How Extreme Will Chris Smith Be In A World After Roe?

The Supreme Court appears poised to allow state bans on abortion before viability, and New Jersey must pass the Reproductive Freedom Act to establish the right to an abortion in our state. But this won’t be enough to permanently guarantee reproductive freedom in NJ.

The assault on reproductive rights will not end with a Supreme Court ruling that tosses the issue to the states. Even if the Reproductive Freedom Act becomes law, “pro-life” members of Congress will continue to press for a federal ban on abortion, denial of federal funding for abortion even to rape survivors, and “personhood” legislation that could end up eliminating certain forms of birth control or fertility treatments.

Chris Smith, R NJ-4, has been at the forefront of these efforts as co-chair of the Congressional “Pro-Life” Caucus. Voters are well aware of Smith’s general opposition to abortion and it clearly hasn’t prevented him from being reelected. What is less clear however, is the extent to which voters are aware of the more extreme aspects and potential consequences of Smith’s record. A complete picture is necessary to cast an informed vote, and that will require some explanations from the Congressman.

Although Smith has voted to include exceptions for rape in abortion restrictions, he has also said of pregnancies resulting from rape that “those children, too, should be protected.” Early in his career, Smith introduced two amendments to ban all federal funding for abortion without exceptions. And more recently, Smith tried to establish “forcible rape” as a threshold for receiving federal funds for an abortion, meaning that if a surivor wasn’t beaten or was a minor in an instance of statutory rape, she would have to carry her rapist’s child if she couldn’t pay for an abortion herself.

Additionally, Smith was silent while several states passed no-exceptions abortion restrctions that are temporarily stalled in courts. As a prominent “pro-life” figure, Smith has done nothing to temper the movement or distance himself from the “carry your rapist’s child” crowd.

Smith is also a proponent of the “personhood” movement, which seeks to grant constitutional rights - to two cells - from the moment of fertilization. He has supported “personhood” legislation, including amending the Constitution, at least twenty-two times.

If “personhood” was enshrined in law, couples seeking IVF might be out of luck because any extra fertilized eggs would have legal protections. But granting constitutional rights from the moment of fertilization could also lead to restrictions on some of the most popular forms of birth control.

Smith and “personhood” proponents consider anything that prevents a fertilized egg from implanting in the womb an “abortifacient.” While the primary function of oral contraceptives and IUDs is to prevent ovulation, they also prevent implantation as a backup.

Smith has claimed to accept birth control pills, but his own definition of an “abortifacient” conflicts with the science of how oral contraceptives and IUDs occasionally function. By potentially preventing implantation, these contraceptives meet Smith and the “personhood” movement’s qualifications for an abortion and could violate a blastocyst’s constitutional rights.

“Personhood” is so important to Smith that he recently voted against legislation to provide free contraceptive coverage to veterans because it contained emergency contraceptives that are designed to function the same way as traditional birth control pills – by delaying ovulation and possibly preventing implantation, but not terminating an established pregnancy.

With abortion rights in danger and the possibility of future restrictions on contraceptives and infertility treatments, it is imperative that voters know exactly where their leigslators stand. Smith has been an extremist on some issues, contradictory on others, and must clarify. Does he support forcing a rape survivor to carry her rapist’s child? Will he push for a national ban on abortion or pursue a “personhood” agenda that could threaten access to birth control, IUDs, or IVF?

Good luck asking. Smith hasn’t held a town hall in thirty years. Since Smith’s constituents can’t ask him questions, someone in the New Jersey press must ask for them. So far, he has been overlooked in all coverage of the current abortion debate. To ignore Smith in this moment is a disservice to the people of the Fourth District who have a right to know what will be proposed in their name.