SUMMARY
President Trump is aggressively anti-choice, believing that women should not have access to legal and safe abortions.
October 24, 1999: Trump Claimed He Was Pro-Choice But ‘Hates It.’ According to ABC News, “During an interview with Tim Russert on ‘Meet the Press,’ Trump shared his thoughts on a number of social issues, including abortion. He declared that he was ‘very pro-choice,’ but went on to decry the idea of the procedure. ‘I hate the concept of abortion. I hate it. I hate everything it stands for, I cringe when I listen to people debating the subject, but still I just believe in choice,’ he said in the televised interview.” [ABC News, 3/31/16]
May 3, 2011: When Donald Trump First Toyed With Idea Of Running For President, He Claimed That He Was ‘Pro-Life.’ According to ABC News, “When Trump was toying with the idea of running for president in 2011, he told The Times that he was pro-life. ‘There are certain things that I don't think can ever be negotiated. Let me put it this way: I am pro life, and pro-life people will find out that I will be very loyal to them, just as I am loyal to other people. I would be appointing judges that feel the way I feel,’ he told the paper in May 2011.” [ABC News, 3/31/16]
August 6, 2015: During The First Republican Debate During The 2016 Presidential Election, Trump Exclaimed That He Was ‘Very, Very Proud To Say That [He Was] Pro-Life.’ According to ABC News, “When he finally decided to take the plunge and run for the presidency this upcoming term, Trump explained that he had had a change of heart, coming out strongly as pro-life and giving a specific explanation. During the first debate, Trump was asked about his comments from 1999 and said that ‘since then, I’ve very much evolved’ […] ‘I am very, very proud to say that I am pro-life,’ he added. Trump has repeated this personal story and reiterated his pro-life stance many times over the course of his campaign.” [ABC News, 3/31/16]
March 30, 2016: As A Republican Candidate For President, Trump Claimed That Women Who Seek Abortions Should Be Subject To ‘Some Sort Of Punishment.’ According to the New York Times, “Donald J. Trump said on Wednesday that women who seek abortions should be subject to ‘some form of punishment’ if the procedure is banned in the United States, further elevating Republican concerns that his explosive remarks about women could doom the party in the fall. […] The statement came as Mr. Trump appeared at a town-hall-style forum with Chris Matthews of MSNBC, recorded for broadcast on Wednesday night. Mr. Matthews pressed Mr. Trump, who once supported abortion rights, on his calls to ban the procedure, asking how he might enforce such a restriction. ‘You go back to a position like they had where they would perhaps go to illegal places,’ Mr. Trump said, after initially deflecting questions. ‘But you have to ban it.’ He added, after a bit more prodding, ‘There has to be some form of punishment.’” [New York Times, 3/31/16]
Republican Governor John Kasich: ‘Of Course Women Shouldn’t Be Punished.’ According to the New York Times, “Mr. Trump’s Republican rivals moved quickly to distance themselves from his initial comments as well. Gov. John Kasich of Ohio said, ‘Of course women shouldn’t be punished.’ ‘I don’t think that’s an appropriate response,’ he told MSNBC. ‘It’s a difficult enough situation.’” [New York Times, 3/31/16]
Republican Senator Ted Cruz: ‘Of Course We Shouldn’t Be Talking About Punishing Women.’ According to the New York Times, “The campaign of Senator Ted Cruz of Texas said attention should be focused on providers of abortion, not the women who receive them. ‘Once again, Donald Trump has demonstrated that he hasn’t seriously thought through the issues, and he’ll say anything just to get attention,’ Mr. Cruz said in a statement, adding, ‘Of course we shouldn’t be talking about punishing women; we should affirm their dignity and the incredible gift they have to bring life into the world.’” [New York Times, 3/31/16]
Trump Later Recanted The Statement Stating That The Doctor Responsible For The Abortion ‘Would Be Held Legally Responsible.’ According to the New York Times, “Hours later, Mr. Trump recanted his remarks, essentially in full, a rare and remarkable shift for a candidate who proudly extols his unwillingness to apologize or bow to ‘political correctness.’ If abortion were disallowed, he said in a statement, ‘the doctor or any other person performing this illegal act upon a woman would be held legally responsible, not the woman.’ ‘The woman is a victim in this case, as is the life in her womb,’ he continued.” [New York Times, 3/31/16]
In Three Years, Trump Appointed 133 District Court Judges, 50 Appeals Court Judges, And Two Supreme Court Justices
December 26, 2019: Trump Has Appointed 133 District Court Judges, 50 Appeals Court, And Two Supreme Court Justices. According to Slate, “With the help of Senate Republicans, Donald Trump spent the first three years of his presidency remaking the federal judiciary in his own image. The president has appointed 133 district court judges, 50 appeals court judges, and two Supreme Court justices—meaning about one-fifth of the nation’s federal trial judges, and one-fourth of its federal appellate judges, are Trump appointees.” [Slate, 12/26/19]
Trump’s Judicial Nominees Were Overwhelmingly White And Male
Trump’s Judicial Nominees Were Overwhelmingly White And Male. According to the Christian Science Monitor, “Mr. Trump’s chosen judges are also overwhelmingly white and male. About 1 in 4 of his appointments have been women, and just over 1 in 10 have been people of color.” [Christian Science Monitor, 12/19/19]
April 7, 2017: Trump Supreme Court Nominee Neil Gorsuch Was Confirmed, Reestablishing The Court’s 5-4 Conservative-Liberal Split. According to Time, “Newly-minted Justice Gorsuch brings the highest court in the land back to the 5-4 conservative-liberal split it had before Scalia passed away in February 2016. In many ways, he’s a natural heir to Scalia: Gorsuch’s core judicial philosophy and writing style are strikingly similar to the man he’s replacing. Both are originalists, who interpret the Constitution based on the intent of the founders, and textualists, who look at the words of the document rather than legislative history. And both are known for their colorful language and incisive opinions.” [Time, 4/7/17]
Gorsuch Was Expected To Follow His Predecessor Eugene Scalia’s Lead In Opposing Abortion On Supreme Court. According to the Guardian, “The nominee Trump announced on Tuesday night, federal appeals judge Neil Gorsuch, a record with little direct bearing on this topic. Nevertheless, organizations across the political spectrum readily agreed that Gorsuch represented an abortion foe in the mold of the justice he is slated to replace, the late Antonin Scalia […] Gorsuch’s judicial rulings offer scant evidence of how he might rule on abortion rights. Still, there are myriad hints. Abortion opponents note his doctoral dissertation on assisted suicide, in which he thunders against ‘the intentional taking of human life.’ Supporters of reproductive rights note that Gorsuch sided with an effort to defund Planned Parenthood and with companies opposed to providing their employees with contraceptive coverage in their healthcare plans.” [The Guardian, 2/1/17]
With The 2018 Confirmation Of Brett Kavanuagh To the Supreme Court, Trump Cemented His 5-4 Conservative Majority On The Bench After Kennedy’s Departure. According to Axios, “With the confirmation of Brett Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court in 2018, President Trump cemented a solid conservative majority on the bench. Kavanaugh has the second-most conservative score (0.693) next to Justice Clarence Thomas (0.725), per a measure that score judges on a liberal-conservative spectrum. An analysis by political scientists Lee Epstein, Andrew D. Martin, and Kevin Quinn places judges on an ideological spectrum called the ‘Judicial Common Space.’ Conservative justices receive scores from 0 to 1, liberal justices from –1 to 0. Most liberal: Sonia Sotomayor (-0.521) Ruth Bader Ginsburg (-0.518) Elena Kagan (-0.302) Stephen Breyer (-0.280) John Roberts (0.089) Samuel Alito (0.317) Neil Gorsuch (0.486) Brett Kavanaugh (0.693) Clarence Thomas (0.725)” [Axios, 6/1/19]
During His Confirmation Hearing, Kavanaugh Refused To Say He Would Not Vote To Reverse Roe V. Wade And Defended A Dissenting Opinion He Wrote When The DC Circuit Court Allowed A 17-Year-Old To Terminate Her Pregnancy. According to CNN, “During his first round of testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee, Kavanaugh said he views Roe v. Wade, the landmark ruling that legalized abortion nationwide, as ‘important precedent of the Supreme Court’ that has been ‘reaffirmed many times.’ Yet he declined to say he would not vote to reverse Roe, saying that such a vow -- on any case -- would violate judicial norms.He also defended a dissenting opinion he wrote last year when the full DC Circuit allowed a 17-year-old to end her pregnancy over objections from the Trump administration.In his dissent, Kavanaugh wrote the Supreme Court has held that ‘the government has permissible interests in favoring fetal life, protecting the best interests of a minor, and refraining from facilitating abortion’ […] He said the majority opinion was ‘based on a constitutional principle as novel as it is wrong: a new right for unlawful immigrant minors in US government detention to obtain immediate abortion on demand.’” [CNN, 10/6/18]
The Supreme Court Heard It’s First Abortion Case Since Two Conservative Trump Appointees Joined. According to Reuters, “The U.S. Supreme Court this week gets its first chance to consider new curbs on abortion rights with President Donald Trump’s two conservative appointees on the bench as it examines the legality of a Louisiana law that could force two of the state’s three clinics that perform the procedure to shut down. The court, with a 5-4 conservative majority, is scheduled on Wednesday to hear arguments in an appeal by Shreveport-based abortion provider Hope Medical Group for Women seeking to invalidate the law. Chief Justice John Roberts may be pivotal in deciding the outcome, with Trump’s appointees Brett Kavanaugh and Neil Gorsuch also in the spotlight. The clinic sued to block the 2014 law, which requires that doctors who perform abortions have a difficult-to-obtain arrangement called ‘admitting privileges’ at a hospital within 30 miles (48 km) of the abortion clinic. A federal appeals court ruled against the clinic and upheld the law.” [Reuters, 3/1/20]
In 2016, The Supreme Court Struck Down An Identical Provision To The One Being Heard Currently. According to the New York Times, “In 2016, Kennedy and the court’s four liberals struck down an identical Texas provision, based on a scientific consensus that the requirement isn’t medically necessary and ultimately harms women by preventing them from accessing a safe procedure. The only thing that has changed in the four years since the Texas decision is the court’s composition. The new case could be a means for the conservatives to begin dismantling the constitutional protections for abortion that the court has built, brick by contested brick, over decades of decisions that began with Roe v. Wade.” [New York Times, 2/27/20]
President Trump Nominated Extremely Conservative Judges With Views Hostile To Reproductive Rights. According to Planned Parenthood Action, “One of the most important powers of the president is nominating federal judges. And President Trump is doing this at record speed, moving quickly to fill the 150 judicial vacancies he inherited upon taking office. Most of his nominees are extremely conservative, and many hold views that are hostile to reproductive health and rights. In vote after vote, senators are confirming Trump's nominees to lifetime positions as federal judges — where they'll be able to make rulings that will affect our rights and access to health care for generations to come.” [Planned Parenthood Action, Accessed 3/23/20]
The Senate Confirmed Conservatives Lawrence VanDyke And Patrick Bumatay To The 9th U.S. Circuit Court Of Appeals. According to Politico, “A bastion of liberalism in the federal judiciary is slowly turning rightward, threatening Democratic court challenges on everything from abortion to who gets a green card. The Senate confirmation of Lawrence VanDyke and Patrick Bumatay to the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals this month brought to nine the number of appointments President Donald Trump has made to the 29-member bench that serves as the last stop for nearly all legal complaints lodged in nine Western states. Democratic-appointed judges now hold a three-seat majority, compared with 11 at the start of Trump's presidency.” [Politico, 12/19/19]
As Montana’s Solicitor General, VanDyke Supported An Unconstitutional Abortion Ban And Sought To Place Substantial Obstacles In The Way Of Access To Abortion. According to NARAL, “As Montana solicitor general, VanDyke co-wrote an amicus brief in support of Arizona’s unconstitutional abortion ban. The brief argued that Roe v. Wade and subsequent cases affirming the constitutional right to abortion should be ‘revisited.’ Despite the fact that the law banned abortion after 20-weeks, the brief argued that the law ‘has neither the purpose nor the effect of imposing a substantial obstacle on the abortion right established by [the U.S. Supreme Court’s] cases, and so cannot be considered an ‘undue burden.’’ As Montana solicitor general, VanDyke defended a law that sought to place substantial obstacles in the way of young women’s access to abortion. In the briefs, VanDyke was dismissive of a federal district court’s finding that young people who do not involve their parents in their decision to have an abortion ‘often have a legitimate reason for not doing so.’ VanDyke’s arguments also relied on misleading and discredited studies about the psychological risks of abortion.” [NARAL, Accessed 3/23/20]
The 9th Circuit Court Of Appeals Ruled In Favor Of Trump Administration Title X Gag Rule. According to ABC News, “In a victory for the Trump administration, a U.S. appeals court on Monday upheld rules that bar taxpayer-funded family-planning clinics from referring women for abortions. The 7-4 ruling by the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals overturned decisions issued by judges in Washington, Oregon and California. The court had already allowed the administration's changes to start taking effect while the government appealed those rulings. The changes ban taxpayer-funded clinics in the Title X program for low-income women from making abortion referrals, a restriction opponents characterize as a ‘gag rule.’ Beginning March 4, the rules will also prohibit clinics that receive federal money from sharing office space with abortion providers, which critics said would force many Title X providers to find new locations, undergo expensive remodels or shut down — further reducing access to the program.” [ABC News, 2/24/20]
Two Trump Appointed Judges Joined The Opinion In Favor Of The Trump Administration. According to Bloomberg Law, “The Trump Administration will be allowed to restrict what taxpayer-funded family planning clinics can tell clients about abortion, the Ninth Circuit said Monday. The appeals court vacated orders entered by federal courts in California, Oregon, and Washington blocking the rule’s enforcement, saying its challengers ‘will not succeed’ on the merits […] Judge Sandra S. Ikuta wrote the opinion, which was joined by Judges Edward Leavy, Jay S. Bybee, Consuelo M. Callahan, Milan D. Smith Jr., Eric D. Miller, and Kenneth K. Lee.” [Bloomberg Law, 2/24/20]
Trump Conservative Nominee Steven Menashi’s Confirmation Pushed New York’s 2nd Circuit Appeals Court To The Right. According to Bloomberg Law, “White House lawyer Steven Menashi was confirmed Nov. 14 to the New York-based U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, giving that court a majority of judges appointed by Republican presidents […] Democrats sharply criticized his past writings on race, especially, although he said he rejects discrimination […] Menashi’s confirmation, coupled with that of William Nardini on Nov. 7, tips the Second Circuit to a majority of Republican-appointed judges. That court is centered in the nation’s financial capital and could wind up addressing more disputes around Trump controversies. On the same day Menashi was confirmed, Trump challenged a Second Circuit decision over access to his tax records at the U.S. Supreme Court. With Menashi, Republicans have now appointed seven of the court’s 13 members. Trump has seated five, while George W. Bush appointed two. Bill Clinton and Barack Obama each named three judges to the Second Circuit.” [Bloomberg Law, 11/14/19]
Menashi Had A Background Of Anti-Choice Rhetoric. According to NARAL, “Menashi submitted an amicus brief on behalf of former U.S. Department of Justice officials in Zubik v. Burwell arguing that the Affordable Care Act’s contraceptive coverage policy forced certain religious groups into ‘moral complicity’ with the use of contraception, despite an accommodation put in place for such groups by the Obama administration. Menashi compared such groups’ ‘moral complicity’ in the use of contraception to providing weapons to help someone commit a crime. As editor-in-chief of the Dartmouth Review, Menashi wrote several anti-choice articles and editorials. Menashi vocally opposed Dartmouth College’s decision to make emergency contraception, Plan B, available to students through campus health services. [NARAL, Accessed, 3/23/20]
The Senate Confirmation Of Judge Peter Phipps Flipped The Makeup Of The 3rd Circuit Court Of Appeals, Creating A Conservative Majority. According to Court House News, “The Senate on Tuesday confirmed a Pennsylvania federal judge to a seat on the Third Circuit over opposition from the state’s Democratic senator, giving the Philadelphia-based appeals court a conservative majority […] Trump then tapped Phipps for a promotion in May, nominating him to a position on the Third Circuit. Phipps’ confirmation with a 56-40 vote on Tuesday afternoon flips the makeup of the Third Circuit, giving the appeals court that hears cases from Delaware, New Jersey and Pennsylvania eight judges appointed by Republicans and six appointed by Democrats.” [Court House News, 7/16/19]
Judge Peter Phipps Had A Record Of Being Hostile To Reproductive Freedoms. According to NARAL, “Phipps has repeatedly defended a government policy that allows organizations that receive federal money to care for undocumented young people and victims of human trafficking to refuse to provide them with reproductive healthcare including contraception and abortion […] Phipps received a Distinguished Service Award from the U.S. Attorney General for his ‘untiring effort’ in defending the so-called ‘Partial-Birth Abortion Act’ of 2003. He was specifically involved in the government’s attempts to subpoena private medical records from Planned Parenthood affiliates across the country in an effort to defend the law, which bans a safe abortion procedure.” [NARAL, Accessed, 3/23/20]
If The Trend Continues, Lawsuits For Progressive Causes Like Reproductive Freedom Won’t Have A Friendly Court. According to Politico, “If the trend continues, it represents a major shift in the liberal wing of the judiciary, meaning lawsuits for progressive causes won’t find a friendly ear as easily as they have. The circuit has been the go-to venue for activist state attorneys eager to freeze Trump policies on health care, immigration and other social issues. It ruled against Trump's weakening of Obamacare's contraceptive mandate, as well as multiple versions of his travel ban […] ‘Forum shopping will be less attractive now that you have a basically balanced bench as far as Republican or Democratic nominees,’ said Katie Glenn, government affairs counsel for Americans United for Life, which focuses on litigation and legislation for the anti-abortion movement.” [Politico, 12/19/19]
While In Congress, Pence Repeatedly Called For Roe V. Wade To Be Overturned. According to Planned Parenthood Action, “Pence has repeatedly called for Roe v. Wade to be overturned: ‘I long for the day that Roe v. Wade is sent to the ash heap of history, when we move past the broken hearts and the broken lives of the past 38 years.’” [Planned Parenthood Action, 10/5/16]
As Governor Of Indiana, Pence Signed A Law That Mandated Funerals For Fetuses. According to Vox, “But Pence signed one anti-abortion bill in March of this year that was so extreme, even some pro-life Republicans opposed it. And it was eventually blocked from going into effect by a federal judge for violating women’s right to choose. The law did something truly bizarre. It would have basically forced women to seek funerary services for a fetus — whether she’d had an abortion or a miscarriage, and no matter how far along the pregnancy was. The law Pence backed would have required all fetal tissue to be cremated or buried, an unprecedented measure in state law. The law also banned abortion if the fetus had a ‘disability’ — which would have denied women the right to end a pregnancy even in case of serious fetal anomalies.” [Vox, 7/14/16]
Barr Said Legalized Abortion Was “Among The Most Obvious Signs Of Pervasive Moral Collapse.” According to the Associated Press, “For example, Barr said legalized abortion and the deterioration of the traditional family are among the most obvious signs of pervasive moral collapse. "Let's look at the fruits" of what he called at least 25 years of "fanatic secularism." "Soaring juvenile crime, widespread drug addiction, skyrocketing rates of venereal disease, 1.5 million children aborted each year," he said.” [Associated Press, 10/6/92]
As Attorney General, Barr Criticized The “Freedom Of Choice Act,” A Bill In Congress That Would Have Forbidden States From Placing Restrictions On Most Abortions. According to the Washington Post, “Attorney General William P. Barr said a bill that would forbid states to impose restrictions on most abortions goes far beyond the standard set in Roe v. Wade and he questioned Congress's authority to enact such a change. Barr's attack on the Freedom of Choice Act in a letter released yesterday reflects the increased attention to the bill this year from both foes and supporters. President Bush, who has repeatedly promised to veto any measure that expands access to abortion, yesterday told a religious group in Chicago that the bill ‘is not right’ and ‘will not become law as long as I am president.’ […] In a letter to Rep. Henry J. Hyde (R-Ill.), a staunch opponent of abortion, Barr said, ‘This legislation would impose on all 50 states an unprecedented regime of abortion on demand going well beyond the requirements of Roe v. Wade.’ The exact scope of the bill is a matter of debate. Both Barr and the American Civil Liberties Union, which opposes abortion restrictions, agree that the Freedom of Choice Act would probably prohibit state laws requiring parental notification or consent before minors obtain abortions. A number of states have adopted such restrictions.” [Washington Post, 3/4/92]
Barr Predicted Roe v. Wade Would Get Overturned And Said The Decision Was Not Based On The Constitution. According to a transcript of an interview Barr conducted with CNN, “NOVAK: On this program in 1989, your predecessor as attorney general, Dick Thornburgh, did something that kind of surprised us. He made a flat prediction that the Supreme Court would overturn Roe v. Wade sooner or later. Can you make a prediction now that it's very unlikely in the foreseeable future that that's going to happen? Atty. Gen. BARR: On the contrary, I think that Roe v. Wade will ultimately be overturned. I think it'll fall of its own weight. It does not have any constitutional underpinnings. And I think it's significant that the three so-called moderate justices who were responsible for keeping it intact for now-NOVAK: Justice Kennedy, Justice Souter, and Justice O'Connor? Atty. Gen. BARR: Right. They did not so much defend the earlier opinion, Roe v. Wade, on the merits, on its constitutionality, but on the doctrine of stare decisis, and that is a reluctance to overturn prior precedent. They're-NOVAK: And you think that's a bogus way to decide a case? Atty. Gen. BARR: Well, I think they were wrong to do it. Yes, I think they should have stuck with the Constitution. But only two justices on the Supreme Court are willing to defend the logic of Roe v. Wade.” [Evans & Novak – CNN, 7/4/92]
Secretary Of State Pompeo: We Will Refuse To Provide Assistance To Foreign NGO Who Give Financial Support To Other Groups In The Global Abortion Industry. According to New York Magazine, “The Trump administration’s opposition to legal abortion just became more aggressive. Reuters reported on Tuesday that the U.S. will expand its ‘global gag rule,’ which prevents the aid groups it funds from performing abortions and even advertising the abortion services of other organizations. ‘We will refuse to provide assistance to foreign NGOs that give financial support to other foreign groups in the global abortion industry,’ Secretary of State Mike Pompeo said. Pompeo also said he would ‘enforce federal law forbidding the use of U.S. funding, including foreign assistance, to lobby for or against abortion,’ Reuters added.” [New York Magazine, 3/26/19]
October 2012: U.S. Rep. Mike Pompeo Stated That Even In Cases Of Rape, Abortions Should Not Be Permitted. According to the Topeka Capital-Journal, “U.S. Rep. Mike Pompeo said he believes abortions should be allowed only when necessary to save the life of the mother, while his Democratic challenger Robert Tillman vows to back abortion rights. Pompeo, who was swept into office in the November 2010 conservative tide that took the House, told The Associated Press that he wouldn’t support any other exception that would permit abortions, even in cases where the mother had been raped. ‘I believe that that child — however conceived — is a life and I want very much for that life to continue to exist,’ Pompeo said. The conservative Republican said that he voted while in Congress to defund Planned Parenthood, which he called the ‘largest commercial provider of abortions in the United States.’ Even though no federal money goes to fund abortions, Pompeo contended that the clinics use those federal resources to help pay for their facilities.” [Topeka Capital-Journal, 10/24/12]
During His Confirmation Health And Human Services Secretary Alex Azar Endorsed A Controversial Change In HHS’ Stated Mission That Endorsed “Fetal Personhood.” According to Talking Points Memo, “As a former general counsel for HHS and an executive of the pharmaceutical behemoth Eli Lily, Azar has little on his record concerning reproductive rights and women’s health policy. But his written responses to questions from senators ahead of his confirmation, obtained by TPM, shed some light on his conservative views. Sen. Patty Murray (D-WA) asked Azar to comment on the strategic plan HHS released in October that endorsed so-called fetal personhood, asserting that it was an ‘unconstitutional definition of persons as beginning at conception, which has no basis in science.’ Azar responded by endorsing the controversial change in HHS’ stated mission. ‘The mission of HHS is to enhance the health and well-being of all Americans, and this includes the unborn,’ he wrote.” [Talking Points Memo, 1/24/18]
Azar Supported An Administration Rule Allowing For-Profit, Non-Religious Companies And Organization To Refuse To Include Contraception In Their Employee Insurance Plans. According to Talking Points Memo, “Murray, the top Democrat on the Senate Health, Labor, Education and Pensions committee, then asked Azar for his thoughts on the Trump administration’s recent rule—blocked for now by a federal court—that would allow for-profit, non-religious companies and organizations to refuse to include contraception in their employees’ health insurance plans. Again, Azar gave a brief answer indicating his support for the department’s move. ‘It is critical that we balance individuals’ access to healthcare with the protection of conscience of those with contrary moral or religious beliefs,’ he said.” [Talking Points Memo, 1/24/18]
Under Trump, The HHS Was Run By Numerous Anti-Choice Political Appointees. According to Talking Points Memo, “Still, some lawmakers and progressive advocates say Azar would join a cadre of political appointees already at HHS whose backgrounds in the anti-abortion movement are already having a major impact on administrative policy. Abstinence education activist Valerie Huber, for instance, was recently put in charge of Title X family planning programs. Charmaine Yoest, the former head of the anti-abortion organization Americans United for Life, is one of HHS’ top spokespeople. Craig Bowman, who worked for several years suing the Obama administration over the contraception mandate on behalf of the conservative Alliance Defending Freedom, is now HHS’ general counsel. His resume also lists as a qualification three years as a ‘full-time pro-life volunteer.’ Roger Severino, an anti-abortion attorney and alumnus of the conservative Heritage Foundation, runs the department’s Office of Civil Rights. Under these officials, HHS has moved aggressively to not only roll back the Obama administration’s policies on everything from insurance coverage of contraception to equal access to health care for transgender patients, but also to bring a conservative religious bent to the department’s work across the board.” [Talking Points Memo, 1/24/18]
July 16, 2019: The Trump Administration Began Enforcing Abortion ‘Gag Rule.’ According to Politico, “The Trump administration's decision to immediately bar family planning funds to groups, like Planned Parenthood, that perform or refer women for abortion could force some states and organizations to abandon the federal program that pays for contraception for low-income women. The administration said it will move forward with its new family planning overhaul, which critics deride as an abortion ‘gag rule,’ as it faces ongoing legal challenges from nearly two dozen states and organizations, including Planned Parenthood, the largest single recipient of funding in the program, known as Title X.” [Politico, 7/16/19]
Title X Was The Nation’s Public Family Planning Program That Provided Birth Control Services, STI Testing, And Treatment. According to the Guttmacher Institute, “Title X is the nation’s public family planning program, serving millions of patients who seek birth control services, STI testing and treatment, and related preventive care. The program was established as part of the Public Health Service Act in 1970 with the express intent of addressing inequities in access to contraceptives and related services, helping patients advance their right to exercise power over their own reproductive decisions. For half a century, Title X has funded a long-standing and trusted network of providers throughout the country, providing these critical services to patients who are low income, uninsured, young or otherwise underserved.” [Guttmacher, 2/5/20]
The Rule State That Title X Grant Funding Cannot Go To Clinicians That Discuss Abortion With Patients. According to Planned Parenthood Action, “The gag rule says Title X grants can’t go to clinicians who tell their patients how they can safely and legally access abortion (even if patients ask and even if a pregnancy threatens their health). The gag rule also takes grants away from health centers that separately provide abortion — like Planned Parenthood.” [Planned Parenthood Action, Accessed 3/19/20]
Clinics Were Barred From Referring Patients To An Abortion Provider But Required To Refer Them For Prenatal Care, Regardless Of A Patient’s Wishes. According to Politico, “Clinics will now be barred from referring patients to an abortion provider but required to refer them for prenatal care, regardless of a patient's wishes. Clinics have always been banned from using Title X money for abortions, but the Trump administration argued greater separation was needed to prevent the intermingling of funds. Now, numerous state health agencies administering Title X funds, including some that are their state's lone recipient of program dollars, must decide whether to go forward with previous suggestions that they'd withdraw from Title X if the Trump rules took effect. Millions of dollars are on the line.” [Politico, 7/16/19]
However, Under The Rules Faith Based Groups That Oppose Abortion And Hormonal Birth Control Were Eligible For Federal Funding. According to Politico, “Faith-based groups that oppose abortion and hormonal birth control are also now eligible for funding under the rules. Earlier this year, the religiously affiliated clinic network Obria was awarded a three-year, $5.1 million grant in California. Although the group will only offer ‘natural’ family planning counseling such as abstinence and the rhythm method, it still must subcontract with clinics that provide other forms of contraception.” [Politico, 7/16/19]
Planned Parenthood, Which Served More Than 40 Percent Of U.S. Title X Patients Chose To Reject Funding Due To Restrictions, Leaving Large Parts Of The Country Without A Federally Funded Family Planning Provider. According to Politico, “Planned Parenthood, which serves more than 40 percent of the nation's Title X patients, confirmed Monday night it won't comply with the new rules. The group said Its clinics will start using their own emergency funds while it continues to fight the administration in court. Planned Parenthood, which still gets significant funding from Medicaid, has long been the only Title X funding recipient in Utah, and it covers a large portion of the population in several other states. Its exit from the program could leave parts of the country without a federally funded family planning provider.” [Politico, 7/16/19]
Without Planned Parenthood Clinics Supported By Title X, Other Types Of Title X-Supported Sites Would Have Had to Increase Their Contraceptive Client Caseloads By 70 Percent. According to Guttmacher, “Without Planned Parenthood clinics supported by Title X, other types of Title X–supported sites would need to increase their contraceptive client caseloads by an average of 70%. This poses massive challenges for the rest of the safety-net family planning provider network.” [Guttmacher, 8/29/19]
Other Title X Sites Were Not Readily Able To Replace Title X – Funded Planned Parenthood Health Centers.
[Guttmacher, 8/29/19]
Guttmacher Institute: Trump’s Domestic ‘Gag Rule’ Slashed The Title X National Family Planning Network’s Patient Capacity In Half, Impacting 1.6 Million Female Patients Nationwide. According to Guttmacher, “New data from the Guttmacher Institute show that the Trump administration’s domestic “gag rule” has slashed the Title X national family planning network’s patient capacity in half, jeopardizing care for 1.6 million female patients nationwide […] Based on data available for 910 of those 981 sites, we estimate that these changes reduced the network’s capacity to provide women with contraceptive services by at least 46%, translating to roughly 1.6 million patients. In other words, the impact of the gag rule on the network’s capacity is much greater than it might appear when looking at clinic numbers alone, because the gag rule intentionally targeted clinics specializing in reproductive health care services, sites that also serve the highest volume of contraceptive patients.” [Guttmacher, 2/5/20]
Trump’s Domestic Gag Rule Reduced The Title X Network’s Capacity By Nearly Half Nationwide And By Much More In Many States.
[Guttmacher, 2/5/20]
January 23, 2017: President Trump Reinstated And Expanded The Mexico City Policy Renaming It ‘Protecting Life In Global Health Assistance.’ According to the Kaiser Family Foundation, “On January 23, 2017, President Donald Trump reinstated and expanded the Mexico City Policy via presidential memorandum, renaming it ‘Protecting Life in Global Health Assistance.’ This explainer provides an overview of the policy, including its history, changes over time, and current application.” [Kaiser Family Foundation, 8/15/19]
The Mexico City Policy Required Foreign NGOs To Certify They Will Not ‘Perform Or Actively Promote Abortion As A Method Of Family Planning’ In Order To Receive U.S. Government Global Family Planning Assistance. According to the Kaiser Family Foundation, “First announced in 1984 by the Reagan administration, the policy has been rescinded and reinstated by subsequent administrations along party lines and has now been in effect for 19 of the past 34 years. The policy requires foreign non-governmental organizations (NGOs) to certify that they will not ‘perform or actively promote abortion as a method of family planning’ using funds with any source (including non-U.S. funds) as a condition for receiving U.S. government global family planning assistance and, as of Jan. 23, 2017, most other U.S. global health assistance.” [Kaiser Family Foundation, 8/15/19]
The Mexico City Policy Was Also Referred To As The ‘Global Gag Rule.’ According to Human Rights Watch, “This policy is also widely known as the ‘Global Gag Rule’ due to the restrictions it places on how organizations use their own non-US government funds, including through limiting conversations that health providers can have with their patients and preventing them from pressing for legal change in their own countries.” [Human Rights Watch, 2/14/18]
The Global Gag Rule Included A Majority Of U.S. Bilateral Global Health Assistance, Marking A Significant Expansion Of Its Scope. According to the Kaiser Family Foundation, “The Trump administration’s application of the policy to the vast majority of U.S. bilateral global health assistance, including funding for HIV under the U.S. President’s Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief (PEPFAR), maternal and child health, malaria, nutrition, and other programs, marks a significant expansion of its scope, potentially encompassing $7.4 billion in FY 2019, to the extent that such funding is ultimately provided to foreign NGOs, directly or indirectly (family planning assistance accounted for approximately $600 million of that total).” [Kaiser Family Foundation, 8/15/19]
Trump Implemented A Plan To Expand The Global Gag Rule On Abortion. According to the Kaiser Family Foundation. According to the Kaiser Family Foundation, “The Administration’s more recent extension of the policy to include any financial support (health or otherwise) provided by foreign NGOs for any purpose to other foreign NGOs that perform or actively promote abortion as a method of family planning4 is likely to encompass significant additional funding.” [Kaiser Family Foundation, 8/15/19]
The Global Gag Rule Expanded To Ban Aid To Foreign Groups That Support Other Foreign Groups That Promote Or Provide Abortions. According to NBC News, “The Trump administration is expanding a ban on U.S. aid to foreign groups that promote or provide abortions to include those who support others who do, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo announced Tuesday. ‘We will enforce a strict prohibition on back-door funding schemes and end runs around our policy,’ Pompeo said. ‘American taxpayer dollars will not be used to underwrite abortions’ […] Pompeo said the ban will now extend to those foreign NGOs that provide financial support to other groups who provide abortion services or counseling.” [NBC News, 3/26/19]
The New Terms Of The Global Gag Rule Applied To $8.8. Billion In Foreign Aid. According to the Guardian, “The Trump administration on Monday significantly expanded a Reagan-era policy banning foreign aid to international healthcare providers who discuss abortion or advocate for abortion rights, in a move critics fear will jeopardize efforts to fight diseases such as malaria, HIV/Aids, and the Zika virus. The new terms of the ban will apply to $8.8bn in existing foreign aid provided by the state department, USAid, and the Department of Defense – dwarfing the $600m in programming that fell under the ban during previous administrations.” [The Guardian, 5/15/17]
Critics Argued That The Expanded Mexico City Policy Would Significantly Cut Aid To Groups Combatting Public Health Crises. According to the Guardian, “Critics feared the broader policy could significantly cut aid to groups combating the types of infectious diseases that have plagued poorer countries. ‘There is no indication that the Trump administration has conducted any assessment of the impact of the expanded global gag rule,’ said Serra Sippel, the president of the Center for Health and Gender Equity. ‘For example, how will this expansion impact prevention of the spread of HIV or Zika, especially given the role of contraceptives in prevention efforts?’” [The Guardian, 5/15/17]
Human Rights Watch: The Expanded 2017 Gag Rule Triggered Reductions In Sexual And Reproductive Health Services From Well-Established Organizations. According to Human Rights Watch, “Human Rights Watch found the policy has triggered reductions in key sexual and reproductive health services from well-established organizations that cannot easily be replaced. For example, Family Health Options Kenya (FHOK) runs 16 healthcare facilities in the country. FHOK representatives told us the organization will not comply with the restrictions and therefore will lose US funds, which make up roughly 60 percent of its budget, and that it may have to cut as many as half of its services. By July 2017, the organization had already closed one clinic and canceled 100 planned outreach events, including for cervical cancer screening, HIV testing, and family planning counseling, that typically reach 100 people each time. Another organization, Reproductive Healthcare Network Kenya has lost about two-thirds of its funding and has canceled many activities, including trainings on safe abortion care for doctors and other healthcare providers. Reproductive Health Uganda, which serves 1.2 million people a year, is ending large health programs previously paid for by the US government. [Human Rights Watch, 2/14/18]
The Trump Administration Asked The Supreme Court To Reinstate A Rule Mandating Abortion Seekers To Visit Health Care Providers In Person To Acquire One Of The Pills For Medication Abortions, After Lower Courts Blocked The Rule During The Coronavirus Pandemic. According to CNN, “The Trump administration is asking the Supreme Court to reinstate a rule requiring abortion seekers to visit health care providers in person to acquire one of the pills for medication abortions, after lower courts blocked the rule during the ongoing coronavirus pandemic. The escalated fight surrounding the pills -- which the Food and Drug Administration does not require to be taken while with the health care provider -- is the latest development in a pandemic-era clash over abortion access that has increasingly manifested as a battle of regulations.” [CNN, 8/26/20]
The Trump Administration’s Challenge Came After Several Reproductive Health Groups Sued The FDA In May Over The Rule, Stating That It Was Unconstitutional For The Agency To Maintain The Rule For The Abortion Drug While Waiving It For Other Drugs In Light Of The Pandemic. According to CNN, “The Trump administration's challenge comes after several reproductive health groups, represented by the American Civil Liberties Union, sued the FDA in May over the long-standing requirement, arguing that it was unconstitutional for the agency to maintain the rule for the abortion drug while lifting it for other drugs in light of the pandemic. ‘By making life-threatening viral exposure risks a condition of treatment for medication abortion and miscarriage care, the FDA's continued maintenance of the Mifepristone In-Person Dispensing Requirement jeopardizes the safety of patients, clinicians, and the public at large, with no countervailing benefit—and with particularly severe implications for low-income people and people of color, who comprise a disproportionate share of impacted patients and who are already suffering and dying from COVID-19 at substantially higher rates,’ the ACLU wrote at the time. A lower court sided with the groups and temporarily blocked the requirement in July, and a federal appeals court denied the administration's efforts to overturn the ruling earlier this month.” [CNN, 8/26/20]