* Personal PAC CEO Sarah Garza Resnick writing in the Tribune…

Many Illinois residents believe their abortion rights and access are “Trump proof,” thanks to many years of legislative victories in Springfield. It’s true that Springfield has put important protections into place in recent years, such as the Reproductive Health Act, the expansion of Medicaid and private insurance coverage for abortion care, and protections for patients and providers from criminalization. But the scary truth is, our rights remain at risk with Donald Trump in the White House with control over the Supreme Court and both the House and Senate. […]

First, contrary to talk on the campaign trail, President Trump wouldn’t need to sign a nationwide abortion ban to meaningfully restrict access — including in Illinois. His cabinet can do the “dirty work” for him. One of the many ways Trump could enact a national ban is by directing the Department of Justice to enforce an obscure existing law called the Comstock Act, passed in 1873, that could drastically restrict access to the tools needed to provide abortions and other pregnancy care. That could include mifepristone, one of two drugs used in medication abortions and miscarriage management, and it could also even affect access to standard medical supplies used for all types of procedures.

Second, despite increased abortion bans around the country, more people are accessing abortion since the Supreme Court overturned Roe v Wade. One factor for the increase is the FDA’s updated 2021 guidance allowing medication abortion via telehealth. Trump could direct the FDA to rescind that guidance in addition to removing other regulations on medication abortion, or he can revoke approval of medication abortion drugs entirely. Nearly two-thirds of abortions provided in the American health care system are medication abortions.

* More on the Comstock Act…

• The Comstock Act – an 1873 anti-vice law banning the mailing of obscene matter and articles used to produce abortion – could be used by a future presidential administration opposed to abortion rights to sharply restrict abortion nationwide. A literal interpretation of the Act could potentially also apply to materials used to produce all abortions, not just medication abortions; would not have exceptions; and could affect other medical care, such as miscarriage management.

• The Biden Administration’s Department of Justice has determined the Comstock Act only applies when the sender intends for the material or drug to be used for an illegal abortion, and because there are legal uses of abortion drugs in every state including to save the life of the pregnant person, there is no way to determine the intent of the sender. This interpretation, however, is not binding on future administrations.

• Anti-abortion organizations have asked federal courts to interpret the Comstock Act as a ban on the mailing and distribution of mifepristone– one of two drugs in the medication abortion regimen. While former President Trump has not publicly endorsed the enforcement of the Comstock Act, enforcement of the law has been outlined as a strategy recommended by conservative and anti-abortion leadership and may emerge as a key issue in the 2024 presidential election.

Using that law to restrict abortions is also a strategy from Project 2025.