VA proposes ban on abortion services for veterans, including in cases of rape and incest

The United States Department of Veterans Affairs is proposing a ban on all abortion services for veterans who receive care through the VA health care system, including in cases of rape or incest. 

According to a notice published in the Federal Register on Aug. 4, the proposal would remove abortion and abortion counseling from the list of services covered under both the VA’s medical benefits and the Civilian Health and Medical Program of the Department of Veterans Affairs. 

“We take this action to ensure that VA provides only needed medical services to our nation’s heroes and their families,” the notice said.

Opponents argue the ban would affect the reproductive health care of veterans by possibly delaying needed care,  particularly those living in states with abortion bans. In 2024, over 50,000 women veterans enrolled in the VA medical health care, a 20% increase, the largest in enrollment on record, according to VA News.

“If someone is in the VA system, that’s where they’re getting their care, and something goes wrong with their pregnancy, if they’re not even allowed to be counseled about their options, that is literally malpractice,” said Dr. Raegan McDonald-Mosley, an obstetrician-gynecologist and CEO of the nonprofit, and nonpartisan reproductive health organization Power to Decide. 

“I work and see patients in Baltimore, Maryland. I see a lot of patients who rely on TRICARE and who have been in and out of the VA system. And those people are often, you know, many of them want to get pregnant. Many of them do get pregnant and then face complications during their pregnancy, and they deserve to have the best standard of care, including counseling about all their options whenever there is a case of something that could go wrong,” McDonald-Mosley said. 

According to a 2023 study from the nonprofit National Partnership for Women and Families, over 400,000 veterans live in states with abortion bans. 

Reporting from Military.com concluded that 88 abortions were provided by the VA in 2023, 64 of which were necessary due to the health of the pregnant person.

The proposal claims the VA will continue to allow abortions in cases where a pregnant person’s life is in danger. But, Jackii Wang, senior legislative analyst at National Women’s Law Center, told the American Independent that exceptions to abortion bans can be complicated and can put a patient’s life at risk. 

“We have seen plenty of cases of women dying because their care was delayed for too long. I think the bottom line here is that it’s a really cruel decision from an administration that purports to support veterans and those who served,” Wang said. “We believe that everyone deserves access to abortion care, but if we’re talking about veterans in particular who’ve served this country, it’s a huge slap in the face to everything that they have done.” 

The proposed measure from the VA would undo an interim final ruling issued by former President Joe Biden’s administration in response to the U.S. Supreme Court decision in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization that reversed Roe v. Wade. 

The Biden-era ruling allowed the VA to provide abortion services to veterans if “determined needed by a health care professional, when the life or the health of the pregnant veteran would be endangered if the pregnancy were carried to term or the pregnancy is the result of an act of rape or incest.” 

Rescinding Biden’s rule was also a directive in Project 2025, a document published by the conservative Heritage Foundation and co-authored by anti-abortion organizations, such as Susan B. Anthony Pro-Life America, and members of Trump’s first and second administrations. 

Under the section listing proposed reforms to the Veterans Health Administration, the document reads: 

“Rescind all departmental clinical policy directives that are contrary to principles of conservative governance, starting with abortion services and gender reassignment surgery. Neither aligns with service-connected conditions that would warrant VA’s providing this type of clinical care, and both follow the Left’s pernicious trend of abusing the role of government to further its own agenda.”

Lindsay Church, the executive director and co-founder of Minority Veterans of America, said their membership, mostly made up of women and people of reproductive age, feels the proposal directly impacts them. Church pointed out that survivors of sexual assault in the military are upset over the lack of an exception in the policy for rape survivors.

“That’s deeply insulting, considering the unique circumstances in which our community lives, which is that we live at the intersections of the Department of Defense, military-industrial complex,” Church said. “That means that many of us are survivors of sexual assault and sexual harassment in the military, and this is deeply personal, because some survivors in the Department of Defense even receive care at the Department of Veterans Affairs.”

According to an annual report from the U.S. Department of Defense, there were 8,195 reports of sexual assault in 2024

“This is not just a theoretical anti-abortion move; this is directly impacting people’s lives, and given that so much of our community, the largest states for veterans are places like Texas and Florida, places with really regressive abortion policies,” Church said. 

“If you are sexually assaulted in the state of Texas, and you try to access care at the Department of Veterans Affairs, you would have to go to New Mexico to access that care,” they said. “That seems unjust given the unique circumstances of our community. Not even having a basic, very basic, and very, even regressive exceptions policy is insulting to the people who have worn the uniform to fight for people’s rights.” 

Church’s partner, a civilian, became pregnant in 2022, after the Dobbs decision. At around six weeks into the pregnancy, the couple, who were living in Virginia at the time, learned that the fetus had a fetal abnormality. At 16 weeks, the couple were told that the fetus was not producing amniotic fluid, a fatal diagnosis. 

“We pursued compassionate termination, because there was just not a great hope for them. We accessed care at a Richmond reproductive health clinic where we were called ‘baby killers,’” Church said, adding that under the Biden-era policy, their wife would have had the abortion care through the Civilian Health and Medical Program, which would not be allowed under the Trump administration’s proposal.  

Public comment on the proposed rule will be accepted until Sept. 3.