students,” Turning Point USA contributor Morgan Zegers highlighted
mail-ordered pills, writing, “Recently, some states have approved the sale of these
abortion drugs via online order and mail delivery, a move that has been called reckless
as it endangers not just the pre-born child, but also the life of the mother.” [Turning Point
USA, 5/3/23]
∙ Turning Point USA contributor Erin Elmore took aim at mifepristone again in a piece
asking, “Did the FDA Classify Pregnancy as an Illness to Approve ‘Abortion Pill?’” Elmore
said the drug is “has several side effects, doesn’t always work as intended, is linked to
the deaths of nearly 30 women, and has caused life-threatening illnesses in hundreds of
women.” [Turning Point USA, 4/20/23]
∙ In another blog, Morgonn McMichael wrote about FDA regulations allowing for
mifepristone to be sold at retail pharmacies, heavily accentuating the negative side
effects of the medication. She writes, “Despite the innumerable side effects, some
tolerable, others life-threatening, Plan C, a medical abortion pill provider, still claims that
abortion is ‘safer than continuing a pregnancy and having a baby.’” Shegoes on to add,
“Making the abortion pill more accessible is not the win for women that the left is branding
it as.” [Turning Point USA, 1/4/23]
Contraceptives
∙ Turning Point USA founder Charlie Kirk: “Birth control, like, really screws up female
brains, by the way.” He continued: “Every single one of you need to make sure that your
loved ones are not on birth control. It increases depression, anxiety, suicidal ideation.” Kirk
seemed to blame birth control for women being less conservative. “Abortion’s obviously
part of it, but they’ve been sold a lie through culture, through media, through even some of
their parents that you basically have to go pursue this corporate trajectory, and that men
are always the problem, and suppress your biological impulses,” he said. Kirk also claimed
that birth control “creates very angry and bitter young ladies and young women.” [The
Arizona Republic, 3/3/24]
∙ Turning Point USA host Alex Clark has repeatedly spread misinformation about the
safety of birth control, describing it as “poison.” Clark has also fearmongered about birth
control causing cancer and has argued that birth control can “induce an abortion” and
cause fertility issues. [Media Matters, 2/14/23]
IVF
∙ Turning Point USA’s Alex Clark, who frequently criticizes fertility care and birth control,
has written about her changing stance on IVF, concluding in 2022 that IVF is not “really
any different than an early abortion.” [Turning Point USA, 8/11/22, 8/29/22; Media Matters,
6/11/23, 2/14/23]

Surrogacy
∙ Turning Point USA’s Alex Clark criticized surrogacy partially on the basis that
Khloe Kardashian had “explained that the whole process was ‘such a transactional
experience,’ and said that she felt guilt and a lack of connection with her son.” [Turning
Point USA, 7/14/23]
∙ Clark has also argued that assisted reproductive technologies such as surrogacy and
IVF represent “a culture that glorifies parenthood on demand.” [Turning Point USA,
6/6/23]
∙ Clark has often referenced Katy Faust, who argued on Clark’s show The Spillover that
surrogacy contributes to “a world where children are being designed and purchased
and commodified.” Faust later said that “all third-party reproduction violates the rights
of children.” Discussing Faust’s position in a written piece, Clark wrote that “mothers and
fathers are not interchangeable.” [Turning Point USA, The Spillover, 8/26/22; Turning Point
USA, 6/6/23]
Young America’s Foundation
∙ Young America’s Foundation published a blog on its website in July 2023 attacking
a seminar at Texas A&M University which included information about mifepristone,
titled “Pregnant Woman Teaches Texas A&M Students How to Perform Illegal
Abortions.” YAF wrote, “Universities should never allow students or guest speakers to
use official resources to promote illegal activity. Hopefully, the investigation will result
in consequences for the leftist student organization as well as the administrators who
approved the all-school invitation.” [Young America’s Foundation, 7/19/23]
∙ In April 2023, YAF filed an amicus brief alongside several other right-wing organizations
which argued that the “FDA abused its own regulation in approving mifepristone in
2000.” [U.S. Supreme Court, U.S. Food and Drug Administration v. Alliance for Hippocratic
Medicine, Brief of Amicus Curiae, 4/18/23]

Inside Project 2025's Attack On Reproductive Rights

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Inside Project 2025's Attack On Reproductive Rights

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Inside Project 2025's Attack On Reproductive Rights

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

INSIDE

Media Matters for America 1

Project 2025’s extreme anti-choice agenda

The Mandate for Leadership policy book suggests:

Project 2025 partners have argued against access to

At least 31 Project 2025 partners have published

Additionally, 10 partner organizations led by the

“We cannot ignore the

The Heritage Foundation has been a

The Heritage Foundation

Media Matters for America 11

Media Matters for America 12

Alabama Policy Institute

Alliance Defending Freedom

Media Matters for America 15

The American Conservative

American Cornerstone Institute

American Family Association

Media Matters for America 19

Media Matters for America 20

American Legislative Exchange Council

American Principles Project

California Family Council

Center for Family and Human Rights

Center for Renewing America

Media Matters for America 27

The Claremont Institute

Concerned Women for America

Media Matters for America 30

Media Matters for America 31

Family Policy Alliance

Family Research Council

First Liberty Institute

Media Matters for America 36

The Heartland Institute

Media Matters for America 37

Media Matters for America 38

Dr. James Dobson Family Institute

Media Research Center

Mississippi Center for Public Policy

The National Center for Public Policy Research and Project 21

Media Matters for America 42

Students for Life of America

Susan B. Anthony Pro-Life America

Media Matters for America 45

Tea Party Patriots

Texas Public Policy Foundation

Media Matters for America 46

Media Matters for America 47

Young America’s Foundation

Media Matters for America 48

You might also like

Pfad - The Proxy pFad of © 2024 Garber Painting. All rights reserved.