Hawley officially a yes on Dr. Oz after securing commitments on transgender, abortion issues
"On this basis, I will vote to confirm him. Now that I am confident that he has moved away from his previous positions, and he's moved into alignment with the president, I feel comfortable voting for him," he told Fox News Digital in an exclusive interview on Monday.
The senator revealed that Oz responded to his inquiries and disavowed his past stances on transgender treatments for minors and abortion in a series of posts on X earlier in the day.
"Dr. Oz has responded to my questions re: past support for trans treatments for minors & his criticism of right to life. Oz now disavows his previous support for trans surgeries & drugs for minor children. He pledges to 'end chemical and surgical mutilation of children,'" Hawley wrote on X on Monday.
"He also walks back past criticism of state pro-life laws, says he supports the Dobbs decision, and is 'unequivocally pro-life.' He vows to enforce conscience protections, end the abuse of [the Emergency Medical Treatment & Labor Act], and work to end funding for abortion providers," he continued.
"This was really a big shift of position for him," he explained, adding that he was "delighted" by Oz's responses.
"When it comes to the [transgender] issue and the life issue, those are non-negotiable for me, just as I believe they are for the president," the Missouri Republican explained. "I want to know that these people are 100% clear."
"Every member of the Trump administration is working from the same playbook, President Trump's playbook, to restore commonsense policies and put an end to left-wing ideological nonsense afflicting our government," White House spokesman Kush Desai told Fox News Digital in a statement. "We look forward to the Senate's swift confirmation of Dr. Oz so he can join the rest of our all-star team at HHS working to Make America Healthy Again by restoring common sense, transparency, and confidence in our healthcare apparatus."
Earlier in the month, Hawley sent Oz a list of questions, specifically probing him on those issues. As of last week, Hawley said the nominee hadn't responded, which the senator called "strange."
Oz previously used his television show as a platform for people who supported and promoted transgender treatments, particularly for minors. Specifically, he hosted two transgender children on his show in 2010 in a segment titled, "Transgender Kids: Too Young to Decide?"
He also expressed concerns about state laws to limit abortion during a 2019 interview on the popular radio show "The Breakfast Club."
It's "a hard issue for everybody," he said at the time.
And while on "a personal level," Oz didn't like abortion, he also believed he should not "interfere with everyone else's stuff," he said.
Oz also opposed government jurisdiction on the subject of abortion when he ran for Senate in Pennsylvania as a Republican in 2022.
"I don't want the federal government involved with that at all," he claimed during a debate with now-Sen. John Fetterman, D-Pa. "I want women, doctors, local political leaders, letting the democracy that's always allowed our nation to thrive, to put the best ideas forward, so states can decide for themselves."
Hawley's commitments from Oz are just the latest he's received from Trump nominees as he considers them for confirmation. He previously got assurances from now-Health and Human Services (HHS) Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. on the same issues.
When it came to now-leader of the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) Dr. Marty Makary, Hawley led a successful campaign to secure the resignation of a top lawyer with the FDA who previously argued in favor of abortion pill access in a high-profile case while in former President Joe Biden's Department of Justice (DOJ).
"I just view my role for those I have to vote on — I want to know that these people are going to align with the president," Hawley said, noting that he believes Trump has "moved really fast [and] really strong" on the issues.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Hill
7 minutes ago
- The Hill
California Republicans file suit to halt redistricting plan
California Republican legislators on Tuesday announced a state Supreme Court petition, an effort to stop Gov. Gavin Newsom's (D) plan to redistrict House seats in the Golden State. 'Today I joined my colleagues in filing a lawsuit challenging the rushed redistricting process. California's Constitution requires bills to be in print for 30 days, but that safeguard was ignored. By bypassing this provision, Sacramento has effectively shut voters out of engaging in their own legislative process,' Assemblyman Tri Ta said on X. The petition cites a section of the state constitution that requires a month-long review period for new legislation. Democrats are working quickly to set up a special election that would let voters weigh in on the redistricting plan. Four state Republican legislators have signed on to the petition, according to a copy for a writ of mandate, shared by the New York Times. They're asking for immediate relief, no later than Aug. 20, and arguing that action can't be taken on the legislative package before Sep. 18. 'Last night, we filed a petition with the California Supreme Court to stop the California legislature from violating the rights of the people of California,' said Mike Columbo, a partner at Dhillon Law Group, in a Tuesday press conference alongside California Republicans. 'The California constitution clearly gives the people of California the right to see new legislation that the legislature is going to consider, and it gives them the right to review it for 30 days,' Columbo said. California Democrats swiftly introduced the redistricting legislative package when they reconvened after summer break on Monday, and are expected to vote as soon as Thursday. They have until Friday to complete the plan in time to set up a Nov. 4 special election. Columbo called that pace of action a 'flagrant violation' under the state constitution. Democrats are aiming to put a ballot measure before voters that would allow temporary redistricting, effectively bypassing the existing independent redistricting commission — which was approved by voters more than a decade ago and typically redistricts after each census — to redraw lines in direct response to GOP gerrymandering in other states. California Republicans have vowed to fight back. Democrats, on the other hand, are stressing that they're moving transparently to let voters have the final say on whether redistricting happens.
New York Post
7 minutes ago
- New York Post
Trump's war on mail-in voting is futile — and could hurt the GOP
President Trump is threatening to wage war on mail-in ballots — and the GOP has to hope he thinks again before the 2026 mid-terms. In a Truth Social post, Trump said he is 'going to lead a movement to get rid of MAIL-IN BALLOTS,' and he'll start off with 'an EXECUTIVE ORDER to help bring HONESTY to the 2026 midterm elections.' Trump likes the idea of in-person, same-day voting, which has much to recommend it. Advertisement But mail-in and early voting are so ingrained and widespread that they aren't going anywhere. Most Republicans have concluded that there's no alternative to making use of these modes of voting, and crucially, they managed — most of the time — to get Trump on board in 2024. Advertisement This aided the Republican get-out-the-vote operation in a close election. Clearly, though, Trump believes that mail-in voting is a Democratic plot, and he also hates contemporary voting machines. Old-school paper ballots don't guarantee honesty, however: In an infamous instance of voter fraud, allies of Lyndon Johnson stuffed Box 13 with enough ballots to put him over the top in the very narrow 1948 Democratic Senate primary in Texas. Today's voting machines, moreover, were a reaction to the Florida fiasco in 2000, when punch-card ballots had to be painstakingly examined by hand with a presidential election at stake. Advertisement The fact is that vote-by-mail has been steadily growing since the 1980s, and it needn't favor one side or the other. In Florida, Republicans have long made it a priority to maximize mail voting. A study by the academic Andrew Hall of pre-COVID voting patterns in California, Utah and Washington found a negligible partisan effect as those states rolled out vote-by-mail systems. Advertisement Overall, turnout went up only very slightly, and 'the Democratic share of turnout did not increase appreciably.' Mail-in voting didn't change who was voting, but how they did it — encouraging, as you might expect, voting by mail rather than in-person. Vote-by-mail did have a strong partisan tilt in the COVID election of 2020, in part because Trump inveighed against it. In 2024, Republicans made a concerted effort to make up ground — and succeeded. The GOP went from 24% of the mail vote in the must-win swing state of Pennsylvania in 2020, to 33% in 2024. And Republicans outpaced Democrats in mail-in balloting in Arizona. The advantage to a party of getting people to vote early — whether in person or by mail — is that it takes high-propensity voters off the table. Then, a turnout operation can focus on getting lower-propensity voters to the polls. Get opinions and commentary from our columnists Subscribe to our daily Post Opinion newsletter! Thanks for signing up! Enter your email address Please provide a valid email address. By clicking above you agree to the Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. Never miss a story. Check out more newsletters If no one votes until Election Day, party operatives waste time and money right up to the cusp of the election contacting people who are going to vote no matter what. Advertisement None of this is to say that all mail-in voting is equal. So-called universal mail-in voting, or automatically sending a ballot to every registered voter and scattering live ballots around a state, is a bad practice. Every morning, the NY POSTcast offers a deep dive into the headlines with the Post's signature mix of politics, business, pop culture, true crime and everything in between. Subscribe here! The rules should be more stringent. Advertisement Georgia, for example, gets this right: You have to ask for an absentee ballot and provide your driver's license number or a copy of another form of valid ID. Ballots have to be requested at least 11 days before the election and must be returned by Election Day. The outer 'oath' envelope has to be properly completed or the ballot is subject to being rejected, although the county elections office will provide the voter a chance to 'cure' the envelope. Advertisement It's also important to count early and mail-in ballots quickly, something that too many states fail to do, with California — as usual — the worst offender. States should be expected to abide by whatever rules have been set prior to an election, rather than changing them on the fly, and they should ensure that voter rolls are regularly cleaned up. The real question about vote-by-mail isn't whether it is staying or going, but whether Republicans, too, will take advantage of it. Twitter: @RichLowry
NBC News
7 minutes ago
- NBC News
Trump's Ukraine diplomacy faces a new hurdle: Where can Putin and Zelenskyy meet?
A man wanted for war crimes sitting across the table from the leader of the country he invaded? That is the spectacle that President Donald Trump is pushing to arrange in the next few weeks, convinced he can break the deadlock between Russia's Vladimir Putin and Ukraine's Volodymyr Zelenskyy with a summit that could help forge an end to the Kremlin's war. The plan, however, is tangled from the start. Some European leaders maintain that no such meeting should take place before Russia agrees to a ceasefire. Many analysts doubt that Putin will actually agree to meet with Zelenskyy. And even if he does, there's the fraught subject of where to hold the negotiations, given that Putin faces an arrest warrant from the International Criminal Court (ICC). Kremlin plays it cool Trump revealed Monday that he called the Russian leader 'to begin the arrangements' during his White House meeting with Zelenskyy and a posse of European leaders. The president doubled down Tuesday, telling "Fox & Friends" that he hoped 'Putin is going to be good,' adding: 'I sort of set it up with Putin and Zelenskyy, and you know, they're the ones that have to call the shots. We're 7,000 miles away.' Trump seemed eager to accelerate the timeline of the mooted talks. "I think it will be fairly soon," Finnish President Alexander Stubb told NBC News, adding that he hoped it could happen "within the next two weeks." Moscow, however, poured its customary cold water on the excitement. "We do not reject any formats: neither bilateral nor trilateral," said Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov. But he warned that any summit would have to be prepared "step by step, gradually, starting with the expert level and then going through all the necessary steps." Lavrov, speaking to State TV channel Rossiya-24, added that "contacts involving top officials must be prepared with the utmost care." Location TBD Zelenskyy said he is "ready" to meet Putin, but it's unclear where such a meeting would take place. Putin faces an arrest warrant, issued by the ICC in 2023, over the alleged war crime of illegally deporting Ukrainian children. That obligates the 125 countries that are party to the court under the Rome Statute to arrest the Russian leader and transfer him to The Hague for trial if he sets foot on their territory. Moscow has repeatedly denied accusations that its forces have committed atrocities in Ukraine, and the Kremlin branded the court decision "null and void." Trump said Monday the location was 'to be determined,' and the search for a neutral venue has already turned into its own diplomatic guessing game. Switzerland, already floated by Stubb and French President Emmanuel Macron as a potential venue, raised its hand. Despite being an ICC signatory, Switzerland could welcome Putin for a summit given that he would be coming for peace purposes, said Foreign Minister Ignazio Cassis. 'The goal of receiving Mr. Putin in Switzerland without him being arrested is one hundred percent achievable,' Cassis told Swiss national broadcaster SRF. Austria's leader also offered his country, which stood at the divide of communist Eastern Europe and the capitalist West during the Cold War. "We stand ready to offer our good services," Chancellor Christian Stocker posted on X. Hungary may also be in play. Its parliament voted to quit the ICC in April, which could allow Putin to attend without risk of arrest. Prime Minister Viktor Orban has also remained one of the Kremlin's few friends in Europe amid the war, though that may make it less appealing to Kyiv. But obstacles remain: Any Putin flight to Switzerland or Hungary risks passing over countries that might not be so forgiving if his plane had to make an emergency landing. Safer bets could be Turkey, which has hosted past summits between Ukraine and Russia, or Qatar, which is already used to hosting fraught negotiations between warring parties as the venue for talks between Israel and Hamas. Turkey and Qatar are not members of the ICC. Sergei Markov, a former Kremlin adviser, suggested that a summit could take place at the end of August and that Saudi Arabia could play host. The U.S. is also not an ICC signatory, and Putin and Zelenskyy have traveled there in recent days. Whether a venue will even need to be chosen is another matter. While not 'impossible,' a meeting between the two leaders would be 'a big surprise,' Keir Giles, a senior fellow at the London-based think tank Chatham House, told NBC News. Putin has 'carefully avoided' meeting Zelensky until now, he said in a phone interview, 'because doing so conflicts with his narrative of Ukraine not being a proper country and Zelenskyy not being a legitimate leader." Tatiana Stanovaya, a senior fellow at the Carnegie Russia Eurasia Center, a Berlin-based think tank, echoed those doubts. A meeting would be 'pointless' for Putin and will not happen 'under the current circumstances,' she wrote on X. Putin 'has repeatedly stated that such a meeting would only be possible if there were well-prepared grounds, which in practice means Zelenskyy's acceptance of Russia's terms for ending the war,' she said.
