(CNN) — Former US President Donald Trump continues to dodge abortion access issues that Americans will face if elected, the latest involving the US Supreme Court case that could limit access to medical abortion.
Trump promised on April 27 to release more details about how a future administration would regulate the abortion pill mifepristone. He told Time magazine that he has “pretty strong views” on the issue and that he would make an announcement “probably within the next week.”
That announcement never came. And now his presidential campaign says he has no expectations of it happening anytime soon, even though a decision on the case could come this Thursday, the court’s next opinion day.
The evasiveness underscores the tightrope Trump continues to walk when it comes to abortion, an issue that has become a controversial flashpoint ahead of the 2024 election. Since launching his third bid for the White House, Trump has had to deal with the political repercussions of the overturning of Roe v. Wade, a radical change in the country’s abortion policy brought about by his transformation of the Supreme Court during his first term.
“As far as the policy on it, it’s still an internal process, but I don’t expect anything before the Court rules on it at this point,” said one of Trump’s advisers. “That kind of announcement, I would be surprised if it came before the court.”
A second Trump adviser echoed that sentiment: “We’re going to wait and see how everything plays out with the courts.” The advisor added that there are “many other issues that are just as important. We have to focus on the economy, we have to focus on immigration. There are many things that are happening.”
Trump’s political team has been informally drafting policy on the issue behind the scenes for weeks and has sought advice from outside allies, such as his former adviser Kellyanne Conway, according to sources familiar with the process.
However, two senior Trump advisers told CNN that they currently have no immediate plans to release a proposal on mifepristone and instead intend to wait for the administration’s expected Supreme Court decision on the case. US Food and Drug Administration v. Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine.
The case concerns whether the FDA overstepped its role by expanding access to mifepristone, for example by allowing the drug to be dispensed without in-person clinic visits.
Access to mifepristone has gained importance in the two years since the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade and many red states have banned the procedure.
The appeal was filed by doctors opposed to abortion who claim that their consultations have been affected because they must treat women who have had complications with the drug. The FDA and outside medical groups insist it is safe.
Republicans, who for decades have made abortion restrictions a centerpiece of their political agenda, have varying opinions on how abortion medication should be regulated. While some conservatives and anti-abortion groups have pushed for a ban, others have called for a more measured approach, such as requiring that it only be administered by a doctor.
Part of what anti-abortion advocates are fighting is the optics of a Trump administration taking regulatory actions that would crack down on medication abortion versus relying on the courts to take similar action.
“The problem is if the Democrats can say that you used the court to deny women access to a legal, FDA-approved drug. That’s a problem. Frankly, I don’t know how to stop it. It’s clear that the FDA overstepped their bounds. authority,” one anti-abortion leader, who requested anonymity to speak candidly, told CNN. “You could stop the FDA and say it requires a doctor’s consultation or something similar. Abortifacts should not be treated like aspirin.”
A second senior Trump adviser told CNN that the team recognizes the broad and different views that conservatives have on how to approach the issue and has been “aware not only of the political angles, but of many of the technical objectives that we have.” to take into account and think about before we can come to any kind of decision.
And although the former president often proclaims that he has been the most pro-life president the country has ever had, he also continues to consider the issue as a political loser for Republicans heading into November, say sources close to Trump.
For much of the 2024 Republican primary, Trump avoided the issue of abortion and, when he spoke out, sometimes angered anti-abortion leaders by criticizing the avalanche of new restrictions by members of his party in response to the historic decision. In April, he announced that he believes abortion policy should be left to the states, further frustrating many of those leaders.
Biden’s campaign has tried to capitalize on the issue, warning at rallies and ads of what a second Trump administration could mean for abortion rights.
“The question is: If Donald Trump returns to power, what freedom will you lose next? Your body and your decisions belong to you, not the Government, not Donald Trump. I will fight like hell to get your freedom back,” said President Joe Biden in an ad released after the Arizona Supreme Court ruled in favor of allowing a Civil War-era ban to be enforced. (The Republican-controlled state legislature has since repealed the ban.)
Recent polls by CNN show that about half of U.S. adults, 49%, want federal politicians to work to enshrine abortion access nationwide, while 37% say abortion laws should be be left to the states, and 14% call for restrictions at the national level.
Several Trump advisers and allies described the former president as someone who constantly weighs the political ramifications of every major announcement on such a sensitive issue, while also wanting to preserve political flexibility for a second term.
“Trump is not stupid. He recognizes that banning abortion drugs is not good policy right now,” a person close to Trump told CNN. “It’s a sticky situation to navigate, but he’s keeping his options open.”
However, sources also acknowledged that Trump’s penchant for wordplay on the issue could further frustrate some of his key allies in the conservative movement who helped propel him to the White House in 2016, many of whom are still They are angered by his refusal to support a nationwide abortion ban, despite strong pressure from anti-abortion groups and allies to do so.
Trump’s evasion clashes with conservatives pushing for more restrictions
The decision to refrain from outlining a clear plan for how to handle abortion drugs comes as many of these groups are calling on Republicans to take a more aggressive approach to restricting abortion drugs, and see the case FDA v. AHM before the Supreme Court as a key opportunity to push for greater regulation.
“Although the case is related to abortion, the question before the Court is whether the FDA violated the law and its own rules when it eliminated virtually all safety standards, ignoring women’s need to see a doctor in person and to receive continued care when taking dangerous abortion medications,” Susan B. Anthony Pro-Life America, one of the main anti-abortion groups, has stated about the case. “Doctors, who have witnessed the harm caused to women and girls, ask the Court to hold the FDA accountable for failing in its duty to protect public health and safety.”
Major medical groups have disputed claims that mifepristone is unsafe, and much of the Supreme Court’s oral arguments earlier this year focused on whether anti-abortion doctors challenging FDA rules had demonstrated that they were actually being harmed by the current drug regulatory regime.
With the current uncertainty surrounding the Supreme Court case, an issue that has been widely debated within the conservative movement is the possibility of the next Republican administration enforcing a 19th century federal law that would prohibit the mailing of abortion medications. .
The Comstock Act, as the law is known, prohibited not only the mailing of abortion-inducing drugs, but also contraceptives, pornography, and other “lewd” materials. It has been dormant for decades, undermined by court rulings from the early 20th century that limited its reach. But the criminal statute has received more attention in the post-Roe v. Wade landscape, especially after it came to light in the Supreme Court’s oral arguments in this legislature’s blockbuster abortion pill case.
Time magazine specifically asked Trump if his future Justice Department would apply the Comstock Act, noting that his allies have asked for it.
“I will make a statement on this in the next 14 days,” the former president said, adding that he has “a great statement on this. I am very convinced of it. In fact, I think it is a very important issue.”
Among conservatives, there is a debate not only about whether a future Republican administration should apply the Comstock Act, but what that application would look like.
The Heritage Foundation, for example, cites a broad interpretation of the law and its enforcement as a key priority for the next Republican administration in its policy plan, titled Project 2025. However, the document is vague on enforcement mechanisms.
Some anti-abortion advocates see the Comstock Act as a possible solution for a Republican administration to restrict access to abortion without going to Congress, and have called for it to be interpreted broadly as a ban on manufacturers shipping abortion drugs. , which could have the effect of banning medical abortion nationwide.
But other members of the anti-abortion movement have opposed the idea of it being used so aggressively.
In recent months, however, some influential anti-abortion lawyers have refused to even say what they believe the scope of the criminal statute is. CNN asked a number of prominent anti-abortion groups and conservative lawyers to weigh in on the law. All of them refused to respond officially.
Drexel Law Professor David S. Cohen put it this way: “This is a decisive election for the future of abortion in this country, not because of the national ban, but because of the Comstock Act. And I don’t believe that that be the correct interpretation of the Comstock Act, but it doesn’t matter what I think. All that matters is if you have a Department of Justice, which thinks it is the correct interpretation, and five Supreme Court justices who agree.”
— CNN’s Tierney Sneed, Andrew Seger, Phil Mattingly, John Fritze and Betsy Klein contributed to this report.
