Governor Tim Walz’s recent remarks regarding Project 2025—a policy document created by the Heritage Foundation as a roadmap for a future conservative administration—raise significant concerns. Walz claimed that the document would establish a “registry of pregnancies,” restrict contraception, and limit access to infertility treatments, potentially erasing these options for women. However, upon a thorough examination, it becomes clear that Walz’s statements are either exaggerated or unfounded.

Misrepresentations of Pregnancy “Registry”

Walz’s assertion that Project 2025 calls for a national pregnancy registry simply does not hold water. The document suggests expanding the tracking of abortions and miscarriages, something that nearly all states already do in some form by reporting anonymous data to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). While Project 2025 advocates making such reporting mandatory, there is no call for the tracking of general pregnancies. This distinction is critical. The goal is not to invade women’s privacy or create a “Big Brother”-style registry, but to ensure accurate and consistent data on life-ending events such as abortions.

As pro-life advocates, we believe that if we are serious about protecting unborn life, reliable data on the number of abortions performed in this country is essential. Such data can help policymakers make informed decisions about how to better support women in crisis pregnancies and their unborn children. The notion of a general pregnancy registry, however, is a fearmongering tactic that distorts the actual proposals outlined in the document.

Contraception: Setting the Record Straight

Contrary to Governor Walz’s claim, Project 2025 does not propose a blanket ban on contraception. In fact, Donald Trump himself has made it clear that he does not want to limit access to contraceptives, and there is no call for banning common forms of birth control such as pills or intrauterine devices (IUDs) in the Heritage Foundation’s plan.

However, the document does advocate for eliminating the mandate for insurance to cover emergency contraceptives like the “morning-after” pill, Ella. The reasoning behind this is grounded in a pro-life understanding of when life begins. Emergency contraceptives may prevent a fertilized egg from implanting in the womb, which is equivalent to an early abortion. This position is not about controlling women’s bodies but about protecting life from the moment of conception.

By targeting funding to organizations like Planned Parenthood, which profit from the destruction of unborn life, the project seeks to redirect taxpayer money toward life-affirming alternatives. The removal of taxpayer funding from such organizations is not about restricting access to contraception; it’s about moral accountability and ensuring that federal dollars aren’t used to support abortion.

The IVF Debate: An Ethical Consideration

Governor Walz’s comments about infertility treatments and IVF are also misleading. Project 2025 does not directly address IVF, but its support for fetal personhood—recognizing the rights of the unborn from conception—could indeed have implications for the way IVF is practiced. All human life, including embryos created in labs, should be treated with dignity and respect. The destruction or freezing of “excess” embryos that often occurs during IVF procedures raises profound ethical concerns for those who believe life begins at conception.

That said, Trump himself has expressed support for IVF, emphasizing that insurance companies should be required to cover it. This shows that even within the broader pro-life movement, there is a nuanced and evolving conversation about the ethics of assisted reproductive technologies.

Addressing the Fearmongering

It is clear that Governor Walz’s comments were designed to stir fear, particularly among women, by misrepresenting the contents of Project 2025. The document itself does not call for draconian restrictions on women’s healthcare but rather seeks to promote policies that protect the unborn and uphold the sanctity of life. These values should not be twisted into accusations of seeking to control women’s bodies or deny healthcare.

As pro-life, Christian conservatives, we believe in both the protection of life and the compassionate care of women facing challenging pregnancies. We affirm the value of supporting mothers, expanding options for adoption, and promoting policies that foster a culture of life. Project 2025 reflects these priorities, even if it does so imperfectly.

In the end, it is important to engage with the facts rather than the fear-based rhetoric surrounding these issues. Governor Walz’s exaggerations distract from the real conversation we should be having about how to balance women’s rights with the protection of the unborn. We should stand firm in advocating for policies that reflect both the dignity of life and the compassionate support of families—values that Project 2025 largely upholds.