Wednesday morning’s news of Donald Trump’s sweeping victory in the 2024 US presidential election ushered in a myriad of concerns regarding his revered ‘Project 2025’, an extensive list of promises and policy proposals that are clear in their intended demographic. Most notable of these proposals are those regarding women in the US, and a series of new potential legislation- and the intended continuation of some contentious laws and decisions.
Perhaps one of the most controversial and widely reported legal changes of the last few years was the (chiefly Republican) Supreme Court’s decision to overturn Roe v. Wade, a landmark 1973 legal victory that finally made the decision to get an abortion a constitutional right. This came at the tireless work and campaigning of the NOW movement and numerous other feminist groups that rose to prevalence in the social upheaval and protestations of the 1960s and ‘70s. The decision was made on the basis of the case of Norma McCorvey, or ‘Jane Roe’, a woman stricken by poverty and multiple difficult pregnancies. Her case was representative of women who were not in adequate circumstances to raise children, this being her grounds for seeking an abortion: and, with the legal aid of NOW members, the Supreme Court case was ruled in their favour. This was insurmountably significant in American feminist history: a de jure recognition of female autonomy and a step towards liberation of body and choice for women. However, within the last decade, the influence of growing right wing sentiment in the US- bolstered by the now two-time election of Trump, a vehement Republican and conservative- has sought to undo this progress, and, in the last few years, has succeeded.
Contention against feminism and female autonomy in America has always been an undercurrent to society. Roe v. Wade did not signal a miraculous erasure of historic and systemic misogyny, it merely signalled a small victory, a step in the right direction for the movement. Both de jure and de facto discrimination against women has remained until the present day: women being unable to apply for or possess a credit card without a husband was only removed from law in 1974; and only in 1993 was marital rape considered a crime nationwide, with the first ever prosecution for such being the 1978 Oregon v. Rideout case. Women have perpetually been seen as ‘the second sex’, with Beauvoir’s theory ringing true ever since its birth in 1949. Depictions of women in the media have only just begun to stray from the ‘male gaze’ viewpoint (think Megan Fox in ‘Transformers’, or Pamela Anderson in ‘Baywatch’). This is still something met with criticism for being ‘woke’, such as the male backlash to the female-focused demographic of Greta Gerwig’s 2023 ‘Barbie’ and the opposition to its feministic messaging from conservatives and from men. The growth, too, of the incel movement in the last decade has been worryingly rapid, adjacent to the rise of the Internet and the ease of connectedness it provides for them to spew misogynistic hatred. It is arguable that women are hardly in more of a position of equality than they were when Roe v. Wade was overturned, as conservative values have remained ever since- and now are proposed to be enforced into law and everyday life by Trump’s ‘Project 2025’.
‘Project 2025’ seeks to establish conservative ideals and legislation for women in a myriad of ways, one of which being the proposed ‘baby bonuses’ for young couples. By providing this financial incentives to young couples, Trump appears to seek an increased American birth rate: and by encouraging more young women to become mothers, rather than pursue ambitious careers or the like, the traditional ideal of the domestic female homemaker- the ‘housewife’- is implemented on a greater scale. This intended result of Trump’s administration seems to be further evidenced by his proposed curriculum implementations in schools to teach impressionable children about the nuclear family as an aspirational ideal, as well his proposal to cut federal funding for schools who teach or promote critical theory about race, gender, or other content deemed too left wing. This is startling on its own, as it demonstrates a clear desire by his government to censor and eliminate diversity and acceptance for POC, LGBTQ+ people and women, but the consideration of its long term impact on children is more alarming- the intent is that schools will no longer promote tolerance or diversity, amplifying discrimination and teaching children that any deviance from heterosexuality or acceptances of different races and genders is inherently wrong. All of this evidences a clear hostility to these marginalised groups: though, if circling back to the encouragement of the ‘nuclear family’ ideal, it almost appears as indoctrination, teaching children a very specific set of conventions regarding women and appearing as a devastatingly significant reversal of feminist advancements.
Perhaps most significantly is the administration’s attitude and proposals regarding abortion and birth. The ‘baby bonuses’ demonstrate a desire to heighten the birth rate to an extent; however, the inevitable criminalisation of abortion confirms this, as well as confirming a desire to eradicate true female autonomy and women’s rights. Something also notable about ‘Project 2025’ is the proposed raise of IVF pricing from approximately $13,000-15,000 to roughly $50,000, which goes a long way in excluding same sex couples from having their own children, further promoting Trump’s apparent ‘nuclear family’ ideology. However, most relevant is the overturn of both Roe v. Wade and the consequent push for federal enforcement of the 1873 Comstock Act. The latter makes the use and distribution of contraception and methods of abortion illegal, making it a punishable offence nationwide. Women cannot travel for abortion either, making every possible route a dead end. All of these intended measures not only impact women’s autonomy but women’s safety. What about cases of rape? Miscarriages? Illnesses during pregnancy? What about, simply, a woman’s right to choose?
Fears about the Trump presidency are rampant, and entirely justified, and as the world’s eyes descend on America, the best that can be done is stand in solidarity with the women of the country. As the US slowly becomes adjacent to Atwood’s Gilead, one defiant quote from her book can be taken:
‘Nolite te bastardes carborundorum.’