The Most Anti-Life Republican Administration In History

As Donald Trump takes over Venezuela (look it up and possibly surprise yourself) and prepares to invade Iran while wanting to give two United States Senate seats to Greenland (more abortions than live births every year since 2013), Peter Laffin writes:

If you haven’t been following news on the pro-life front during the first year of Trump’s second term, this headline will surprise you. If you’ve taken the word of leading pro-life organizations and Catholic or Christian media about the administration’s pro-life bona fides, it will shock you.

But it is true that the Trump-Vance administration is the most anti-life Republican administration in history. By a mile, by any metric. And it’s not particularly close.

Any one of the administration’s anti-life transgressions would qualify it for this ignominious distinction. . Consider the current Department of Justice’s decision to defend Biden-era rules that allow the abortion drug mifepristone to be prescribed via “telehealth” and sent through the mail. President Donald Trump was expected to restrict access to the abortion pill, which accounts for approximately two-thirds of all abortions nationally. But in May, the DOJ asked a Texas federal court to dismiss a lawsuit brought by three Republican-led states looking to roll back the rule.

Then in October, the Department of Health and Human Services announced that the Food and Drug Administration had approved a new generic version of mifepristone. The administration, known for its willingness to buck norms and exert power, claimed its hands were tied because the FDA is required to approve generic applications that meet the necessary safety and effectiveness standards of the original drug.

The problem with this explanation was that HHS Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. and FDA Commissioner Marty Makary had launched a formal review of mifepristone’s safety and efficacy earlier in the year — and the results hadn’t come in yet. How could they have known for sure that the generic met acceptable necessary safety and effectiveness standards? They could have delayed approval until their own review had been completed. But they chose not to.

Trump’s DOJ-enforced and FDA-approved mail-order abortion regime effectively nullifies the overturning of Roe v. Wade. That’s because, in practice, it all but guarantees the right to an abortion no matter what state you live in. Under the current rules, abortion providers in blue states freely ship their product into red states. This availability of mifepristone via “telehealth” providers largely accounts for the climbing total of abortions nationally since the fall of Roe.

Neither Trump nor his Catholic Vice President JD Vance nor his Catholic press secretary Karoline Leavitt has ever offered a compelling reason for the administration’s defense of mifepristone. Certain pro-life leaders still like to boast that Trump is “the most pro-life president in history” for his role in overturning Roe. But his decision to favor states’ rights and protect access to mifepristone in his second term has had the net-effect of causing abortion to flourish.

Last week, Trump lurched even further to the left on abortion [not the right way of putting it, unless Margaret Thatcher was the Hardest of the Hard Left] when he asked Republican lawmakers to be “flexible” about the Hyde Amendment, the long-standing legislative provision that bans the use of federal funds for abortions, during negotiations over reviving ObamaCare enhanced subsidies.

No Republican president has ever wavered on the Hyde Amendment in the 50 years of its existence. Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush staunchly supported the rule. George W. Bush expanded Hyde by signing the Weldon Amendment, protecting healthcare entities that refuse to provide or pay for abortions. And in his first term, Trump himself pledged to make the Hyde Amendment permanent law.

Until very recently, even many prominent Democrats supported Hyde. Joe Biden supported Hyde up until 2020, when he finally relented to appease the Democratic primary electorate. The Democratic Party, of course, has been overrun by abortion maximalists who not only permit abortion but encourage women to “shout” their abortions. But the Trump-Vance administration appears to be heading down the same path. In August 2024, Trump himself pledged to be “great for women and their reproductive rights” — and he’s followed through in a big way since retaking power.

Opposing publicly funded abortions should be the barest minimum for any Republican politician hoping to secure the pro-life vote. Trump and Vance have systematically steamrolled the pro-life movement, lowering the standards to the lowest possible level. Any other interpretation of events is delusional.

To their credit, key pro-life leaders finally snapped into attention this week and began challenging the administration directly. Marjorie Dannenfelser, president of the Susan B. Anthony Pro-Life America, and Kristan Hawkins, president of Students for Life of America, warned Trump about losing pro-life votes in the upcoming midterm elections. In a statement, Dannenfelser wrote that “President Trump and congressional Republicans must follow through, not abandon, this commitment,” referring to upholding Hyde.

This is progress, however preposterously belated.

In reaction to news that House Speaker Mike Johnson intended to uphold Hyde, Dannenfelster posted “All hail @speakerjohnson!” on X. But is that really what we’re doing now? Hailing people for upholding the bare minimum? It is stunning how far the movement’s influence has fallen in the Trump era.

Movement leaders also recently called for the dismissal of Makary, but it barely broke through into the news cycle. That’s because it’s useless to exert pressure on someone so obscure to the public. Pressure campaigns only work when you go after the principal, not a bureaucratic sidekick. If you can’t criticize Trump or Vance by name, there’s no hope of changing their behavior.

The reason for the loss of influence is obvious: pro-life leaders and Catholic and Christian media handed over their leverage to Trump on a platter by “hailing” him so insistently. This had the effect of convincing the pro-life rank-and-file that Trump really was irreproachable on the issue — even as he discarded pro-life priorities, one after another, from removing key pro-life language from the RNC platform to expanding access to IVF to actively fighting to protect access to abortion drugs in court.

It’s possible that movement leaders no longer possess the juice among the pro-life faithful to rally them in opposition to Trump-Vance, so thoroughly have they extolled both as heroes on life.

Put simply, you can’t crown a king, then expect to hold him accountable. Pro-life groups and media spent the first six months of the Trump-Vance administration posting his “wins” (such as they were) on their social media accounts and fawning over pictures of Vance kneeling and praying at the Vatican. It was an embarrassing display, and it has cost the movement dearly in the months since.

It’s no secret that the administration wants to sideline the pro-life movement as it heads into the midterm, just as it did in the run-up to 2024. And they’ll succeed unless the pro-life movement can mobilize quickly.

The annual March for Life in Washington, D.C., is coming up in late January. Will the speakers be bold and tell the inconvenient truth that this White House is pro-abortion to the bone? Or will they continue to cozy up and hope for table scraps and cozy appointments (an ambassadorship to the Vatican, perhaps?) while the number of unborn deaths continues to climb month after month, year after year?

The cause of protecting the unborn is never politically convenient. It’s a movement for the courageous, not the wobbly. And certainly not for the sycophantic.

It’s time for pro-life leaders to step up and lead the faithful through the streets and demand that the administration change course. And if they can’t, pro-life voters need to find a new set of leaders.

And:

The pro-life movement, a coalition of religious groups, advocacy organizations, and citizens who believe that human life is inherently valuable and deserving of legal protection, once struck fear into the hearts of Republican politicians. Its capacity to raise significant funds quickly, identify and activate single-issue voters, and swing elections afforded the unborn a voice within the GOP coalition that could not be ignored.

Yet, just over 50 years ago, it was a scrappy, mostly Catholic effort that neither party feared. Before Roe v. Wade in 1973, neither party viewed abortion as a major problem. Republican and Democratic voters showed similar levels of support for abortion. The Catholic Church opposed it, but the Southern Baptist Convention, the largest evangelical denomination, largely supported it. Many Republicans, including then-first lady Betty Ford, applauded the Roe decision, while some Democrats, including then-newly elected Sen. Joe Biden, opposed it.

But conservatives soon mobilized around abortion. Evangelicals claimed it as a central issue, correctly framing it as part of a broader threat to the family. In 1980, the Southern Baptist Convention passed a resolution opposing abortion. The movement found a champion in then-President Ronald Reagan, who endorsed a constitutional amendment to ban abortion, and then in President George H.W. Bush, who vetoed legislation that would have allowed Medicaid funding for abortions and restored the Mexico City Policy, which prevents U.S. taxpayer funds from going to international organizations that perform or promote abortion.

By the turn of the century, the voice of the unborn wielded such authority within GOP politics that ignoring it became unthinkable for Republicans seeking office.

Its clout was on full display in the 2004 Pennsylvania Senate primary. At the time, four-term Republican Sen. Arlen Specter, a staunch defender of Roe, nearly fell to upstart primary challenger Pat Toomey, whose campaign was turbo-charged by the mobilizing prowess of the pro-life movement. Though Specter survived by a razor-thin margin of 17,000 votes, pro-life pressure eventually forced him to switch parties, paving the way for Toomey to eventually win the seat in 2010.

In 2016, the voice of the unborn appeared to gain a powerful ally in then-presidential candidate Donald Trump. Though a longtime pro-abortion Democrat, the brash New Yorker and 2016 hopeful released a list of 11 possible Supreme Court nominees, curated with input from conservative groups, such as the Federalist Society and Heritage Foundation, all of which were perceived to align with pro-life principles. He clarified his intent to appoint pro-life justices during a primary debate, saying, “I am very, very proud to say that I am pro-life.” And upon securing the nomination, he gave a speech to evangelicals, promising that his justices would “protect the sanctity of life.”

True to his word, Trump appointed three Supreme Court justices, Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh, and Amy Coney Barrett, who are widely regarded as favorable to the pro-life cause. And throughout his first term in office, Trump reiterated his desire to sign a 20-week national abortion ban into law if Roe were to fall.

And then, two years after being voted out of office, the Dobbs decision restored the ability of states to protect unborn life by enacting laws that restrict or ban abortion. The pro-life movement rejoiced, having achieved what was once considered a long shot and a dream. And it hailed Trump as a hero for hearing the voice of the unborn, and Trump reveled in the praise.

“This is the biggest WIN FOR LIFE in a generation,” he wrote in a statement following the decision. “These were only made possible because I delivered everything as promised.”

Trump reminded pro-lifers of his achievement at every turn, and key pro-life groups continued to heap praise on the former president, with many referring to him as “the most pro-life president in history.”

But as 2024 approached, and as one state after the next voted to enshrine abortion rights in their state constitutions, Trump’s commitment to the voice of the unborn wavered.

Behind-the-scenes infighting over abortion marked the run-up to the GOP convention that would nominate Trump for a third time. Pro-life lost out, as Trump oversaw the removal of key provisions from the Republican National Committee platform. These included references to the “sanctity of human life” as a fundamental right that “cannot be infringed,” the commitment to a national 20-week abortion ban, and a call for a constitutional amendment to grant personhood protections for the unborn. Worse, the new platform explicitly supported contraception and in vitro fertilization, a practice largely opposed by pro-life voters because it results in the destruction or indefinite freezing of embryos.

Yet, this open retreat provoked almost no public pushback from the movement’s leading organizations. Major groups, such as SBA Pro-Life America and National Right to Life, continued to shower Trump with glowing endorsements and record fundraising appeals that still hailed him as “the most pro-life president in history.”

For these organizations, opposing Trump carried a significant risk. Trump had become more than a popular Republican figure. He had become a once-in-a-generation movement leader. Publicly criticizing Trump meant being frozen out of his orbit and losing what leverage they had to influence policy. And crossing MAGA was a risky proposition for the individuals in these organizations: Access to power provides career stability and advancement opportunities for anyone in the policy advocacy world. But as 2024 unfolded, it became clear that Trump’s days crusading for the unborn were over. Early that year, he openly regarded the pro-life position as politically untenable, stressing on the stump and at town halls that “you have to win elections.”

But he didn’t stop at the political facts of life. By late summer, Trump had adopted several explicitly pro-abortion talking points and positions, vowing on social media that he would “be Great for Women and their Reproductive Rights” and promising to make IVF free, even boasting of being “the father of IVF.”

Trump’s running mate, then-Republican Ohio Sen. JD Vance, once considered a solidly pro-life Republican, adopted Trump’s anti-life stance. During an appearance on NBC’s Meet the Press months before the election, he promised that a future Trump-Vance administration would keep mail-order abortion pill mifepristone accessible, effectively nullifying Dobbs by allowing abortion drugs to be shipped from blue states.

Host Kristen Welker asked Vance, “Just to be clear, you support mifepristone being accessible?”

Vance responded, “Yes, Kristen, I do.”

In October, Trump dropped any pretense of standing up for the unborn, posting on X in all caps, “EVERYONE KNOWS I WOULD NOT SUPPORT A FEDERAL ABORTION BAN, UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCES, AND WOULD, IN FACT, VETO IT.”

Despite all this, adulation from pro-life groups only intensified. Following his reelection, CatholicVote, a pro-life Catholic group that vigorously advocated for Trump’s campaign during the election, effectively lionized Trump and Vance as champions of pro-life priorities in the wake of their victory. It posted on X things like “The Golden Age is upon us,” featuring pictures of Trump gazing heroically into the distance.

The group’s president, Brian Burch, was appointed U.S. ambassador to the Holy See. The announcement featured a quote from Trump about Burch, saying, “He represented me well during the last Election.”

National Right to Life, a pro-life advocacy organization, released a statement congratulating “pro-life President-elect Donald Trump and Vice President-elect J.D. Vance” on their victory, while Students for Life of America posted on X, “Donald Trump has been re-elected as President of the United States! LIFE WINS!”

During the first year of Trump’s second term, the cause of life has not won, to put it mildly. True to his and Vance’s word during the campaign, the administration has continued Biden-era efforts to defend mifepristone in court challenges, primarily through procedural arguments. The Food and Drug Administration also approved a generic version of mifepristone before completing its own safety review of the drug, despite possessing the tools to pause the process.

Clinicians in California, New York, and other abortion-rights states continue shipping abortion drugs across state lines — telehealth abortion provider Aid Access reported that 84% of its 118,000 prescriptions went to states with abortion bans. Despite Roe‘s fall, overall abortions in America continue to rise because of access to this drug, which accounts for two-thirds of total abortions in America.

Susan B. Anthony Pro-Life America stood out among pro-life organizations for pushing back against the Trump administration’s defense of mifepristone access. For an article I wrote in October, Kelsey Pritchard, the group’s political director, scoffed at the White House’s claim that it was “powerless” to stop the FDA from approving a generic version. “’Powerless’ is not a word that someone uses to describe this administration when they face trouble,” Pritchard told me.

The Trump administration also kept its word on promoting access to IVF more than any prior administration. In October, Trump detailed his IVF policy by announcing initiatives to lower the price of IVF by lowering the cost of key drugs and creating a new optional employer fertility insurance benefit. Many in the pro-life movement, including Ryan Anderson of the Ethics and Public Policy Center, took solace in the fact that Trump’s IVF policy would not include government subsidies.

The key victory for the pro-life movement during Trump’s second term so far involved the defunding of abortion giant Planned Parenthood for one year through the One Big Beautiful Bill Act. Pro-life activists had pushed for a permanent defunding and hoped for at least a 10-year ban. Today, loopholes created through the Affordable Care Act continue to allow taxpayer money to go to Planned Parenthood.

Looking forward, the pro-life movement has a choice between two roads. The first is to recognize its severely diminished political clout within the GOP, without which it has no hope of affecting abortion policy on the state or federal levels, and abandon the political realm altogether. On this path, the movement would reallocate its resources away from lobbying and toward winning hearts and minds. This would involve elevating inspiring stories of young mothers choosing life, disseminating science on fetal development, and performing large-scale works of charity for poor pregnant women. Many in the pro-life movement already do this heroic work of making abortion morally unthinkable; focusing exclusively on these efforts could conceivably cut into abortion’s stubbornly high national approval ratings.

The second road would be to throw what remains of its political weight behind real champions of life in primaries at the state and national levels. Trump’s exit from the national stage will afford the movement a chance to reset and reassert its authority with a new crop of politicians. Pro-life leaders will have a tough call to make on Vance, who is adept at wooing the movement through passionate rhetoric and appearances at pro-life events such as the March for Life — he will be sure to use the trappings of his office toward this end. But he must be made to offer tangible commitments beyond the illusion of access to power in exchange for loyalty.

Indeed, the last thing the movement can afford to do is to continue pretending it has powerful friends when it doesn’t. The pro-life movement can’t expect to influence, let alone intimidate, a politician it has already declared king. Only the voice of the unborn has the moral authority to make leaders of conscience think twice. It’s the movement’s sole job to amplify that voice — always, no matter the cost. Until it does, the pro-life movement can expect to remain in the political wilderness.