Politics
Opinion: The GOP's bait and switch on abortion
When Republicans affirmed their party’s platform this week, it included a supposedly moderated position on abortion. Don’t believe it.
For decades, the GOP has explicitly pledged its support for a so-called human life amendment, which would extend the protections of the 14th Amendment — its guarantees of due process and equality under the law — to a zygote, from the moment an egg is fertilized, thereby banning abortion as a matter of constitutional law.
Donald Trump’s 2024 platform drops any mention of a human life amendment, emphasizes state control of abortion and explicitly expresses support for both contraception and in vitro fertilization. He seems to have successfully sidelined the most ardent abortion foes and pushed the party a little closer to the center on the issue, where most voters are after the Supreme Court’s overthrow of Roe vs. Wade.
Look more carefully, however, and you see that the Republican platform doesn’t abandon the party’s longstanding commitment to fetal personhood. It simply updates it, and hides it behind less direct language.
“We proudly stand for families and for life,” the GOP 2024 abortion plank begins, before it goes on to assert that the 14th Amendment’s guarantees back up an antiabortion stance. As one party official insisted, the language in no way strays from an adamant “pro-life” position because “there’s protection under the Constitution.”
And while the platform suggests that abortion should be left to the states, the message is there for those in the know: Constitutional fetal personhood would override state laws, even where ballot initiatives protect abortion rights.
The assertion of constitutional fetal personhood, however veiled it might appear to some, reflects an antiabortion strategy that is ascendant in the post-Roe vs. Wade era.
While Roe was the law of the land, fighting directly for a personhood amendment seemed necessary. If the Supreme Court would not reverse its 1973 decision — as long was the case — a constitutional amendment was the only way to undo the right to choose. But it would also require hard-to-achieve supermajorities in Congress and the states in support of a radical and unpopular idea. Rather than trying to overcome that hurdle and amend the Constitution, why not just change its judicial interpretation?
Winning over federal judges was much easier said than done. Even conservative judges and legal scholars weren’t always comfortable with the antiabortion movement, and it seemed their methods of constitutional interpretation, including originalism, some versions of which claim to identify the original public meaning of the text, would not deliver fetal personhood. Over time, however, the antiabortion movement and the conservative legal movement began to unite, finding an originalist angle to endorse: that from the get-go, the nation’s founders believed the unborn child had rights to due process and equality under the law.
In other words, a constitutional human life amendment is unnecessary because the 14th Amendment already guarantees fetal rights. The 2024 GOP abortion plank gestures to just that interpretation.
Of course a party platform is more about theory than practice. As to what a new Trump administration can and would do on the abortion front, there are other sources to look to.
Project 2025, for example, the widely discussed Trump 2.0 blueprint developed by the Heritage Foundation, promotes the revivification of the Comstock Act, a 19th century anti-obscenity law that conservatives — including the vice presidential candidate J.D. Vance — have argued prevents the mailing of abortion-related items. Enforcing it as Project 2025 envisions could create a de facto federal ban because virtually every abortion requires the use of something, from a scalpel to a pill, once put in the mail.
Or perhaps new Trumpian leadership at the FDA would act to reverse the agency’s scientists and take mifepristone, the medication abortion drug used in more than half of all U.S. abortions, off the market.
Or this: Some antiabortion groups have proposed that if Trump wins in November, he could simply use executive power to advance fetal personhood.
Most important for the antiabortion cause, a second presidential term would mean a chance for Trump to move the courts even further to the right. Instead of having to deal with Congress and politicians who worry about the displeasure of voters, abortion foes could rely on like-minded judges to push fetal personhood, judges with lifetime appointments. Trump has already helped the movement with picks such as Matthew Kacsmaryk, the federal judge in Texas who compares the abortion-rights movement to Nazism.
If you read between the lines, the GOP’s platform is not about moderation. It’s about creating the appearance of moderation, all while assuring the far-right’s antiabortion crusaders that a national abortion ban is still coming if a second Trump administration has anything to say about it.
It may just be a matter of time.
Mary Ziegler is a law professor at UC Davis and the author of “Roe: The History of a National Obsession.”
Politics
Trump signs order to protect Venezuela oil revenue held in US accounts
NEWYou can now listen to Fox News articles!
President Donald Trump has signed an executive order blocking U.S. courts from seizing Venezuelan oil revenues held in American Treasury accounts.
The order states that court action against the funds would undermine U.S. national security and foreign policy objectives.
CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE FOX NEWS APP
President Donald Trump is pictured signing two executive orders on Sept. 19, 2025, establishing the “Trump Gold Card” and introducing a $100,000 fee for H-1B visas. He signed another executive order recently protecting oil revenue. (Andrew Harnik/Getty Images)
Trump signed the order on Friday, the same day that he met with nearly two dozen top oil and gas executives at the White House.
The president said American energy companies will invest $100 billion to rebuild Venezuela’s “rotting” oil infrastructure and push production to record levels following the capture of Venezuelan dictator Nicolás Maduro.
The U.S. has moved aggressively to take control of Venezuela’s oil future following the collapse of the Maduro regime.
This is a developing story. Please check back for updates.
Politics
Column: Some leaders will do anything to cling to positions of power
One of the most important political stories in American history — one that is particularly germane to our current, tumultuous time — unfolded in Los Angeles some 65 years ago.
Sen. John F. Kennedy, a Catholic, had just received his party’s nomination for president and in turn he shunned the desires of his most liberal supporters by choosing a conservative out of Texas as his running mate. He did so in large part to address concerns that his faith would somehow usurp his oath to uphold the Constitution. The last time the Democrats nominated a Catholic — New York Gov. Al Smith in 1928 — he lost in a landslide, so folks were more than a little jittery about Kennedy’s chances.
“I am fully aware of the fact that the Democratic Party, by nominating someone of my faith, has taken on what many regard as a new and hazardous risk,” Kennedy told the crowd at the Memorial Coliseum. “But I look at it this way: The Democratic Party has once again placed its confidence in the American people, and in their ability to render a free, fair judgment.”
The most important part of the story is what happened before Kennedy gave that acceptance speech.
While his faith made party leaders nervous, they were downright afraid of the impact a civil rights protest during the Democratic National Convention could have on November’s election. This was 1960. The year began with Black college students challenging segregation with lunch counter sit-ins across the Deep South, and by spring the Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee had formed. The Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. was not the organizer of the protest at the convention, but he planned to be there, guaranteeing media attention. To try to prevent this whole scene, the most powerful Black man in Congress was sent to stop him.
The Rev. Adam Clayton Powell Jr. was also a warrior for civil rights, but the House representative preferred the legislative approach, where backroom deals were quietly made and his power most concentrated. He and King wanted the same things for Black people. But Powell — who was first elected to Congress in 1944, the same year King enrolled at Morehouse College at the age of 15 — was threatened by the younger man’s growing influence. He was also concerned that his inability to stop the protest at the convention would harm his chance to become chairman of a House committee.
And so Powell — the son of a preacher, and himself a Baptist preacher in Harlem — told King that if he didn’t cancel, Powell would tell journalists a lie that King was having a homosexual affair with his mentor, Bayard Rustin. King stuck to his plan and led a protest — even though such a rumor would not only have harmed King, but also would have undermined the credibility of the entire civil rights movement. Remember, this was 1960. Before the March on Washington, before passage of the Voting Rights Act, before the dismantling of the very Jim Crow laws Powell had vowed to dismantle when first running for office.
That threat, my friends, is the most important part of the story.
It’s not that Powell didn’t want the best for the country. It’s just that he wanted to be seen as the one doing it and was willing to derail the good stemming from the civil rights movement to secure his own place in power. There have always been people willing to make such trade-offs. Sometimes they dress up their intentions with scriptures to make it more palatable; other times they play on our darkest fears. They do not care how many people get hurt in the process, even if it’s the same people they profess to care for.
That was true in Los Angeles in 1960.
That was true in Washington, D.C., on Jan. 6, 2021.
That is true in the streets of America today.
Whether we are talking about an older pastor who is threatened by the growing influence of a younger voice or a president clinging to office after losing an election: To remain king, some men are willing to burn the entire kingdom down.
YouTube: @LZGrandersonShow
Politics
Federal judge blocks Trump from cutting childcare funds to Democratic states over fraud concerns
NEWYou can now listen to Fox News articles!
A federal judge Friday temporarily blocked the Trump administration from stopping subsidies on childcare programs in five states, including Minnesota, amid allegations of fraud.
U.S. District Judge Arun Subramanian, a Biden appointee, didn’t rule on the legality of the funding freeze, but said the states had met the legal threshold to maintain the “status quo” on funding for at least two weeks while arguments continue.
On Tuesday, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) said it would withhold funds for programs in five Democratic states over fraud concerns.
The programs include the Child Care and Development Fund, the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families program, and the Social Services Block Grant, all of which help needy families.
USDA IMMEDIATELY SUSPENDS ALL FEDERAL FUNDING TO MINNESOTA AMID FRAUD INVESTIGATION
On Tuesday, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services said it would withhold funds for programs in five Democratic states over fraud concerns. (AP Photo/Jose Luis Magana, File)
“Families who rely on childcare and family assistance programs deserve confidence that these resources are used lawfully and for their intended purpose,” HHS Deputy Secretary Jim O’Neill said in a statement on Tuesday.
The states, which include California, Colorado, Illinois, Minnesota and New York, argued in court filings that the federal government didn’t have the legal right to end the funds and that the new policy is creating “operational chaos” in the states.
U.S. District Judge Arun Subramanian at his nomination hearing in 2022. (Tom Williams/CQ-Roll Call, Inc via Getty Images)
In total, the states said they receive more than $10 billion in federal funding for the programs.
HHS said it had “reason to believe” that the programs were offering funds to people in the country illegally.
‘TIP OF THE ICEBERG’: SENATE REPUBLICANS PRESS GOV WALZ OVER MINNESOTA FRAUD SCANDAL
The table above shows the five states and their social safety net funding for various programs which are being withheld by the Trump administration over allegations of fraud. (AP Digital Embed)
New York Attorney General Letitia James, who is leading the lawsuit, called the ruling a “critical victory for families whose lives have been upended by this administration’s cruelty.”
New York Attorney General Letitia James, who is leading the lawsuit, called the ruling a “critical victory for families whose lives have been upended by this administration’s cruelty.” (Win McNamee/Getty Images)
CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE FOX NEWS APP
Fox News Digital has reached out to HHS for comment.
-
Detroit, MI7 days ago2 hospitalized after shooting on Lodge Freeway in Detroit
-
Technology4 days agoPower bank feature creep is out of control
-
Dallas, TX5 days agoDefensive coordinator candidates who could improve Cowboys’ brutal secondary in 2026
-
Dallas, TX2 days agoAnti-ICE protest outside Dallas City Hall follows deadly shooting in Minneapolis
-
Iowa4 days agoPat McAfee praises Audi Crooks, plays hype song for Iowa State star
-
Delaware1 day agoMERR responds to dead humpback whale washed up near Bethany Beach
-
Health6 days agoViral New Year reset routine is helping people adopt healthier habits
-
Nebraska4 days agoOregon State LB transfer Dexter Foster commits to Nebraska