January, 18 2018, 11:45am EDT

In Advance of Trump's March for Life Speech, NARAL Releases Unprecedented New Report to Expose Key Anti-Choice Actors, Their Ties to Trump, and Their Dangerous Actions
Today, the day before Donald Trump's March for Life appearance, NARAL Pro-Choice America is releasing a new, comprehensive, opposition research report,
WASHINGTON
Today, the day before Donald Trump's March for Life appearance, NARAL Pro-Choice America is releasing a new, comprehensive, opposition research report, The Insidious Power of the Anti-Choice Movement. In the report, NARAL Pro-Choice America details how the anti-choice movement infiltrated the Trump administration and our government to erode access to reproductive healthcare, including abortion access, and deceive women along the way.
"This report is the first of its kind, and documents the inner workings of the anti-choice movement in a way that far exceeds what people currently understand about its agenda," said Ilyse Hogue, president of NARAL Pro-Choice America. "This information is critical to understanding how the movement's insidious and out of step agenda is becoming reality day by day in this country. We know that their influence is outsized relative to the popularity of their fringe agenda thanks to their highly coordinated, well-funded, under the radar work. While 7 in 10 Americans support legal abortion, this movement - fully empowered by the Trump administration - does everything it can to meet its sinister goals of governing all aspects of women's reproductive health from banning abortion outright to limiting access to contraception. We'll continue building a proactive resistance in defense of their rights and reproductive freedom."
The Insidious Power of the Anti-Choice Movement exposes the extreme and often dangerous records of the anti-choice movement's most prominent activists, the tactics they use to foist their personal and fringe views on everyday Americans, and the key connections they have to the conservative movement, and in particular, its anti-LGBTQ agenda. The report highlights five key areas the movement has focused on in pushing their ideological agenda:
- The anti-choice movement has created a pipeline for conservative legal minds from law school to the courthouse: The anti-choice movement has been strategically curating and nurturing judges to appointed to federal courts, laying the foundation for courts that will rule in their favor--all the way up to the Supreme Court.
- The anti-choice movement strategically identifies, targets, and supports young law students who show promise in advancing an anti-choice agenda. With help from well-connected anti-choice leaders, these individuals can eventually become judges and be positioned on the bench to hear cases on the bills that the anti-choice movement writes and that are intended to challenge Roe. This long-term grooming includes connecting law students with plum career opportunities, regularly checking in to maintain the lawyer's anti-choice perspective, and ultimately, handing-picking and serving up these individuals to the Trump administration to fill judicial vacancies.
- Anti-choice organizations craft model anti-choice legislation with the goal of provoking a challenge to the foundation of Roe v. Wade: The anti-choice movement crafts legislation that's intended to go through the court system and provoke a challenge to Roe v. Wade, hopefully overturning it one day.
- At the same time the anti-choice movement is grooming ideologically-aligned lawyers to sit on the bench, they are also working to pass state-level legislation to advance specific cases that are explicitly grounded in the goal of overturning Roe, as a means of creating precedent in the lower courts that will ultimately strengthen a higher court challenge of Roe when the conditions are ripe.
- Anti-choice organizations maintain on-the-ground efforts by creating and propping up deceitful, fake health clinics that lure women in with misinformation: Fake health clinics with an anti-choice agenda are increasingly medicalizing their advertisements, yet they are not providing the corresponding medical services. And often, the individuals operating the fake health clinics are the same people who protest outside abortion clinics--creating a tightly woven network of anti-abortion activists that each fulfill different roles in the movement.
- Their political influence creates the illusion that the anti-choice agenda is more popular than it is: The anti-choice movement wields outsized influence, appearing to have more support than they actually do, because individuals at every level--be it a protester, leader of a fake health clinic, or founder of an anti-choice advocacy organization--have outsize influence in their field and actively work to reinforce each other's work and raise each other's profile. This echo-chamber effect creates the facade that their audience is broader than it actually is, and makes anti-choice beliefs seem much more popular than actually reflected in public opinion.
- The anti-choice agenda is deeply embedded in the broader conservative movement's funding machine, but flies very much under the radar: The major funding behind virtually all facets of the anti-choice movement (from fake health centers, to legal organizations, to political campaigns) is done by a handful of conservative mega-donors such as the Betsy Devos and Rebekah Mercer families. Wealthy, conservative families fund every facet of the anti-choice movement, creating an infrastructure of power and influence in the White House, the judiciary, Congress and media.
Download the full report from NARAL Pro-Choice America here.
For over 50 years, Reproductive Freedom for All (formerly NARAL Pro-Choice America) has fought to protect and advance reproductive freedom at the federal and state levels—including access to abortion care, birth control, pregnancy and post-partum care, and paid family leave—for everybody. Reproductive Freedom for All is powered by its more than 4 million members from every state and congressional district in the country, representing the 8 in 10 Americans who support legal abortion.
202.973.3000LATEST NEWS
'A Good Day for Our Democracy': Judge Orders Trump to End National Guard Deployment in LA
"For more than five months, the Trump administration has held California National Guard troops hostage as part of its political games," said California's attorney general. "But the president is not king."
Dec 10, 2025
In a win for Democratic California Gov. Gavin Newsom, state Attorney General Rob Bonta, and the residents of Los Angeles, a federal judge on Wednesday ordered President Donald Trump to stop deploying the National Guard in the nation's second-largest city.
"The founders designed our government to be a system of checks and balances," wrote US District Judge Charles Breyer, an appointee of former President Bill Clinton. "Defendants, however, make clear that the only check they want is a blank one."
Trump mobilized around 4,000 California National Guard troops in June amid protests against his violent crackdown on undocumented immigrants. Since then, the Republican leader has also pursued deployments in other Democrat-led cities, including Chicago, Illinois; Portland, Oregon; and Washington, DC, where two soldiers were recently shot.
The new ruling from San Francisco-based Breyer comes as the administration was cutting troops in LA from 300 to 100, according to the New York Times.
"Once again, a court has firmly rejected the president's attempt to make the National Guard a traveling national police force."
"Six months after they first federalized the California National Guard, defendants still retain control of approximately 300 guardsmen, despite no evidence that execution of federal law is impeded in any way—let alone significantly," the judge said. "What's more, defendants have sent California guardsmen into other states, effectively creating a national police force made up of state troops."
After ruling in September that Trump's deployment of Marines in Los Angeles violated the 1878 Posse Comitatus Act, the judge on Wednesday blocked the president's federalization of California National Guard troops—but he also halted his own decision until next Monday, allowing for appeals.
Despite the prospect that the Trump administration would continue the court fight, Bonta and Newsom—who is expected to run for president in 2028—welcomed the ruling.
"Once again, a court has firmly rejected the president's attempt to make the National Guard a traveling national police force," Bonta said in a statement. "For more than five months, the Trump administration has held California National Guard troops hostage as part of its political games."
"But the president is not king. And he cannot federalize the National Guard whenever, wherever, and for however long he wants, without justification," the attorney general declared. "This is a good day for our democracy and the strength of the rule of law."
In addition to battling Trump's invasion of LA, Bonta has backed lawsuits filed by Illinois Attorney General Kwame Raoul, Oregon Attorney General Dan Rayfield, and DC Attorney General Brian Schwalb challenging the president's deployments in their cities and filed an amicus brief with the US Supreme Court for the Chicago fight.
Keep ReadingShow Less
US Threatens ICC With More Sanctions to Prevent Future Prosecution of Trump: Report
"Amending the Rome Statute to exclude non-state parties will never happen," said one professor of international law.
Dec 10, 2025
Exclusive reporting by Reuters on Wednesday cites an anonymous government official who says that the Trump administration has privately reached out to the International Criminal Court in order to threaten new sanctions against the ICC unless it pledges not to prosecute President Donald Trump for any crimes he may have committed.
According to the news agency:
The Trump administration official, speaking on the condition of anonymity, said Washington has communicated its demands to ICC members, some of whom are U.S. allies, and has also made them known to the court. The United States is not a party to the Rome Statute that established the ICC in 2002 as a court of last resort, with the power to prosecute heads of state.
The demand and the threat to resume the U.S. sanctions campaign towards the court have not been previously reported.
In February, just a month after taking office for his second term, Trump announced US sanctions against ICC officials following the issuance of arrest warrants for Israeli government leaders for their role in the military assault and humanitarian embargo on Gaza, characterized by a United Nations investigative body and numerous human rights groups worldwide as a genocide.
The unnamed official who spoke to Reuters said there "is growing concern" that after Trump leaves office in January of 2029, "the ICC will turn its attention to the president, to the vice president, to the secretary of war and others, and pursue prosecutions against them. That is unacceptable, and we will not allow it to happen."
According to the source, the solution is for ICC members states "to change the Rome Statute to make very clear that they don't have jurisdiction" over US heads of state, including Trump, for any possible crime no matter its nature or where it takes place.
As Reuters notes, "Enshrining blanket immunity for specific individuals would be seen as undermining the court's founding principles and would need approval by the court's governing body, the Assembly of States Parties."
Kevin Jon Heller, a professor international law as the University of Copenhagen and a special adviser to the ICC Prosecutor on War Crimes, said in a social media post Wednesday that it is highly unlikely that member states would bow to the US pressure. "Amending the Rome Statute to exclude non-state parties will never happen," said Heller.
The official did not say which acts of the president have caused the most worry within the administration as it concerns a possible prosecution.
During his second term Trump has—among other possible crimes and violations of international law—ordered the bombing of Iran, unleashed numerous strikes against Somalia and Yemen that have resulted in civilian casualties, provided political support and armed Israel as it carries out a genocide in Gaza, and conducted, since September, a series of extrajudicial murders in the Caribbean and Pacific with aerial bombings that have claimed the lives of at least 87 people.
Reuters reports Friday that it was told by two ICC deputy prosecutors that they had not received any requests to investigate US actions regarding Venezuela.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Senate GOP Healthcare Plan Decried as ‘Utter Joke’ That Would Devastate Sick Americans
One campaigner said Republicans want to force people "onto junk plans that leave them at risk of crippling medical debt."
Dec 10, 2025
The Republican healthcare proposal that's set for a vote in the US Senate on Thursday would not prevent insurance premiums from skyrocketing for tens of millions of Americans and would likely harm sicker people by promoting high-deductible plans.
The GOP bill, led by Sens. Mike Crapo (R-Idaho) and Bill Cassidy (R-La.), would allow enhanced Affordable Care Act (ACA) tax credits to expire, replacing them in 2026 and 2027 with an annual payment of up to $1,500 in tax-advantaged health savings accounts to help cover out-of-pocket costs.
The catch is that only Americans enrolled in high-deductible bronze or catastrophic plans on the ACA exchanges would be eligible for the funding, which could not be used on monthly premiums. In 2026, the average individual deductible for bronze plans is $7,476, and the average for catastrophic plans is $10,600.
Larry Levitt, executive vice president for health policy at KFF, said Tuesday that "premium payments would still more than double next year" under the GOP plan, which does not have enough support to overcome the Senate's 60-vote filibuster.
"Healthy people could be better off in a high deductible plan with a health savings account," Levitt noted. "People who are sick would face big premium increases or a deductible they can't afford."
Brad Woodhouse, president of the advocacy group Protect Our Care, called Senate Republicans' legislation "an utter joke that would set healthcare progress back by decades and leave Americans high and dry without the care and coverage they deserve."
"Republicans are proving once again how unserious they are," said Woodhouse. "Instead of protecting hard-working families, Sens. Cassidy and Crapo want to force them off the insurance plans they like and onto junk plans that leave them at risk of crippling medical debt. That’s not what American families want, and it’s certainly not what they deserve.”
Asked earlier this week if he supports the Crapo-Cassidy bill, President Donald Trump responded, "I like the concept."
The Senate GOP plan was introduced as a counter to Democrats' push for a clean three-year extension of the enhanced ACA subsidies. Republicans, who passed legislation over the summer that enacted the largest-ever cuts to Medicaid, are expected to vote down the Democratic plan on Thursday.
The Center on Budget and Policy Priorities estimates that if the ACA tax credits lapse at the end of the year, "a couple making $44,000 (208% of the poverty level) will see their monthly marketplace premium rise from $85 to $253—an annual increase of $2,013."
With the Senate vote looming, House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La) is "still trying to figure out" his healthcare proposal, Politico reported Tuesday.
"The goal is for GOP lawmakers to have 'something' to vote on before the end of next week, according to one of the senior House Republicans involved in the talks," the outlet added, "even if there is no time left for the Senate to pass it before the subsidies lapse."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular


