While visiting a Christian college in 2016, then presidential candidate Donald Trump jokingly bragged, “I could stand in the middle of Fifth Avenue and shoot somebody, and I wouldn’t lose any voters, OK? It’s, like, incredible.”
Thankfully, he has never tested that boast. But in his second term, he’s attempting to do something nearly as incredible—nominating an abortion supporter to head the nation’s public health services.
Robert F. Kennedy Jr. is a peculiar choice for numerous reasons. He’s a lifelong Democrat who supported pro-abortion candidates John Kerry, Hillary Clinton, and Barack Obama before running as a pro-abortion candidate for the 2024 Democratic Party presidential primaries. After receiving almost no support, he dropped out and ran as an independent. In August, Kennedy suspended his campaign and endorsed Trump. At the time, he suggested Trump offered him a job if he was to return to the White House, but neither Kennedy nor Trump offered details. Now we know the job offer was to be the secretary of Health and Human Services (HHS), an agency that plays several important roles in regulating and overseeing abortion.
The nomination is a signal that the GOP has fully shifted from the pro-life party to one that’s unapologetically pro-choice. And Kennedy’s confirmation to the position would be a political inflection point for the pro-life movement. As former vice president Mike Pence said, “I believe the nomination of RFK Jr. to serve as Secretary of HHS is an abrupt departure from the pro-life record of our administration and should be deeply concerning to millions of Pro-Life Americans who have supported the Republican Party and our nominees for decades.”
Trump’s return to his long-standing pro-choice position was likely inevitable. Sometime during this year, he made the (apparently correct) assumption that he could be openly pro-abortion and yet many pro-life voters would cast their ballot for him anyway since the Democrats were even more extreme on abortion. What’s surprising, though, is the concerted lack of response by those committed to opposing abortion, especially from some of America’s most prominent pro-life organizations.
Deafening Silence
Back in May, Kennedy said in an interview that he opposes any government limits on abortion access. When asked if he supported keeping abortion legal for a full-term baby (i.e., near the delivery date), Kennedy affirmed that was the case. Later, he clarified his position: “Abortion should be legal up until a certain number of weeks.”
Trump’s return to his long-standing pro-choice position was likely inevitable. What’s surprising is the concerted lack of response by those committed to opposing abortion.
Susan B. Anthony Pro-Life America (SBA) responded at the time by saying his comments made him “unacceptable to millions of pro-life voters nationwide.” Yet now that Kennedy is nominated to head the HHS, SBA has been silent (as of the time of publication, SBA hasn’t posted a comment on their website).
But SBA isn’t the only one. I reached out to SBA, Americans United for Life (AUL), Family Research Council (FRC), Live Action, National Right to Life Committee (NRLC), Students for Life, and the Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission (ERLC). Only one of those groups was willing to comment.
ERLC is the public policy arm of the Southern Baptist Convention. President Brent Leatherwood said, “Just under four years ago, 49 senators rejected Joe Biden’s nomination of Xavier Becerra because of his steadfast support for abortion. With the opportunity that exists in the post-Roe era to begin establishing a true culture of life, the Senate must weigh whether it wants to grant the powers that come with this position to someone with Kennedy’s pro-choice views.”*
The silence of these other pro-life groups is, as they say, deafening. Each had previously issued a denunciation when Biden nominated Becerra to HHS (see the statements from SBA, AUL, FRC, Live Action, NRLC, Students for Life, and ERLC.) Yet only one has gone on record as opposing Trump’s pro-abortion nominee. What’s changed?
(Update #1: Just prior to publication, I found Students for Life issued a statement to POLITICO in which they praise Kennedy. The group’s chief policy strategist, Kristi Hamrick, said that Kennedy’s shift back in May is a sign that “he is someone who will listen” to the pro-life movement going forward. “When faced with evidence, he changed his views,” she said. “How intelligent, refreshing and unlike so many in the health care space.” But that is completely wrong. Kennedy didn’t change his mind “when faced with evidence” (he made the original statement on Thursday and flip-flopped on Friday). His change of mind came from the pressure put on him by groups like SBA—pressure they are no longer willing to apply. And is it really so “intelligent” and “refreshing” for politician to claim abortion should only be restricted “in the final months of pregnancy”? While restrictions only in the last months of pregnancy is the current official position of the GOP, it is not a position that is moral or acceptable to true pro-lifers.)
For decades, the pro-life movement was accused of caring less about abortion than about ensuring Republican politicians were elected. Like many pro-life advocates, I considered it an absurd slander against these honorable nonpartisan organizations (full disclosure: I’ve done work for AUL, ERLC, FRC, and SBA). Yet it’s becoming harder to defend the actions of groups when they seem to oppose abortion only when it’s promoted by Democrats.
These national pro-life organizations are likely feeling the same pressure as other socially conservative organizations to not criticize Trump. It’s especially difficult for pro-life groups when it might be board members and donors putting pressure on them to remain silent. But if these organizations won’t consistently defend the unborn regardless of which party is in power, why should they even exist?
Call for Accountability and Faithful Witness
Unfortunately, the silence of national pro-life groups provides cover for Republican senators to support Kennedy’s confirmation. But those truly committed to the pro-life cause don’t have to remain silent.
We should encourage both Congress and national pro-life groups to stand for the unborn and insist on principled leadership that consistently opposes abortion, regardless of political expediency. Silence in the face of political pressures that conflict with foundational values only erodes the credibility of those claiming to defend life. The pro-life movement must prioritize its mission above party lines, demonstrating that its commitment to protecting life isn’t subject to the shifting sands of political allegiance.
Those truly committed to the pro-life cause don’t have to remain silent.
If pro-life advocates and organizations are willing to hold both parties accountable, they can help preserve the movement’s integrity and strengthen its long-term influence. A selective defense of life threatens to transform the pro-life cause into a mere political tool, diluted and manipulated by partisan interests. But by speaking out against any pro-choice nominations—regardless of who makes them—these organizations affirm their true commitment, not just to a platform but to the lives they profess to defend.
The call now is clear: If the pro-life movement is to remain a credible and effective voice, it must reject any temptation to trade moral clarity for political favor. Those who genuinely stand for life will echo the courageous voices of the past, calling leaders to account and reminding them that the sanctity of life isn’t up for negotiation. Let’s encourage all advocates to remain steadfast, ensuring the pro-life witness remains unblemished, unwavering, and unapologetically committed to the defense of the unborn—no matter who occupies the Oval Office.
Update #2: After publication, SBA sent me the following statement from their president, Marjorie Dannenfelser: “There’s no question that we need a pro-life HHS secretary, and of course, we have concerns about Robert F. Kennedy Jr. I believe that no matter who is HHS secretary, baseline policies set by President Trump during his first term will be re-established.”
As a follow-up based on the new statement, I asked, “Why does Ms. Dannenfelser believe President Trump will resort to baseline pro-life policies in his second term when he’s since come out as pro-abortion, changed the GOP political platform to make the party officially ‘pro-choice,’ and nominated at least two pro-abortion nominees to the cabinet (one to the role of HHS)?” They responded,
Voters soundly rejected the Biden-Harris weaponization of the federal government to push abortion on demand throughout all of pregnancy and to target Americans who object to this regime. President Trump and his administration can make the government serve the people again by offering real and lasting support to pregnant and parenting moms.
The commonsense policies of Pres. Trump’s first term become the baseline for the second, along with reversing the Biden-Harris administration’s unprecedented violation of longstanding federal laws. Among the actions he can take, we trust that he will stop the illegal funding of abortion through the Veterans Administration and Department of Defense, start enforcing nondiscrimination laws again so Americans are never forced to participate in abortion, reinstate the Protect Life Rule at home and abroad to stop funneling tax dollars to the abortion industry, and free the patriots unjustly put in prison for peacefully protesting the killing of unborn children.
*Here is the full statement provided by ERLC’s Brent Leatherwood:
As we go through the nomination process, presidents are entitled to bring forth individuals they believe can competently and wisely fill roles across the executive branch. Alongside that, the Senate has a vital constitutional role to play in examining, advising, and confirming the individuals they feel can best carry out the duties of these respective positions. That is the standard that should be applied for every nominee, including Mr. Kennedy. He’s been selected to lead a department that is a central agency in the fight to protect preborn lives, a cause Kennedy has long opposed. Just under four years ago, 49 senators rejected Joe Biden’s nomination of Xavier Becerra because of his steadfast support for abortion. With the opportunity that exists in the post-Roe era to begin establishing a true culture of life, the Senate must weigh whether it wants to grant the powers that come with this position to someone with Kennedy’s pro-choice views.
At the same time, I am praying for Mr. Kennedy. I’m praying that for all his focus on healthy living, he actually sees that abortion is completely antithetical to health and living. That he comes to realize how it destroys the physical life of a child and does untold damage to the life of the mother. That he understands the federal government has an immense role to play in recognizing the inherent right to life that already exists for every American, born and preborn alike.
And finally, I pray that the Lord would help him to see the ways his rhetoric about freedom is actually limited and shallow; because the freedom to take an innocent life is no freedom at all, but instead an example of how our culture remains enslaved to an abortion regime that perpetuates a culture of death. Here at the ERLC, we will be a voice that continually appeals to the consciences of leaders and policymakers about the dignity of preborn lives and the need to protect them. Anyone seeking to lead HHS must recognize this is the urgent challenge of our time.