Trump has said abortion is a state issue; his judicial picks could shape it nationally for decades
One called abortion a "barbaric practice." Another referred to himself as a "zealot" for the anti-abortion movement. Several have played prominent roles in defending their state's abortion restrictions in court and in cases that have had national impact, including on access to medication abortion.
As President Donald Trump pushes the Senate to confirm his federal judicial nominees, a review by The Associated Press shows that roughly half of them have revealed anti-abortion views, been associated with anti-abortion groups or defended abortion restrictions.
Trump has offered shifting positions on the issue while indicating he wants to leave questions of abortion access to the states. But his court nominees will have lifetime appointments and be in position to roll back abortion access long after the Republican president leaves the White House.
Bernadette Meyler, a professor of constitutional law at Stanford University, said judicial nominations "are a way of federally shaping the abortion question without going through Congress or making a big, explicit statement." "It's a way to cover up a little bit what is happening in the abortion sphere compared to legislation or executive orders that may be more visible, dramatic and spark more backlash," she said.
Trump is having an enduring impact on the federal courts Of the 17 judicial nominees so far in Trump's second term, at least eight have argued in favor of abortion restrictions or against expanded abortion access. No such records could be found for the other nine, nor did the AP review find evidence that any of Trump's judicial nominees support increased access to abortion. "Every nominee of the President represents his promises to the American people and aligns with the U.S. Supreme Court's landmark ruling," a White House spokesman, Harrison Fields, said in a statement that referenced the 2022 decision overturning the constitutional right to abortion established in Roe v. Wade. "The Democrats' extreme position on abortion was rejected in November in favor of President Trump's commonsense approach, which allows states to decide, supports the sanctity of human life, and prevents taxpayer funding of abortion." Trump's first term also had an enduring impact on the courts, appointing 234 judges. By the end of that term, more than one-quarter of active federal judges were nominated by Trump, including three Supreme Court justices who helped overturn Roe v. Wade. Challenging abortion care, medication, Planned Parenthood In his second term, all but five of his 17 nominees are from states that went for Trump in 2024 and where Republicans have pushed severe abortion restrictions. Among them, four nominees are from Missouri and five are from Florida.
Here is a look at the nominees who have tried to reduce abortion access or have advocated for restrictions. They did not respond to requests for comment: - Whitney Hermandorfer, who has been confirmed to the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, has built much of her relatively short career as a lawyer around challenging former President Joe Biden's policies related to abortion and transgender rights. She challenged a federal law requiring employers to provide workers with reasonable accommodations to get abortion care, as well as Title X regulations that required providers who receive funding through the program to give information about abortions to patients if asked. Hermandorfer defended Tennessee's abortion ban, one of the strictest in the country, in court and tried to dismiss a lawsuit from doctors seeking clarification on exemptions to the ban. She said abortion deserves special scrutiny because "this is the only medical procedure that terminates a life." - Maria Lanahan, a district court nominee in Missouri, helped write the state's complaint in a lawsuit that had sweeping national implications for access to medication abortion. The case challenged the FDA approval of the abortion pill mifepristone despite decades of evidence showing the drug is safe and effective. The lawyer supported Missouri's effort to strip Planned Parenthood of state Medicaid funding and defended the state's abortion ban after a group of clergy sued, arguing it violated the state constitution's protections for religious freedom.- Jordan Pratt, a nominee for the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida, called abortion a "barbaric practice" and "one of the most severe invasions of personal rights imaginable" in an amicus brief supporting Florida's 15-week abortion ban. The state now bans the procedure at six weeks. In 2025, Pratt struck down a Florida law that created a judicial waiver program for minors seeking to have abortions without parental consent. The lawyer also worked for the Alliance Defending Freedom, a conservative legal organization that opposes abortion and has sued to reverse the FDA approval of mifepristone. - John Guard, also nominated to fill for the same district, defended Florida's then-15-week abortion ban in court as the state's chief deputy attorney general. - Joshua Divine, a deputy solicitor general of Missouri who is nominated to be a district judge in the state, is currently representing Missouri in a case challenging the FDA approval of mifepristone. Divine co-authored the lawsuit, which includes misinformation about medication abortion, including that it "starves the baby to death in the womb." In his college newspaper, Divine described himself as a "zealot" for the anti-abortion movement, referred to abortion as "the killing of an innocent, genetically unique human being" and argued that life begins at fertilization. He also stepped into a prominent role in the fight over abortion rights in the state after Missouri voters approved an abortion rights amendment in 2024. That amendment did not immediately override state laws. It left it up to abortion rights groups to ask courts to knock down abortion restrictions they believed were now unconstitutional. During the ensuing legal battles, Divine represented the state in defending a host of abortion restrictions. - Chad Meredith, Trump's nominee to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Kentucky, defended the state's abortion ban and other restrictions while he was the state's chief deputy general counsel. That included a law requiring doctors to perform ultrasounds and describe images to abortion patients. - Bill Mercer, a Republican state lawmaker in Montana who is nominated for a U.S. District Court judgeship in the state, has repeatedly supported anti-abortion bills. Those include ones that sought to ban abortion after 20 weeks of pregnancy; require a 24-hour waiting period and mandatory ultrasounds for abortion patients; require parental notification for minors to get an abortion; prohibit the use of state funding for abortions; prohibit certain insurance policies from covering abortions; and restrict what types of medical professionals can dispense medication abortion. - Jennifer Mascott, a lawyer in the White House Counsel's Office and a Trump nominee to the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, has spoken repeatedly about abortion law in panels and interviews. After the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade, Mascott in an interview on "Fox News Live" disagreed with the argument that the decision undermined the court's legitimacy. She said abortion issues are "more appropriately decided" by the states, elected officials in Congress and people in their local communities. Anti-abortion groups are optimistic based on Trump's early nominees Anti-abortion groups said it is premature to make broad conclusions about whether the nominees would help carry out their policy goals but that they were optimistic based on the names they have seen so far. "We look forward to four more years of nominees cut from that mold," said Katie Glenn Daniel, director of legal affairs for the national anti-abortion organization SBA Pro-Life America. Kristi Hamrick, spokesperson for Students for Life, said she was hopeful the administration will continue nominating those "who will respect the rule of law." Abortion rights advocates said Trump is embedding abortion opponents into the judiciary one judge at a time. Mini Timmaraju, president of the national abortion rights organization Reproductive Freedom for All, said the courts, until now, have largely been an effective option for advocates to challenge state abortion bans and restrictions. "This just feeds into this larger strategy where Trump has gotten away with distancing himself from abortion - saying he's going to leave it to the states while simultaneously appointing anti-abortion extremists at all levels of government," she said.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Mint
20 minutes ago
- Mint
After targeting India, Donald Trump mulls tariffs on China over Russian oil purchases, no final decision yet
S President Donald Trump is considering imposing tariffs on China over its purchases of Russian oil, in a move similar to the one recently taken against India, according to Vice President JD Vance. Speaking to Fox News, Vance said no final decision has been made but confirmed that the idea is under discussion. Earlier this week, Trump announced tariffs on India, citing its continued imports of Russian oil. The discussions reflect growing concern within Trump's circle over Beijing's role in supporting Moscow's economy amid the ongoing war in Ukraine. The measure would aim to pressure China to reduce its energy trade with Russia. Vance emphasised that the idea remains under consideration and no formal policy has been set. China has significantly increased its imports of discounted Russian crude since the start of the Ukraine war in 2022, helping offset the impact of Western sanctions on Moscow. Washington has previously warned Beijing that such purchases undermine international efforts to isolate Russia economically. If enacted, new tariffs could mark an escalation in Trump's already tough trade stance toward China. The White House last week issued an Executive Order imposing an additional 25 percentage points in tariffs on all Indian goods, raising the total duty to 50%. The move, announced by Trump, targets India's continued imports of Russian oil, which the administration says undermine US foreign policy and national security interests. The new tariffs will take effect 21 days after the signing of the order, providing a brief window for India and Russia to potentially negotiate with Washington on the import taxes. White House Trade Adviser Peter Navarro said India faced the steep hike due to its 'refusal' to halt purchases of Russian crude — a trade the US claims is helping fund Moscow's war in Ukraine. Since 2022, Russia's share of India's total oil imports has surged from 1.7% to 35.1%, making it India's largest oil supplier. The shift has been driven by discounted Russian crude, often capped at $60 per barrel, which India says is critical for its energy security. President Trump announced last week that the US would not engage in new trade negotiations with India until the tariff dispute is resolved. The Executive Order also allows for further expansion or reduction of tariffs depending on a country's alignment with US national security and foreign policy objectives. The penalty on India follows the administration's earlier trade actions against other countries but contrasts with a softer approach toward China. While Beijing currently faces a 30% tariff, Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent has suggested its August 12 deadline could be extended if trade talks progress. If implemented as planned, the 50% tariffs mark one of the harshest trade measures taken by Washington against a major economic partner in recent years, potentially escalating tensions between two of the world's largest democracies.
The Hindu
20 minutes ago
- The Hindu
MEA to highlight bipartisan approach to India-U.S. relationship to Parliamentary Committee on External Affairs on Aug. 11
U.S. President Donald Trump's imposition of additional tariffs on India is a result of 'flawed assumptions' and New Delhi is being dragged into a geopolitical tug of war in which it does not intend to participate, officials of the Ministry of External Affairs are poised to tell the Parliamentary Committee on External Affairs on Monday (August 11, 2025). The officials may also highlight the bipartisan nature of India-U.S. relationship and argue that ties prospered under 'both BJP and Congress-led governments'. The meeting of the Committee on External Affairs is being convened after the U.S. administration cited India's purchase of Russian oil as a trigger for additional 25% tariffs on top of the 25% 'reciprocal' tariffs announced before. In the meeting, the MEA team is expected to have a pragmatic approach to the latest challenges to the India-U.S. relationship and inform the Committee that despite the difficulties, India remains 'committed to engaging constructively' with the United States about the issues through 'dialogue and mutual respect'. 'Unilateral, punitive measures' It is learned that the Committee will be told that the U.S. decisions do not 'reflect the realities of global energy markets or India's sovereign choices' and that India considers the tariffs 'unilateral, punitive measures' that hurt global trade norms. The MEA team is expected to provide the Indian assessment of the motivation behind the actions of the U.S. President. The officials believe that the White House regards Russia's military campaign against Ukraine as an 'ongoing threat to U.S. national security and foreign policy' that requires 'strengthened measures'. Prior to the Executive Order signed by President Trump on August 6, 2025, India and the United States had been in negotiations for a 'fair, balanced and mutually beneficial bilateral trade agreement'. The MEA team is expected to tell the MPs in the Parliamentary Committee about what is perceived as 'double standards' in U.S. policy regarding trade with Russia. The Committee will also receive a detailed presentation of the historical nature of India-U.S. relationship with an emphasis on 'shared democratic values, open societies, converging strategic and economic interests and robust people to people ties'. The officials are likely to provide an overview of the 'bipartisan' nature of the relationship and how under both BJP- and Congress-led governments, the relationship has been nurtured and 'deepened'. Similar consensus between the Republicans and the Democrats in the U.S. are also expected to be in focus during the discussion. The Committee members are also likely to hear about the support President Trump has provided to India's core concern of cross-border terrorism from Pakistan, especially after the April 22 terrorist attack in Pahalgam in Jammu and Kashmir. In this regard, President Trump's approval of extradition of 26/11 attack-linked Tahawwur Rana to India is also likely to be part of the presentation. A similar mention of the declaration of The Resistance Front (TRF) as a Foreign Terrorist Organisation (FTO) and (Specially Designated Global Terrorist (SDGT) is also expected during discussions at the Committee meeting.
Hans India
20 minutes ago
- Hans India
US seeking Ukrainian conflict end on current frontlines, to end funding: US VP Vance
Ahead of the much-anticipated summit meeting between the US and Russian Presidents in Alaska, US Vice President J.D. Vance said that negotiations to end the Ukraine conflict "should be based on the existing battle lines", though admitting it will not make "anybody super happy". Vance, speaking to Fox News, described this strategy as "a realistic, if imperfect, foundation" for a negotiated peace between Russia and Ukraine, RT reported. He also credited President Donald Trump with securing a breakthrough that could bring Russian President Vladimir Putin and Ukrainian President Vladimir Zelensky to the table. "If you take where the current line of contact between Russia and Ukraine is, we're going to try to find some negotiated settlement that the Ukrainians and the Russians can live with… where the killing stops,"| Vance told Fox News, admitting that "it's not going to make anybody super happy". Trump had said earlier that the ideas under discussion include "some swapping of territories to the betterment of both" sides, and Zelensky would need to find a way to approve such a deal under Ukrainian law. Zelensky has rejected any such agreement, claiming that 'nobody can or will' make concessions on the issue. 'The Ukrainians will not give their land to the occupiers,' he proclaimed. Vance also claimed President Trump had persuaded his Russian counterpart to reverse course on his refusal to meet Zelensky, and that scheduling talks between the three leaders was now under discussion. Asked if Putin and Zelensky should meet before involving Trump, he contended that he doesn't think "it would be that productive", and it must be Trump who is the one to 'bring these two together' for meaningful progress. In the interview published after he met several European and Ukrainian officials in London, including UK Foreign Minister David Lammy, ahead of the summit meeting between Presidents Putin and Trump, the US Vice President also said the US is not going to fund Ukraine anymore. Ukraine's European backers can buy the weapons from American producers if they want to continue supporting Kiev, and the US will be "okay with that", Vance added. He suggested that Kiev's European backers should play a bigger role in providing funding if they "care so much about this conflict.' "Americans, I think, are sick of continuing to send their money, their tax dollars, to this particular conflict. But if the Europeans want to step up and buy the weapons from American producers, we're okay with that. But we're not going to fund it ourselves anymore," he said.
