For years, the anti-abortion activist Lila Rose has pushed the GOP to curtail access to abortion. But now, as Donald Trump and his running mate JD Vance conspicuously soften their abortion message ahead of the November election, Rose — who leads the prominent anti-abortion group Live Action — is embracing a more radical strategy: Urging her followers not to vote for Trump unless he changes course.
That position — which she teased in a series of social media posts earlier this week — defies both Democratic and Republican common sense about Trump’s strategy on abortion. In the eyes of many Democrats and anti-abortion conservatives who support Trump, a second-term Trump would still be sympathetic to the anti-abortion cause — even if he needs to moderate his message to win in November.
But since Trump and Vance have come out against a number of the anti-abortion movement’s key policy priorities — including a national abortion ban, a crackdown on the abortion pill and restrictions on IVF — Rose, who leveraged her large internet following into influence in the first Trump White House, is no longer confident that Trump is an ally, she told POLITICO Magazine. “It’s disappointing to say — but perhaps he personally lacks principle on this issue,” said Rose.
Rose’s position has inspired fierce resistance from some on the right who argue that a Trump presidency would still be better for the anti-abortion movement than a Harris administration. (Several of the most prominent anti-abortion groups are still backing Trump.)
But Rose said that’s not enough. If the election were today, she’d be writing in a candidate other than Trump or Harris. “Don’t get me wrong. … I would love to see him stop saying this nonsense about supporting abortion. But unfortunately, that’s not the case.”
The following has been edited for clarity and length.
You’ve been arguing online that Trump and Vance’s position on abortion has made it “impossible” for anti-abortion voters to support them. What was the breaking point for you?
[My] direct quote is that “they’re making it impossible” for us. This is an active thing. The recent statements that they have been making — increasingly pro-abortion statements — and the positions that they are choosing to take are making it untenable for pro-life voters to get out the vote for them. This is, unfortunately, the path that they’ve chosen.
So just to be clear, as things currently stand, you don’t plan to vote for Trump. Is that correct?
I am going to see how the next few weeks unfold.
But if the election were today?
I’m going to see how the next few weeks unfold. The election is not today.
But you’re urging anti-abortion voters to follow your lead in withholding support for him right now?
I’m urging President Trump — and Harris, for that matter, though she has refused to hear any of this — I’m urging President Trump to change course.
OK —
To clarify your earlier question, I would not vote for Harris. If the election were today, I would not vote for Harris or Trump based on their policies and their statements and their positions.
Anti-abortion activists who support Trump and pro-abortion rights activists who oppose him seem to implicitly agree with each other that Trump is just moderating his message on abortion for political purposes, but that a second Trump administration would ultimately benefit the anti-abortion movement. Do you think that’s wrong, and if so, why?
You’re saying that people think Trump’s lying about his position right now, and when he gets into office he’ll secretly do pro-life things?
Yeah, that he’s moving to the center for the general election, but if you look to his first term as a guide —
I think that’s pie-in-the sky thinking. I’ve received no confirmation from the Trump campaign that they’re going to secretly lie about abortion and then go do pro-life things afterward. I think that’s a narrative that there’s no proof to back up. And I think that if he actually is secretly pro-life and he’s just doing this to win both — I think it’s morally wrong and it’s extremely misguided politically.
He’s alienating his base. Kamala Harris spent a whole week at the DNC rallying her pro-abortion base. Abortion was a headline issue at the DNC, and Trump’s response to that is saying, “Well, I guess I’m going to alienate my base.” He’s not getting Kamala’s base.
You said you have not received any assurance from Trump that he will substantively help the anti-abortion movement in office. Have you sought those assurances from his campaign?
In my personal capacity, I’ve reached out to both campaigns, but I’ve certainly reached out to the Trump campaign.
And what have you heard?
They have not told me, “Oh, we’re lying with our public statements, and we’re actually going to go back on our public statements and do otherwise in our administration.”
I think this is a foolish narrative to say Trump is just going to lie, say pro-abortion things, secretly somehow get the pro-abortion vote, then he’s going to be in office and then he’s going to do pro-life things. I don’t think there’s any evidence to back that up.
I think people look at his record [on overturning Roe] and extrapolate forward — but I take your points.
If you look at the 2016 campaign, he was much more vocally pro-life than he is now, and he had more public promises to do pro-life advocacy. Now he’s changed his position. And he is not only not saying pro-life things — he’s actively saying he would support pro-abortion policy. That’s a very important distinction, and no amount of “Well, it’s just politics” cover up that fact. Vance has come out and said that [Trump] would veto an abortion ban, that he supports abortion pills, that he supports “reproductive rights” without clarifying what that means. [Trump] was behind the RNC platform being weakened on this, which for four decades was strong on life, and now it’s been weakened.
Don’t get me wrong — I would love to see Trump coming out standing strong with life and say, “I’m going to fight for life” [with] a strong pro-life message. I would love to see him stop saying this nonsense about supporting abortion. But unfortunately, that’s not the case.
What about the classic “lesser of two evils” arguments — that a Trump administration might be softer on abortion, but a Harris administration would be worse, and therefore he deserves the support of the anti-abortion movement. What’s your response to that?
People will need to vote their conscience in November. We’re over two months out, so there’s a lot of things that can change. I think that it’s the job of the pro-life movement to demand protection for pre-born lives. It is not the job of the pro-life movement to vote for President Trump.
In some cases, you can make the argument that it can be the right move to vote for the lesser of two evils. But part of our job is not to just accept whatever position we’ve been handed — especially from a politician who, in the past, has counted on our vote and has indicated that he is pro-life [before] changing his position. It’s our job, if we want to be an effective lobbying group in any way, to demand more and to say, “If you want my vote, I need to see more from you.” This is how politics works. This is how any advocacy or movement works, whether it’s gun rights or immigration rights or whatever the advocacy group is fighting for. If you will always be happy to support a candidate provided that they are just a fraction better than the next candidate, you will never achieve your goals for the group that you’re fighting for.
Unfortunately, President Trump has decided to come out and say that he supports abortion pills — which account for 60 percent of all abortions — and that he would even veto an abortion ban, and he needs to get blowback for that from the pro-life community. It is not the pro-life community “suppressing the vote” — that is President Trump, choosing to suppress the pro-life vote. That is fully the decision his campaign is making.
But aren’t you in some respects suppressing the pro-life vote by calling for pro-life voters not to vote for him? Aren’t you accelerating that process?
What statement are you referring to?
You recently posted a clip of Vance on social media with the caption, “If you don’t stand for pro-life principles, you don’t get pro-life votes.” That seems to me like a pretty clear signal not to vote for this guy.
We’ll have to see what President Trump does, and I think that’s very, very fair. I think any advocacy group or movement would say the same. It’s my job. If President Trump wants to respond to that by saying, “Yeah, I don’t want your vote, I’m not going to stand for pro-life principles” — that’s his decision as a politician. That’s not my decision.
Is there a longer-term political calculus for you — that it’s better for the anti-abortion movement to withhold votes from Republicans who aren’t substantively on board with the movement, even if that means electing a Democrat in the short term?
To be clear, we pro-lifers are not going to elect Kamala Harris. So the question you’re asking — there’s a premise in there.
I mean, not supporting him is not helping to elect him — and it’s one of two people, so it’s the other person.
There are other candidates running for office, and we have the ability, in many states, to do write-in candidates. This idea that you are morally responsible to vote against Kamala Harris by voting for someone like Donald Trump — I don’t buy that. I think the bottom line is that it’s our responsibility to advocate for the issues and the causes we believe in, and to urge candidates, if they want our vote, to stand for what is right. No one owns the pro-life vote. This is very important. No one owns the pro-life vote. The vote must be earned.
Who do you see as a viable write in candidate?
We will have to see how the next few weeks play out. I won’t comment on that at this time. I truly hope that President Trump embraces the pro-life movement again. If he’s politically wise, and if he wants to stand again on principle, that would be what he should do.
Why do you think Trump has changed his messaging so abruptly on the abortion question?
I think that he’s getting bad advice from people close to him. That would be a guess. It’s disappointing to say, but perhaps he personally lacks principle on this issue. That’s always been a suspicion of the movement. He was pro-choice over a decade ago before entering politics, and he supported abortion. So I think that now he’s just going to what may be the closest pollsters next to him, that he seems to trust for whatever reason.
You can torture data to get it to tell you any number of things, but I think it’s completely false that pro-life is a losing issue. I think it completely depends on how it’s presented, on who’s presenting it, and of course the money involved. I know the state ballot initiatives are being trotted out as the reason why you can’t be pro-life in a federal election. I think that’s garbage. We have had some landslide victories for strong pro-life executive candidates, like Florida and Texas with Gov. [Greg] Abbott and Gov. [Ron] DeSantis.
Whatever Trump is doing with the pollsters and Beltway advisers that he’s listening to — it’s going to be a self-fulfilling prophecy. He’s saying, “Well, I’m not going to be pro-life so I can win,” but then he might lose, because if you’re not pro-life, you’re not going to get the pro-life vote. And then he’s saying, “It’s the fault of the pro-lifers.” Well, if you had just stood for life and stood by principle here — as he did in many ways in 2016 — I think that he has a real shot.
You say he’s getting bad advice from people close to him. Who are those people?
I mean, you should ask the campaign who’s advising him.
But you don’t have knowledge of people who have his ear on the abortion issue in particular?
I mean, I may have personal theories about why things are happening the way that they are, but I’m not inside the mind of Donald Trump.
What’s your theory?
I can just say this — I think it’s very foolish what he’s doing. It’s politically unwise, it may cost him the election, and it’s morally unprincipled as well. Right now, it’s all about turnout. If he wants to galvanize his base, he needs to stop trying to pander to Kamala Harris’ base, because they’re never going to vote for him anyway.
OK, but you don’t want to share your theory of who’s pushing him in that direction?
I’m not sure I have a theory. Maybe he’s originating it. It could be any number of pollsters and Beltway consultants who are blaming pro-lifers for [losing] elections. It’s ironic that they might blame pro-lifers for an election but then they need pro-life votes. They’re kind of shooting themselves in the foot by blaming their own base.
What could Trump say at this point to win your support? What threshold for anti-abortion policy would he need to meet to lead you to vote for him?
I would love to see a September or October surprise where Trump comes out swinging for human life. He says that we have got to fight for human life, we will do everything in our power through the executive branch to protect the lives of innocent children. That if Congress wants to send him pro-life legislation, he will sign every single bill that passes his desk, because life has to be fought for that. That in his private capacity he will vote on the Florida amendment and vote for life. That he would reject all abortion expansion, and he will fight against the abortion industry and the political persecution of pro-lifers. These are just some of the things that I think would be very compelling if he said them to rally his base.
