Chicago – An examination of the Associated Press shows that several of President Donald Trump’s candidates before the federal courts revealed anti-abortion opinions, were associated with anti-abortion groups or defended abortion restrictions.
Several helped defend the abortion restrictions by their state before the courts and some were involved in cases with a national impact, in particular on access to abortion by medication.
Although Trump has said that abortion problems should be left in the United States, candidates, with life meetings, would be able to retreat abortion rights long after Trump has left the White House.
Trump has repeatedly moved his messages on abortion, often giving contradictory or wave responses.
In the years preceding his last presidential campaign, Trump had expressed his support for a federal abortion ban at or after 20 weeks of pregnancy and said that he could support a national ban about 15 weeks. He then contented himself with conducting messages according to which decisions concerning access to abortion should be left to the States.
Throughout his campaign, Trump alternated between taking the merit of having appointed the judges of the Supreme Court who helped to cancel Roe v. Wade and take a more neutral tone. This was an effort to navigate the political fracture between its anti-abortion supporters and the wider audience, which largely supports access to abortion.
A Trump candidate described the abortion of “barbaric practice” while another has called “fanatic” for the anti-abortion movement. A candidate of Tennessee said that abortion deserves a special examination because “it is the only medical procedure that ends a life”.
One of the Missouri has spread a disinformation on drug abortion, including that he “makes the death to death in the uterus” in a legal action aimed at questioning the approval by the food and drug administration of the abortion pill.
Legal experts and defenders of abortion rights warn against a methodical overhaul of federal courts in a manner that could constitute sustainable threats to access to abortion at the national level.
Bernadette Meyler, professor of constitutional law at the University of Stanford, said that legal appointments “are a way to shape the federal government of the issue of abortion without going through the congress or make a great explicit declaration”.
“It is a way to cover a little what is happening in the abortion sphere in relation to the legislation or the decrees which can be more visible, dramatic and arouse more counterpouss,” she said.
Harrison Fields, a spokesman for the White House, said that “each president of the president represents his promises to the American people and aligns for the historic decision of the United States Supreme Court.”
“The extreme position of democrats on abortion was rejected in November in favor of the common sense approach to President Trump, which allows states to decide, supports the sacredness of human life and prevents taxpayers’ funding funding,” Fields said in an AP statement.
Trump focused mainly on the economy and immigration during his campaign in 2024, the problems that surveys have shown were the most important subjects for voters.
The defenders of the anti-abortion say that it is premature to determine whether the candidates will support their objectives but that they hope according to the names proposed so far.
“We are impatiently awaiting four other nominees cut off from this mold,” said Katie Glenn Daniel, Director of Legal Affairs of the National Anti-Avincement Organization SBA Pro-Life America.
The defenders of abortion rights said that Trump joined opponents of abortion in the judicial judge at the same time
“This feeds this broader strategy where Trump has moved away from the distancing of abortion, saying that it will leave the United States, while simultaneously naming anti-abortion extremists at all levels of the government,” said Mini Timmaraju, president of the National Abortion Rights Organization Reproductive Freedom for all.
