Donald Trump and J. D. Vance support a national ban on abortion. They are just calling it something else.

Since the justices Trump appointed to the Supreme Court provided the conservative majority necessary to overturn the constitutional right to an abortion, women in Republican-controlled states have been forced to flee their homes in order to receive lifesaving care. Some women have died or were treated only at the brink of death. Contrary to the carefully cultivated stereotype, most of the women who seek abortions are already mothers, meaning that many of these women who died left behind children who will never see their mom again.

For these reasons and others—including the invasive, gender-based state surveillance and control required to outlaw abortion—these bans have become unpopular, even in most conservative states. Trump, who is more responsible than any other individual for their existence, has delicately sought to present a more moderate position on abortion rights to voters, while quietly reassuring the anti-abortion movement that, if elected again, he will continue to do their bidding. This is why, for example, Trump altered the GOP platform on abortion to remove the call for a federal abortion ban, yet inserted more convoluted language that insists that abortion rights are unconstitutional under the Fourteenth Amendment. The position that the Constitution already outlaws abortion is even more extreme than the position that Congress can and should outlaw it.

Trump and Vance do think Congress should outlaw it too. Vance said as much during the vice-presidential debate with the Democratic nominee, Tim Walz. He simply debuted a new euphemism for it, saying he merely supported a “minimum national standard” on abortion. That is just another phrase meaning “abortion ban.”

“I never supported a national ban. I did, during when I was running for Senate in 2022, talk about setting some minimum national standard,” Vance told the CBS News moderator Norah O’Donnell.

So first of all, that was a lie. Vance has said not only that he “certainly would like abortion to be illegal nationally” but also that he would be “sympathetic” to outlawing interstate travel for women seeking abortions. In classic Vance style, he didn’t use the word outlaw, of course; what he instead said was: “some federal response to prevent it from happening.” Regardless, the result would be pregnant women dying of septic shock in emergency rooms where doctors refuse to treat them for fear of being prosecuted. Vance has even opposed the narrow exceptions to abortion bans for rape and incest, on the grounds that “two wrongs don’t make a right.”

[From the November 2024 issue: The rise of the right wing tattletale]

But more important, a “national minimum standard” is just another phrase for federal abortion ban, like calling soccer “football” instead. Although Vance did not specify a window of time for such a standard, the only point of one would be to ban abortion outside it.

Trump has been playing word games too. During the debate, he put out a post on his social-media accounts asserting that he would veto a federal ban, while implying that he believes abortion should be illegal after the seventh month—a relatively popular position—adding, “I FULLY SUPPORT THE THREE EXCEPTIONS FOR RAPE, INCEST, AND THE LIFE OF THE MOTHER.”

As the writer Jessica Valenti points out, this is curious phrasing, and suggests that Trump and Vance have redefined abortion ban to mean “abortion bans that do not contain exceptions.” “Under this definition,” Valenti notes, “there are no abortion bans in America!” Already, very few women qualify for such exceptions in Republican-controlled states. The exceptions are there to retain popular support for the bans, but so legally vague as to ensure that doctors are afraid to provide lifesaving abortions to patients who need them.

Similarly, Trump’s position on vetoing a specific type of abortion ban has not disturbed anti-abortion activists, because they do not expect such a ban to pass Congress anyway. Instead, they believe that if Trump wins, he will use his executive powers to go around Congress to make abortion effectively inaccessible nationwide, while saying that this does not count as banning abortion.

This is not merely my interpretation—anti-abortion activists said as much following Trump’s  proclamation about not supporting a congressionally authorized federal ban. As the president of the National Right to Life Committee, Carol Tobias, told the Associated Press, “Unless something really unusual happens in this election, neither side is going to have the votes in Congress to pass a national law … So that wasn’t really at the top of our list anyway.”

What is on their list? As my colleague Elaine Godfrey reported last year, Trump could use the Department of Justice to prosecute companies that ship abortion medication, which is used in two-thirds of abortions. Given that the available data show that 99 percent of abortions happen before 20 weeks, a ban on such medication would drastically limit the ability of women to get abortions early on, notwithstanding Trump’s misleading position that he thinks it should be illegal only after the seventh month. Anti-abortion activists hope Trump will ban medical supplies that could be used in abortions, which would also affect the ability of doctors to provide lifesaving care in other medical situations. He could also order the DOJ to prosecute abortion providers based on the archaic Comstock Act, which once made it illegal to send porn or condoms through the mail, and which conservative legal activists and judges want to revive to ban abortion. In a second administration, Trump will also appoint more anti-abortion judges—and potentially justices—who would uphold abortion bans, and possibly hold abortion rights to be unconstitutional and therefore unlawful in any state, as the Republican platform demands.

Trump, and the conservative-activist elite that Vance hails from, have a clear plan for limiting women’s access to abortion should they win in November. This could take the form of a congressionally authorized ban if Republicans have a big enough majority, which Trump and Vance would simply refer to as a “minimum national standard.” Or it could take the form of the detailed plan for going around Congress, which anti-abortion activists have been touting for the past few years. But one way or another, banning abortion everywhere is the plan, which is why anti-abortion activists are not discouraged by Trump and Vance’s word games.

Vance did not actually shift his position on abortion. He did try to hide his real views behind a false empathy, saying, “We’ve got to do a better job at winning back people’s trust.” His first attempt at “earning back people’s trust” on abortion was to lie to them about what he believes.

Ever since the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade, Democrats have considered abortion a winning issue and have been eager to talk about it. Emphasizing reproductive rights helped the party achieve victories in the 2022 midterm elections and has generated enthusiasm for Kamala Harris’s presidential campaign.

But some abortions Democrats would rather not discuss: those that occur in the final months of pregnancy. Democrats tend to brush off questions about whether these abortions should be restricted, either by denying that their policies would allow abortions late in pregnancy or by pointing out that these abortions are rare, implying that they are therefore not worth our moral concern.

In the recent vice-presidential debate, Tim Walz sidestepped a question about a relatively permissive abortion bill he signed into law in Minnesota. And in the presidential debate before that, when Donald Trump pointed out that Roe had allowed for abortions in the seventh, eighth, and ninth months of a pregnancy, Kamala Harris plainly said, “That’s not true.”

[Read: Trump and Vance are calling their abortion ban something new]

It’s true that third-trimester abortions are rare. But they do happen. Representatives from the CDC, the pro-abortion-rights Guttmacher Institute, and the anti-abortion Charlotte Lozier Institute told me that national data simply aren’t available. But Colorado, which is home to clinics that perform third-trimester abortions, recorded 137 third-trimester abortions in 2023. That’s only one state—eight other states, plus Washington, D.C., have no restrictions on third-trimester abortions. Just a few minutes from my office building in D.C., a clinic offers abortions up to nearly 32 weeks. In nearby Bethesda, Maryland, a clinic performs abortions up to 35 weeks’ gestation.

Those who support such expansive abortion laws tend to argue that third-trimester abortions are the result of a devastating medical diagnosis. In many cases that’s true, but it is not always the situation. The D.C. clinic I mentioned above confirmed by phone that it performs abortions for any reason. Data on the reasons women have later abortions are also scarce. But when The Atlantic’s Elaine Godfrey interviewed a doctor who specializes in late abortions, he estimated that about half of his patients have healthy pregnancies. Of course, some of his patients are in serious distress for other reasons; some are victims of sexual assault, or are teenagers who didn’t realize they were pregnant. This leads to another logical flaw in how the pro-abortion-rights crowd tends to frame its argument.

The group complains that people are overly focused on exceedingly rare third-term abortions. But abortions after a pregnancy from rape or incest are also comparatively rare, and abortion-rights supporters still push opponents of abortion to take these rare scenarios into account. Discussions about third-trimester abortions should therefore be fair game as well.   

Downplaying third-trimester abortions isn’t necessary for Democrats to protect reproductive rights, and could well alienate the plurality of voters best described as abortion moderates. The grim reality of later abortion is simply too much for most Americans to countenance—and reasonable policy makers should listen to them.

Most Americans believe that third-trimester abortions should be restricted. If Democrats want a platform that truly reflects majority opinion, they should address the question of what to do about later abortions, and adopt a position that protects abortions in the first trimester while limiting second- and third-trimester abortions to pregnancies with fetal abnormalities or maternal health crises.

Democrats keep dancing around the fact that, under Roe, states were not required to restrict later abortions. Under Dobbs, which superseded Roe, they still aren’t; they can choose to ban the procedure or allow the abortions without limits. Of course, the fall of Roe means that more states are banning abortion altogether.

[Read: The abortion absolutist]

But the fact remains that Americans are broadly uncomfortable with third-trimester abortions. A 2023 Gallup poll found that although more than two-thirds of Americans believe abortion should be legal in the first trimester, just 22 percent think it should be legal in the third. And a 2021 Associated Press poll found that just 8 percent of respondents believe that third-trimester abortions should be legal in all cases.

When Democrats hammer home just how rare later abortions are, they’re making an important point: More than 90 percent of American abortions take place in the first trimester. A reasonable platform would adopt the Western European standard, in which abortion is legal for any reason in the first trimester, but later procedures are restricted except in cases of devastating maternal or fetal medical diagnoses. Preserving women’s right to choose does not require Democrats to adopt an extreme position that allows for abortion at any stage of pregnancy, no questions asked.