‘Pro-Life Movement Not Obligated to Support President Trump,’ Says Activist
Trump previously expressed that he had “great admiration” for Lila Rose’s work. However, he has now found himself without her support.
TroibNews 
Lila Rose, a notable anti-abortion activist and leader of the organization Live Action, has long urged the GOP to limit access to abortion. However, with Donald Trump and his running mate JD Vance appearing to tone down their abortion rhetoric as the November election approaches, Rose is adopting a more radical approach. She is advising her followers not to support Trump unless he alters his stance.
This bold position, hinted at in recent social media posts, goes against the conventional wisdom held by many Democrats and Republicans regarding Trump's abortion strategy. Many Democrats and anti-abortion conservatives still believe that a second term under Trump would remain aligned with the anti-abortion agenda, even if some moderation in his message is necessary to secure votes in November.
Rose’s lack of confidence in Trump as an ally stems from his and Vance’s opposition to several central anti-abortion policies, such as a national ban on abortion, restrictions on the abortion pill, and limitations on IVF. Speaking with PMG Magazine, Rose expressed her disappointment, stating, “It’s disappointing to say — but perhaps he personally lacks principle on this issue.”
Her stance has provoked backlash from some right-wing individuals who argue that a Trump presidency would be more favorable for the anti-abortion movement compared to a Harris administration. Notably, several major anti-abortion organizations continue to support Trump.
Yet for Rose, this justification is insufficient. She asserted that if the election were held today, she would opt for a write-in candidate instead of supporting either 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.”
In an exclusive interview, she responded to various questions regarding her views on Trump's changing position on abortion.
When asked about the turning point that led her to believe Trump and Vance were making it “impossible” for anti-abortion advocates to support them, she remarked, “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.”
Regarding her voting intentions, Rose maintained, “I am going to see how the next few weeks unfold.” However, she emphasized her desire for anti-abortion voters to push Trump toward a more favorable position, stating, “I’m urging President Trump — and Harris, for that matter ... to change course.”
Moreover, she clarified her voting stance: “If the election were today, I would not vote for Harris or Trump based on their policies and their statements and their positions.”
Rose disputed the belief that Trump, by moderating his message, could ultimately advance the anti-abortion cause during a potential second term, expressing skepticism about the notion that he might adopt pro-life policies once elected. “I think that's pie-in-the-sky thinking. ... I think that's a narrative that there's no proof to back up.”
She expressed that Trump's current approach alienates his core supporters and underscored the need for pro-life advocates to demand more from their candidates. “It is not the job of the pro-life movement to vote for President Trump,” she asserted. “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.”
When questioned about the potential consequences of her stance on pro-life voting, she reaffirmed her position: “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.”
She also highlighted the importance of advocating for the issues at stake rather than feeling obligated to vote for a specific candidate. “The vote must be earned,” she emphasized.
On the topic of a potential write-in candidate, she deferred her decision until closer to the election: “I truly hope that President Trump embraces the pro-life movement again.”
Rose conjectured that Trump's recent changes in messaging may stem from poor advice from those around him, adding, “It’s disappointing to say, but perhaps he personally lacks principle on this issue.”
Ultimately, she expressed hope for a radical shift in Trump’s approach, wishing for him to unequivocally advocate for pro-life policies, stating, “I would love to see a September or October surprise where Trump comes out swinging for human life.”
Olivia Brown contributed to this report for TROIB News
This bold position, hinted at in recent social media posts, goes against the conventional wisdom held by many Democrats and Republicans regarding Trump's abortion strategy. Many Democrats and anti-abortion conservatives still believe that a second term under Trump would remain aligned with the anti-abortion agenda, even if some moderation in his message is necessary to secure votes in November.
Rose’s lack of confidence in Trump as an ally stems from his and Vance’s opposition to several central anti-abortion policies, such as a national ban on abortion, restrictions on the abortion pill, and limitations on IVF. Speaking with PMG Magazine, Rose expressed her disappointment, stating, “It’s disappointing to say — but perhaps he personally lacks principle on this issue.”
Her stance has provoked backlash from some right-wing individuals who argue that a Trump presidency would be more favorable for the anti-abortion movement compared to a Harris administration. Notably, several major anti-abortion organizations continue to support Trump.
Yet for Rose, this justification is insufficient. She asserted that if the election were held today, she would opt for a write-in candidate instead of supporting either 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.”
In an exclusive interview, she responded to various questions regarding her views on Trump's changing position on abortion.
When asked about the turning point that led her to believe Trump and Vance were making it “impossible” for anti-abortion advocates to support them, she remarked, “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.”
Regarding her voting intentions, Rose maintained, “I am going to see how the next few weeks unfold.” However, she emphasized her desire for anti-abortion voters to push Trump toward a more favorable position, stating, “I’m urging President Trump — and Harris, for that matter ... to change course.”
Moreover, she clarified her voting stance: “If the election were today, I would not vote for Harris or Trump based on their policies and their statements and their positions.”
Rose disputed the belief that Trump, by moderating his message, could ultimately advance the anti-abortion cause during a potential second term, expressing skepticism about the notion that he might adopt pro-life policies once elected. “I think that's pie-in-the-sky thinking. ... I think that's a narrative that there's no proof to back up.”
She expressed that Trump's current approach alienates his core supporters and underscored the need for pro-life advocates to demand more from their candidates. “It is not the job of the pro-life movement to vote for President Trump,” she asserted. “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.”
When questioned about the potential consequences of her stance on pro-life voting, she reaffirmed her position: “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.”
She also highlighted the importance of advocating for the issues at stake rather than feeling obligated to vote for a specific candidate. “The vote must be earned,” she emphasized.
On the topic of a potential write-in candidate, she deferred her decision until closer to the election: “I truly hope that President Trump embraces the pro-life movement again.”
Rose conjectured that Trump's recent changes in messaging may stem from poor advice from those around him, adding, “It’s disappointing to say, but perhaps he personally lacks principle on this issue.”
Ultimately, she expressed hope for a radical shift in Trump’s approach, wishing for him to unequivocally advocate for pro-life policies, stating, “I would love to see a September or October surprise where Trump comes out swinging for human life.”
Olivia Brown contributed to this report for TROIB News
