In a controversial move, former President Donald Trump issued an executive order just hours after taking office on Monday, defining gender strictly as either male or female. This order incorporates elements of fetal personhood, a legal doctrine suggesting that life begins at conception. While the order does not establish new protections or legal status for embryos and fetuses, it is seen as an attempt to normalize the concept of fetal personhood, a notion that could potentially outlaw abortion nationwide if fully enacted.
The executive order defines "female" as "a person belonging, at conception, to the sex that produces the large reproductive cell" and "male" as "a person belonging, at conception, to the sex that produces the small reproductive cell." These definitions align with the principles of fetal personhood, which advocates for granting full legal rights and protections to embryos and fetuses. If realized, this could lead governments to treat abortion as murder, implicating individuals who undergo the procedure as murderers.
Despite the implications of this executive order, it does not establish new legal protections for embryos or fetuses. However, it is viewed as a strategic move by the Trump administration to seed the idea that embryos are people within federal law. Dana Sussman, a prominent advocate, remarked, "I don’t think it was a mistake. I don’t think it was a coincidence. I think this was an intentional way to continue to normalize the idea that embryos are people."
The 2024 GOP platform echoes this sentiment by evoking fetal personhood and stressing Republicans' commitment to "the issue of life." It suggests that fetuses fall under the 14th amendment’s guarantee of life and liberty—a perspective that could have significant legal ramifications. Advocates of fetal personhood hope to present a case to the Supreme Court, urging it to declare that the 14th amendment applies from the moment of conception.
Mary Ziegler, a legal expert, commented on the ambiguity surrounding Trump's intentions: “It’s unclear if this is Trump starting down a road towards much bolder steps on abortion or IVF or if this is just Trump throwing anti-abortion insiders a bone that most readers wouldn’t necessarily understand.” She further noted the potential long-term impact of such an initiative, saying, “It’s always a big deal when you have something, a seed like that, planted in federal law that someone could maybe make something out of later.”
Abortion rights supporters have long feared that Trump would take significant steps to restrict access to the procedure. However, he has yet to take decisive action on this particular issue. Nonetheless, the executive order symbolizes an effort to cement the concept of fetal personhood into federal discourse.
The 14th amendment, which also protects birthright citizenship—a policy Trump has attempted to end—could become a battleground for these evolving legal interpretations. Trump’s latest move is perceived as yet another attempt to codify fetal personhood in some form. As Dana Sussman succinctly put it, “This is yet another attempt to codify it in one form or another.”