Latest news with #StudentsforLifeofAmerica
Atlantic
16-06-2025
- Politics
- Atlantic
Why Voices on the Right Are Telling Moms to ‘Lean In'
Online, they say things such as: 'I believe women get to have it all: A career. An education. A happy marriage. And children.' And: 'Women—you are strong enough to succeed in both motherhood & your career. You don't have to choose one.' And: 'You don't have to put your career on hold to have kids.' They are not, however, the former Facebook executive Sheryl Sandberg, or the girlboss head of a progressive nonprofit, or a liberal influencer. Those quotations come from the social-media feeds of, respectively, Abby Johnson, the founder of the anti-abortion group And Then There Were None; Kristan Hawkins, the president of the anti-abortion group Students for Life of America; and the married couple Simone and Malcolm Collins, who run a nonprofit in the conservative-leaning pronatalist movement that encourages Americans to have more children. (Simone also recently ran for office as a Republican.) They all contend that women need to make very few trade-offs between having kids and building a flourishing career. This argument, coming from these voices, is surprising for a few reasons. The idea that mothers should 'lean in' to challenging jobs was popularized by Sandberg, a prominent Democrat, in 2013 and embraced by legions of liberal career women. Within a few years, attitudes had soured toward both Sandberg and leaning in. Many mothers pushed back on the expectation that they be everything to everyone, and opted instead for raging, quiet quitting, or leaning out. A sunny lean-in revival is unexpected, especially from conservative-leaning women, a group that for the most part did not embrace this message when Sandberg was making it. The specter of conservatives wanting to trap women at home has long been a liberal boogeyman, but it is based in some reality. Historically, some on the right, including Phyllis Schlafly and earlier-era J. D. Vance, have argued that women should, at the very least, deprioritize paid work so they can focus on motherhood. Some conservatives continue to make this claim: At a 2023 pronatalism conference, the far-right businessman Charles Haywood told audiences that 'generally, women should not have careers.' Allie Beth Stuckey, a conservative podcast host, once told my colleague Elaine Godfrey that women should put family first, and that any professional enterprise—say, a 'crocheting business' or the like—should come second to their kids. The conservative author and podcaster Ben Shapiro has written that girls are troubled because society has told them that they need not 'aspire to bear and rear children or make preparations to build a home. Instead, we've told them that they can run from their own biology,' including by pursuing 'more work hours.' By contrast, Hawkins once posted a photo of her family, which includes four children, as proof that women can 'do both: Have a career & be a mother.' In reference to a picture of White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt holding her baby son at work, Hawkins wrote that it's a lie that 'you need to end a child's life'—a reference to having an abortion—'to have the career you want.' A female attendee at a recent pronatalist convention told a New York Times reporter, 'It's horrible to be telling young women that having kids is the worst thing you can do for your career.' Kristi Hamrick, a vice president of Students for Life of America, who has four children, told me, 'I'm highly offended by the modern-day misogyny that says you can't have a career and family, so pick career. There is no difference to turn-of-the-century misogyny which says you cannot have home and career, so stay home.' The women I spoke with who make this argument expressed frustration with those on the right encouraging women to devote themselves fully to housekeeping and child-rearing. Hawkins told me she objects to what she calls 'tradwife stuff'—stay-at-home wives who post videos of themselves, for example, milling their own flour—because 'that's not financially possible for the majority of people.' Hawkins said that she has always worked full-time and that her husband homeschools their kids. 'I think especially now in the right wing, this messaging is coming across like, 'You're either an evil feminist career woman, or you're a mother,'' she said. 'I'm like, 'What about women who want to do both of those things?'' Johnson, who has eight children, told me that in recent years, 'this tradwife movement has been very loud. And I don't like it. I don't think it's helpful. I think it's kind of reductionist. Like, 'Women, you are just here to breed.'' She's heard conservative male speakers at events use the term boss babe pejoratively. 'What's wrong with being a boss?' she wondered. Simone Collins, who works in private equity in addition to running her family's nonprofit, also pushed back against traditionalist views of women and work. Her mother, she told me, 'basically put her entire life on hold to raise me.' After Collins was grown, she 'didn't have anything else to live for and got really depressed, and that's terrifying to me.' Now Collins, who has four kids, wants to model for her daughters the idea that having children and working hard at a career is normal. She told me that she works from 6 a.m. to 4 p.m. each day. Unlike the families of some of the other women I spoke with, hers relies on outside child care: Their tenants provide it in exchange for rent. 'I'm just not the kind of person who can sit at home,' she said, 'and only focus on kids.' Many of these women embrace progressive-leaning views on family policy. 'I think it's a gross detriment to society that we don't have federal parental leave,' Johnson told me. (This mirrors a growing sense among Republican voters that the government should boost support for working parents.) All of the women I spoke with mentioned something that is, at the very least, liberal coded: the importance of remote work to working moms. And yet none of them would generally be considered progressive. In our conversation, Hawkins criticized feminists of the 1970s and '80s; Hamrick described the concept of women working as 'very biblical,' pointing out the Proverbs 31 tale of a 'wife of noble character' who 'makes linen garments and sells them.' Johnson has supported 'head-of-household voting,' in which, hypothetically, a husband could cast a ballot for his wife. Elizabeth Bruenig: Why the left should embrace pronatalism Still, the lean-in argument is taking hold among some of these women, possibly as a practical calculation that backing women into a kids-or-career corner won't help raise fertility rates or persuade women to avoid abortion. Women attend college at higher rates than men, and men's labor-force participation has stalled while women's continues to grow. Only about a quarter of mothers in two-parent households stay at home while their husband works, a steep drop-off from the '70s. Nearly half of moms are their family's breadwinner. Despite possible differences in what they believe to be ideal, Republican and Democratic mothers work outside the home at similar rates. Today's young women will likely end up working—and wanting to do so. 'A Leave It to Beaver –style, more patriarchal approach to pronatalism is just not going to work,' Patrick T. Brown, a fellow at the conservative Ethics and Public Policy Center, who focuses on family policy and has four kids, told me. (He works part-time, and his wife is a tenure-track professor.) Encouraging Americans to have children seems to require acknowledging that few families can survive on one income. 'Everyone has to work,' Collins told me. 'If they make it such that you are not a conservative Christian or you're not part of our community if you have a working mother, they're not gonna have any more community members, because everyone has to have a job now.' In their well-intentioned effort to encourage mothers' career aspirations, however, some of these women may be overstating their case. (Collins told me that she hasn't sacrificed her career for her kids 'even a little bit.') Many of them have organized their life in ways that are not available to many other working moms. All of those I spoke with work from home, which is something many women would like to do but cannot. Hamrick had a period of working part-time when her kids were young, something that most working mothers would like to do as well, but that relatively few are able to do, because part-time jobs tend to not pay well. The women I spoke with are all high up at organizations that offer a level of flexibility that, say, a nurse or a teacher does not enjoy. (Johnson, of And Then There Were None, lets her employees take naps in the middle of the day.) And they all have very supportive partners, some of whom don't work outside the home. The thing is, for many women, having kids can be really bad for their career. Although the 'motherhood penalty' on wages varies depending on a woman's age and profession, and has declined over time, it seems to continue to exist in the short term. That is, although their earnings might eventually bounce back, women tend to make less money immediately after having children—whether because they cut back hours; accept more flexible, lower-paying jobs; or have bosses who discriminate against them. A large study recently found that after working women have children, their income falls by half, on average, and remains depressed for at least six years. Even women who are the breadwinner of their family see their income suffer after giving birth. Hiring managers are less likely to hire mothers than women without kids, and many offer mothers lower salaries. And women with kids may avoid or be steered away from ' greedy ' jobs—or high-paying white-collar jobs—which frequently require people to work well into the night, long after day cares have closed. 'Of course there's a trade-off. It's massive,' Catherine Ruth Pakaluk, a Catholic University of America economist who has eight children, told me. 'You have to be blind to deny it.' She went on, 'If I didn't have children, I would have done a lot more professionally.' Nevertheless, she said, 'I'm happy with this trade-off.' Marc Novicoff: The loneliness of the conservative pronatalist When pressed, the others I interviewed, who had previously expressed unqualified positivity, acknowledged some concessions between motherhood and career. Collins believes the sacrifices should come at home: She told me that working hard and raising kids is doable if people are less particular about the parenting part. 'If I spend the afternoon with the kids, the house is cleaner than it was before. The kids are well behaved. They're fed. They're all dressed. They look neat and tidy,' she told me. 'If Malcolm spends the afternoon with the kids, I come home, they're naked, their faces are smattered with candy smudges.' Many women, she said, don't accept this more anarchic brand of 'dad parenting,' so they cut back at work to do it themselves. 'If we revised that and made it more normalized to have kids more chaotically parented or parented in a more chill way,' she said, 'then I think women would be more comfortable not leaning out.' Johnson said with some regret that she has missed key moments with her kids—for instance, witnessing some of their first steps—to keep up her travel-heavy schedule. Despite this, she said, 'I'm a better mom because I am not at home 24 hours a day with my children.' Women, she added, 'have this feminine genius within all of us that I believe is essential in the workplace.' Others said they'd made compromises at work: Hamrick said her career has 'ebbed and flowed,' and for years she worked part-time. Hawkins said she often tells young women that being a mother and working full-time 'does require sacrifice.' But the women I spoke with seemed especially concerned about the drawbacks that come from not having kids. They want more people to enjoy the fulfillment and sense of meaning they believe children bring to life, and to not regret missing their chance. Research suggests that a small number of Americans without children have regrets, but most do not; at the same time, some parents experience regret that they chose to have kids. Still, some women I spoke with worried that those who don't become mothers may live to lament their choices. At some point, Hawkins told me, women who focus on 'making as much money as you can, climbing the corporate ladder so then your boss can fire you at any moment, and going on great vacations that you put on Instagram' may well look at their life and think, Wait a minute. What is this really about? Hawkins hopes that when they do, 'it's not too late' for them to have children. So she tells women they can have it all—even though for many women, that's much harder than it sounds.
Yahoo
28-04-2025
- Health
- Yahoo
Sewage testing for birth control and abortion pills? Texas eyes a long game
If you can get past the obvious ick factor, a city's sewage contains an ocean of information. During the pandemic, for instance, Austin and other cities tracked COVID surges and new variants of the virus by routinely testing the wastewater — a sensible public health endeavor. But some of the same Texas lawmakers who seem awfully obsessed with who's in the bathroom stall next to you are pushing another kind of bathroom bill that's even creepier. Senate Bill 1976 would start testing wastewater in certain communities for traces of substances related to birth control pills and abortion pills. Because your most personal decisions are supposedly hurting the environment. Before you start drawing up plans for an outhouse, know that any test results wouldn't be traceable to any particular location, as the samples would come from wastewater plants receiving sewage from tens of thousands of homes. But this effort is nonetheless insidious and alarming, a first step in a long game to potentially restrict the Pill as a pollutant of the natural world, or provide the ammunition to sue the makers of abortion medication out of existence. And if this sounds like a far-fetched use of environmental law to further restrict personal reproductive healthcare decisions, recognize that the overturning of Roe v. Wade was never the finish line, and those who wish to take child-bearing decisions out of your hands will be unrelentingly resourceful in their use of tools. 'Environmental law has teeth. It already exists,' Kristi Hamrick, the vice president of Students for Life of America, said at the group's annual conference earlier this year, according to reporting by Politico. 'And, frankly, I'm for using the devil's own tools against them.' SB 1976 author Sen. Bryan Hughes' office did not respond to my questions about the bill, but Hughes put a decidedly green spin on the measure at an April 14 discussion at the Senate Committee on Water, Agriculture and Rural Affairs. The prevalence of hormones and other chemicals seeping into the environment, and eventually into drinking water supplies, 'is a growing concern around the country, and it's not a left or right issue,' Hughes told the committee. 'It's a health issue. It's a life issue, especially when we think about pregnant moms and vulnerable populations like that.' While the bill calls for testing a few substances in addition to those in birth control and abortion pills — including BPA appearing in plastics, the carcinogen benzophenone and a couple of chemicals used in fragrances — it's hard to buy Hughes as a champion of the environment. The Republican from Mineola was tied for the lowest score in the Senate in Environment Texas' 2023 scorecard, and his latest 4% rating from the Texas Sierra Club was so embarrassingly low that the organization simply noted: 'The score speaks for itself.' Hughes is well known, however, for authoring Texas' first successful abortion ban in half a century, the 2021 measure empowering private citizens to sue anyone they believed assisted in an abortion after about six weeks into the pregnancy. Recall that, too, was a novel strategy — one that seemed audacious and improbable right up until the courts allowed SB 8 to stand. For those who actually care about the science, the notion that birth control pills are contaminating the environment is hogwash. Yes, studies have found elevated levels of estrogen making their way into waterways, even affecting some fish populations. But researchers say the synthetic estrogen found in birth control accounts for less than 1% of the trace amounts of estrogen found in drinking water. Up to 90% of the estrogen is coming from agricultural operations — steroid implants that promote the growth of cattle and sheep, then appearing in the manure used to fertilize crops. Moreover, the feds already looked into this question back in 2015, testing for hormone levels in 12,000 water systems across the country, including 1,000 systems in Texas, Cari-Michel LaCaille, the director of the Office of Water for the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality, told the Senate water committee on April 14. 'They had less than 1% of those systems showing detects,' she said. In the meantime, if we're so concerned about the trace amounts of the abortion medication mifepristone that end up in the sewage, why aren't we testing for the contamination from scores of more widely used pharmaceutical products? Funny, I didn't see Propecia or Viagra on the testing list for SB 1976. Perhaps the saving grace for women will be Texas leaders' apathy toward the environment, especially when it comes time to pay for things. The original version of SB 1976, calling for a statewide sewage testing program estimated to cost nearly $24 million a year, was pared down to a committee substitute bill for testing 10 random sites as part of a pilot program. 'It's one of those tough things that you probably should know (about various contaminants in the water), but the more you know, the more you might decide we've got a real problem we can't fix,' state Sen. Charles Perry, R-Lubbock, said as the committee hearing closed. The bill was left pending in committee. We can only hope this wasteful idea goes down the drain. Bridget Grumet is the Statesman's Editorial Page Editor. Her column contains her opinions. Share yours via email at bgrumet@ or via X or Bluesky at @bgrumet. This article originally appeared on Austin American-Statesman: Sewage testing for birth control pills? Texas eyes long game | Grumet
Politico
28-01-2025
- Health
- Politico
Awaiting Trump's abortion pill posture
Presented by Boehringer Ingelheim With Alice Miranda Ollstein Driving The Day WHAT'S IN STORE FOR MIFEPRISTONE — President Donald Trump issued executive orders late Friday reviving some of his first term's anti-abortion policies, like restrictions on federal funding for family planning and some overseas health programs. But he has yet to take action on a major target for the groups who embrace those moves — the FDA's Biden-era decisions loosening restrictions around access to abortion pills. They specifically want a ban on telehealth prescription and mail delivery of mifepristone, the first drug used in the medication abortion regimen in the U.S., Alice reports. Ideally, in their view, Trump's FDA would ban the drug altogether — though such a move would be sure to spark legal action from the pharma industry. 'I want to hear him say things like, 'I'm holding everybody equally accountable to the law. If you don't do an environmental assessment, guess what? Your drug is being pulled from the market,'' Kristan Hawkins, the president of Students for Life of America, told Alice. 'It'd also be great to hear him say, 'The REMS are very important, and they shouldn't be removed simply because a presidency wants to put access to abortion over safety,'' she added, referring to the FDA's risk evaluation and mitigation strategies program, which puts conditions on the use of certain drugs. 'It's absolutely asinine why they would remove the REMS on requiring an ultrasound before giving these chemical abortion drugs out.' What's on the chopping block: Under President Joe Biden, the FDA permitted telehealth providers to prescribe and mail mifepristone, eliminating a previous requirement stipulating the drug had to be dispensed in person. The agency also allowed brick-and-mortar pharmacies to become certified to dispense the medication; previously, the drug was typically stocked by abortion providers, given the myriad limitations around its prescription. Murky outlook: Before his swearing-in, Trump suggested he wouldn't do anything to further limit the availability of abortion pills, roiling the anti-abortion movement and muddying predictions about what's coming from the FDA on the lightning-rod issue. Still, that's not a guarantee. And while most of those organizations haven't opposed his selection of Robert F. Kennedy Jr. — a former Democrat who's previously supported abortion rights — to lead HHS, they're waiting to learn his position during his confirmation hearings this week before endorsing him, Alice and POLITICO's Daniel Payne report. Makary's mark: Since mifepristone access is largely in the FDA's wheelhouse, Trump's next commissioner will play a significant role in any changes to the pill's availability. FDA nominee Dr. Marty Makary suggested his discomfort with abortion on Fox News in 2022, claiming that fetuses can feel pain starting around 15 weeks of gestation. Abortion rights groups labeled his statements as disinformation. Some anti-abortion groups like Catholic Vote called Makary a 'pro-life' pick after his nomination was announced. But other than that interview, he doesn't appear to have much of a public record on the issue — something that will surely change during the Senate confirmation process. IT'S TUESDAY. WELCOME BACK TO PRESCRIPTION PULSE. We're gearing up for a big week on the Hill. What under-the-radar pharma issues are you hoping come up during Kennedy's Senate confirmation hearings? Send your tips to David Lim (dlim@ or @davidalim) and Lauren Gardner (lgardner@ or @Gardner_LM). Eye on the FDA BUSINESS CARRIES ON (IT SEEMS) — Wall Street has an answer on whether PDUFA dates will be honored: The FDA is still issuing product decisions during the Trump administration's communications pause. On Sunday, the FDA approved Biogen and Eisai's application for monthly intravenous maintenance dosing for their Alzheimer's drug Leqembi. It had been scheduled for an agency decision under the prescription drug user fee agreement by Saturday. 'For upcoming PDUFAs, the question was not whether the outcome would change, but whether they would be delayed,' said Chris Meekins, a health care analyst at investment firm Raymond James. 'The approval over the weekend shows angst around the transition's impact on FDA was overwrought.' Steven Grossman, author of the blog FDA Matters and former executive director of the Alliance for a Stronger FDA, said it makes sense that product work appears to continue at the agency despite the hold on policy decisions and external communications given user fee deadlines. 'Whether formal or informal, public or not public, there is always a slow-down or freeze until the new teams can review and decide on pending items,' Grossman said. 'Often, transition teams have this under control by Inauguration Day, but not always and not everything.' What's next: The big question, he added, is whether the freeze on other activities extends beyond Feb. 1. Vertex Pharmaceuticals is slated to receive a decision on its pain reliever suzetrigine on Thursday. On the Hill RFK OPEN TO MARCHING IN? Robert F. Kennedy Jr. signaled to staffers on Capitol Hill he is open to a key progressive proposal to lower drug prices: seizing patents of high-priced drugs, POLITICO's Sophia Cai and Adam Cancryn report. President Donald Trump's health secretary nominee indicated favorability with the proposal last week during a closed-door meeting with staffers on the Senate Finance Committee, according to three people familiar with the exchange granted anonymity to speak freely. Kennedy is expected to go before the committee Wednesday for his confirmation hearing. Democrats and former President Joe Biden have long supported seizing patents for high-cost drugs and licensing them to other manufacturers who could make and sell them for less. Kennedy's spokesperson, Katie Miller, disputed the characterization of the conversation. 'This is once again another example of POLITICO carrying Democrats' water. After POLITICO was told this did not occur the way Democrats have described it, they're still seeking to publish it in an attempt to denigrate Bobby Kennedy and create a story where there is not one,' she said. 'The fact remains, this did not occur. This is a smear campaign against Donald J. Trump.' Republicans have long blasted the policy, saying it would kill American innovation. In the Courts NOVO: HURRY UP ALREADY — Novo Nordisk filed a motion Monday with the federal Third Circuit appellate court, urging it to expedite oral arguments in its Medicare drug price negotiation challenge. The filing came days after the outgoing Biden administration announced the 15 drugs subject to the second round of negotiations at CMS. That list includes three of Novo's blockbuster GLP-1 brands to treat diabetes and/or obesity: Rybelsus, Ozempic and Wegovy. The company objects to CMS aggregating those drugs as one 'product' — as the agency did with several of its insulins in the first round — because they share an active ingredient, semaglutide. 'Novo Nordisk's now-impending second round of price 'negotiations' is good cause that justifies expediting the remainder of this appeal to clarify Novo Nordisk's rights and CMS's authority under the IRA, the Administrative Procedure Act, and the Constitution,' the company's lawyers wrote. In Congress PAUL ISSUES COVID SUBPOENAS — Senate Homeland Security Chair Rand Paul (R-Ky.) said Monday he subpoenaed 14 federal agencies earlier this month regarding the origins of Covid-19 and 'taxpayer-funded gain-of-function research.' The subpoenas were issued on Jan. 13 — during the Biden administration's final week — 'without objection from the minority,' according to the panel. Agencies that received the orders include the NIH, HHS and the U.S. Agency for International Development. 'The goal of the investigation will be to critique the process that allowed this dangerous research, that may have led to the pandemic, to occur in a foreign country under unsafe protocols and to ensure that there is sufficient oversight and review going forward, making sure a mistake of this magnitude never happens again,' Paul said in a statement. ICYMI: The CIA said Saturday that the Covid virus was more likely to have originated from a lab than an animal, POLITICO's Carmen Paun and John Sakellariadis write. Document Drawer American Enterprise Institute's Brian Miller, Health Policy Insights consultant Deborah Williams and Evernorth Health Services' Steven Zima examine alternative drug-pricing approaches to the Medicaid rebate program and Medicare Part B's average sale price plus 6 percent. WHAT WE'RE READING Top Chinese doctors are raising alarm around a government program favoring domestically made drugs, suggesting manufacturers are sacrificing quality to sell their products at bargain prices, The New York Times' Alexandra Stevenson and Zixu Wang report. The NIH's acting director clarified the staff activities that can continue during the Trump administration's freeze on communications, STAT's Sarah Owermohle reports. The U.S. reported the first cases of H5N9 bird flu in poultry at a duck farm in California, Reuters' Sybille de La Hamaide reports.
The Guardian
26-01-2025
- Politics
- The Guardian
The anti-abortion movement weighs its next move: ‘We haven't gone away'
Minutes into the National Pro-Life Summit, Kristan Hawkins, president of Students for Life of America, had convinced its more than attendees to leap to their feet. She was recording a video, and she had a message she wanted them to send to Donald Trump. 'THANK YOU MISTER PRESIDENT!' the crowd in the ballroom thundered, before bursting into raucous applause – complete with wolf whistles. Every January, anti-abortion activists from across the country gather in Washington for the March for Life, the largest anti-abortion gathering in the US. In recent years, the march has been followed by the National Pro-Life Summit, which seeks to take the raw energy of the march and channel it towards specific organizations and policy aims. The summit, which is organized by the powerful Students for Life of America, held seminars on efforts to halt access to abortion pills, protect campus free speech and defend marriage as the union between one man and one woman. There was a pro-life job fair, where young people could learn about working for the Heritage Foundation – the architects of the famous Project 2025 policy playbook – as well as a massive room where they could pick up T-shirts with slogans such as 'DEFUND PLANNED PARENTHOOD'. There was one overarching theme that knit the summit together: thanks to Trump, the anti-abortion movement is on the upswing. 'For those of you that were advocating for an America that isn't weak and pathetic, but instead one that has borders, one that defends the unborn, one that believes in liberty and freedom – it is amazing to see how quick America can get back on pace,' the Turning Point USA founder Charlie Kirk told the cheering crowd assembled in the ballroom. He continued: 'You guys have an amazing ally in the White House in the fight for life. Both President Trump and JD Vance.' In his first few days in office, Trump has already notched a few victories for the anti-abortion movement, as he reinstated the Mexico City policy limiting funding for overseas groups that perform or advocate for abortions, issued an executive order that declared that gender begins 'at conception' and pardoned several anti-abortion activists who had been convicted of illegally blocking an abortion clinic. His Department of Justice also promised to significantly curtail prosecutions against people accused of violating the Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances Act, or Face, which has been used to protect abortion clinics from violence. But he has not implemented more sweeping anti-abortion measures, such as using the 19th-century anti-vice law the Comstock Act to effectively ban abortion nationwide. As thrilled as anti-abortion activists may now be, there's still work to be done – and a question lingering over the movement: what exactly is their role in his administration? When he ran for president in 2016, Trump was powered by a coalition of anti-abortion activists who agreed to throw their weight behind him if he appointed 'pro-life' justices to the US supreme court. He kept that promise and, thanks in large part to his nominees, the supreme court overturned Roe v Wade in 2022. But by 2024, after abortion rights supporters won multiple red-state ballot measures, Trump was a far less reliable ally to the anti-abortion movement. He repeatedly flip-flopped on the issue, prompting criticism from prominent anti-abortion activists, including Hawkins. Trump won the presidential election anyway. Not necessarily because people oppose abortion – several states that Trump won also voted in favor of measures preserving access to the procedure – but because Trump's popularity may exceed that of the movement that once propelled him to the White House. In an interview, Hawkins rejected the idea that Trump is more popular than the anti-abortion cause. (Fifty-four percent of Americans identify as 'pro-choice', while 41% say they are 'pro-life', according to recent Gallup polling.) While Trump has objected to signing a national abortion ban, Hawkins wants him to commit to defunding Planned Parenthood. She also hopes that Robert F Kennedy Jr, who has been tapped to head the Department of Health and Human Services, will be open to rolling back the FDA's approval of the abortion pill mifepristone, given Kennedy's skepticism toward pharmaceutical companies. 'I have a whole lot of damn bodies,' Hawkins said. 'You can think we're annoying all you want, but we have a lot of people and we haven't gone away.' In making a deal with Trump, Hawkins suggested that her group's strongest asset is their organizing. She pointed to the anti-abortion movement's recent electoral successes at the state level, such as the defeat of multiple South Carolina Republicans who blocked a total abortion ban. 'We've been around for 52 years,' Hawkins said. 'We're not novices at this.' Even if Trump isn't the anti-abortion movement's most devoted champion, much of the movement appears ready to embrace Trumpism anyway. Some of the biggest speakers at the summit – such as Kirk, former Housing and Urban Development Secretary Ben Carson and Fox News host Kayleigh McEnany – are less known for their involvement in the anti-abortion movement than for their proximity to Maga. Several attendees donned Maga hats; one couple wore a pair in his-and-hers blue and pink. Tributes to Trump and Vance regularly punctuated speakers' talks. 'I have never in my life seen a more important message – not just for the March for Life but for the future of our movement – than the one that Vice-President JD Vance gave,' the Heritage Foundation president, Kevin Roberts, told the summit attendees. 'In particular, the vice-president put his finger on something that is necessary – just definitionally – for the survival of the American republic: We need more babies!' The crowd burst into applause. 'Woo!' someone cheered.
