Focus Group Report: Virginians, Georgians, and Wisconsinites on Abortion Rights and the Comstock Act

This Navigator Research report contains findings from focus groups conducted online on February 26, 2025 among independents, soft partisans (voters who do not identify strongly with either the Democratic Party or the Republican Party), and Democrats and Democratic leaners with varied stances on the issue of abortion: Virginia men who believe abortion should be legal but with some restrictions, Georgia independent and soft partisan white women who believe abortion should be legal but with some restrictions, and Democratic or Democratic leaning women from Wisconsin who believe abortion should be legal in all or most cases. Some quotes have been lightly edited for brevity. Qualitative results are not statistically projectable.

Abortion emerges as an example of recent infringement on rights, with participants recounting stories of ramifications related to abortion bans.

One woman from Georgia expressed: “As a woman, I guess, I’ll rip the band aid off, I feel our freedoms are being attacked.” Others expressed hearing stories about the ramifications of abortion bans, including another Georgia woman who stated: “The doctors are afraid to recommend this or perform that or do their jobs. And I think it’s scary.” Male participants held more ambivalent views on the subject, with many believing their opinions were unvalued. One man from Virginia said: “I don’t know if our opinions matter as much, being guys. And I don’t know if any of us are doctors or anything on top of that either. So I don’t know, it’s just a tough subject to wrap your head around and really have a strong opinion.”

• Men expressed hesitation in their opinions on abortion, with many saying their lack of understanding of the topic leads to their apprehension. Another man from Virginia said: “Some people are a lot more passionate about it than I am, along with just much more informed. So it’s not a debate I’d like to jump into when I feel vulnerable to get kind of outsmarted.”
• Among other consequences of abortion bans, women participants were particularly disturbed by stories of others having to cross state lines in order to obtain the abortion related health care they need. A Georgia woman stated: “I think we’re failing the women in our state… sending a woman off to have to go to another state to someone that they don’t know.” Similarly, one Wisconsin woman said: “Not everyone can afford that, right? Not everyone can afford to drive across state to get the medical attention they need.”

Across groups, the Comstock Act was unknown, but many expressed skepticism on how it would be enforced.

Participants across groups were unfamiliar with the Comstock Act, but when given more information about how it could be enforced to restrict abortion medication, participants expressed confusion on how the government would be able to enforce it. One Virginia man said: “I think it’s going to be almost near impossible to regulate, because I mean, they’re not going to rip open every package. And then people are already sending supplements through the mail. So unless they have some kind of mechanism to detect specifically abortion pills, which I think is impossible… I mean, I don’t think it’s feasible…”

• The question of who would be punished for abortion medication being sent in the mail was also a sticking point across groups. One woman from Georgia asked: “So is it trying to hold the sender responsible for sending, I guess, what they would consider illicit material or the person delivering the mail…?”
• Even amid this confusion, enforcement of the Comstock Act sparked concern about further erosion of abortion rights, including from one Wisconsin woman who said: “To me, it sounds like they’re limiting access to certain things they deem dangerous, but in my mind, not all those things are dangerous.”

Many are unfamiliar with abortion medication, as participants expressed apprehension about it being sent in the mail.

Many participants were unaware that medication abortions existed. A Virginia man said: “I mean, I’m not super educated on the pill approach. I wouldn’t have even thought of that as a way to do it, to be honest.” One Wisconsin woman also stated: “I’ve not heard about [abortion medication], but it just doesn’t sound real safe to me.” Abortion medication being sent through the mail raised more questions of safety across groups, with one Wisconsin woman saying: “I think the person that is doing research or contemplating abortion should seek professional medical advice, and given different routes to work with, having that provider team assist that patient, getting them where they need to be safely. I just don’t think abortion pills should be mailed.”  

• Many believed abortion medication being sent through the mail meant it was not prescribed by a doctor. One man from Virginia said: “I think the main concern is that you’re not having any kind of visit and just some random person’s shipping you a pill.”
• The tampering of mail also emerged as a safety concern of abortion medication, with one Georgia woman saying: “But yeah, I guess, one concern would be safety of it, if someone can tamper with it.”

The top messages against enforcing the Comstock Act include its lack of exceptions for rape and incest and that it could stop women from receiving life saving health care.

The Comstock Act’s lack of exceptions for rape, incest, and medical necessity were disturbing to participants, with one woman from Georgia saying: “There should always be an exception. I don’t think a woman if violated in that nature should be made to carry a pregnancy, a term if they don’t want to.” The Comstock Act’s disregard for potentially fatal situations also concerns many, with one woman from Georgia saying: “I think in that case it’s the obvious. If abortions aren’t legal and a woman is in the middle, the pregnancy already is not viable, why put the woman’s life at risk of infection, or infertility?” Similarly, one Virginia man said: “[Abortion medication] also protects the life of someone when there are dire consequences.”

• Arguments against enforcement of the Comstock Act also sparked conversation about a national standard protecting abortion rights. One Wisconsin woman said: “Are there any other medical procedures that are banned in certain states and legal and others? I don’t think there are, so I don’t know why this would be one that should be standing out like that. It’s a medical procedure, above anything.”

Women were more likely than men to believe the Trump administration would enforce the Comstock Act as means of banning abortion.

One Virginia man said: “I think [Trump’s] priorities are elsewhere, but it’s one of those things where I wouldn’t be surprised if he would. I don’t think he would…” Another Virginia man stated: “It seems like something I guess that could happen, but I just don’t really think that that’s something that [the] Trump administration would do… abortion just hasn’t seemed like a top priority for the administration so far.”

• Women participants were more convinced Trump would enforce the Comstock Act, with one Wisconsin woman saying: “I think it’s extremely likely that he’s going to try to use an executive order to put this law in place. He’s basically going down his list and following the Project 2025 plan.”