President Donald Trump’s executive order affirming the biological reality of two sexes — male and female — already has the transgender lobby in a twist. However, particular wording in the description of what constitutes a biological male and female has pro-lifers applauding while abortion activists are screaming.
Advertisement
BREAKING: President Trump’s executive order that proclaims that there are only TWO GENDERS also recognizes that human life BEGINS AT CONCEPTION! pic.twitter.com/w9tRjnOpM1
— Kristan Hawkins (@KristanHawkins) January 21, 2025
“Fetal personhood” is the clumsy terminology applied to the belief that life begins at conception, and any harm to that life is a denial and violation of basic human rights. Pro-life advocates and lawmakers adhere to the fetal personhood definition and use it to build greater protections societally and legislatively for the unborn. The abortion rights crowd sees this as a slippery slope that will lead to a national abortion ban, and this is part of the reason why they are becoming unhinged.
aside from the “doesn’t understand human biology” self-own, the implication of fetal personhood is really worrisome for an eventual federal abortion ban https://t.co/3JSu4znfAL
— k 🧝🏼♀️ (@kianadromeda) January 21, 2025
By describing a fetus as a person from conception, Trump has legitimized fetal personhood. Pro-abortion activists have long warned that fetal personhood, an ideology that calls for providing equal human rights to a fetus (even if it’s a cluster of cells), will effectively strip pregnant people of their own rights. The legal language employed by fetal personhood also effectively categorizes any person receiving an abortion at any stage as a murderer.
But the concept of fetal personhood is not only weaponized to limit abortion access—it’s also been leveraged at the state level to restrict in vitro fertilization access for intended parents in places such as Alabama, and even used to limit access to forms of birth control. In May, the Texas GOP attempted to transform fetal personhood into law, claiming that “abortion is not healthcare, it is homicide,” and called on lawmakers to extend “equal protection of the laws to all preborn children from the moment of fertilization.”
Advertisement
With the overturn of Roe v. Wade, abortion activists lost their federal codification of abortion on demand. Along with the states that limit and/or restrict abortion, over 17 states actively use fetal personhood as the basis for their civil and criminal legislation. So, despite flooding the zone with abortion pills and mounting campaigns to encode it in state constitutions, activists still fear losing at the state level. You thought the “Handmaid’s Tale” references were thick before with Trump earning a second term; as he lays out more policy surrounding children and families, expect this to increase over the next four years.
“That’s one of the problems with these [fetal personhood] laws, is that they’re selective. They select out women because of their condition, which is unlawful.” –@michelebgoodwin
Full report by @laylak_q for @NewsHour: https://t.co/cQ5bNofvaj pic.twitter.com/rFP5cvb8z5
— Pregnancy Justice | @pregnancyjust.bsky.social (@PregnancyJust) November 18, 2024
It really is tragic that we have to craft public policy in this way, and it highlights that, as a nation, we are still far removed from a culture of life. However, state legislators are taking full advantage of this push, as the fetal personhood bill that was floated last year in the Iowa House of Representatives attests. The hope of many pro-life activists is that the argument of fetal personhood will be pushed to the Supreme Court.
Advertisement
“If you elevate a fetus to the status of a person and grant it citizenship rights equal to that of a pregnant person, then now you have a clash of rights,” said Rebecca Kluchin, a history professor at California State University, Sacramento, who is writing a book on the history of efforts to establish fetal personhood in the United States.
Kluchin said one goal of the recent fetal personhood bills is to get a case before the U.S. Supreme Court. The Dobbs decision, and the conservative bent of the current court, have created an environment where lawmakers are saying, “Let’s try it,” she said. “If one of them gets it right, then others can pass identical laws.”
This creates an urgency on both sides of the argument. The pro-abortion side only sees fetal personhood as a backdoor way to restrict “reproductive rights,” while the pro-life side sees it as a powerful tool to further protect the unborn. One hopes that somewhere in the middle, our nation can work on transforming hearts and minds back to a culture that respects and upholds life, and societal support that gives women permission to preserve life, not destroy it.
