Published July 15, 2026
The letter to Todd Blanche from Senators John Cornyn and Thom Tillis on the Louisiana mifepristone litigation was counterproductive. It’s worth taking stock of why this misguided political approach is being promoted by some pro-life groups. Certain pro-lifers have reportedly been making the rounds on Capitol Hill, pressuring Republican senators to demand that Blanche settle the pending litigation in Louisiana. I have explained why Blanche can’t and shouldn’t do this both from a legal and policy perspective, but the most important factor here is politics.
Stepping back, the Department of Justice works for its client agencies. Yes, the power to settle rests with the attorney general, but he does so on behalf of his client — here the FDA. He also does so — or not — at the direction of his boss, the president. While there are legitimate concerns about how President Trump may or may not be directing investigations and prosecutions, it’s black-letter conservative legal theory that he gets to decide policy questions like those presented here. At the end of the day, this is a policy question for the FDA, HHS, and President Trump. Todd Blanche is their agent.
It would be very unfortunate if the pro-life movement thought that, seeing blood in the water from Blanche, it could use him to notch such a win. As noted above, the problem here isn’t really Blanche so much as HHS and the president. Seeing their power reduced (even in red states) and their influence waning (even in a Republican administration), elements of the pro-life movement are desperate to be taken seriously. Stopping an attorney general nominee because he’s not sufficiently pro-life? That would send quite the message.
The pro-life movement is unfortunately on its back foot. After years (decades?) of being relatively popular politically, it has faced setback after setback across the country in the wake of Dobbs. It is desperate for a win.
The problem is this wouldn’t be a real win. The pro-life movement needs victories, yes, but those should be against Democrats and abortion groups. Internecine victories pour encourager les autres may not work out how they expect.
At the end of the day, the only reason there’s any question about Blanche’s nomination is Trump-related, driven by the left and what MAGA would call RINOs (sometimes accurately and often not). There is blood in the water, not because of abortion, but because of weaponization. The signal these pro-lifers are trying to send isn’t that the movement is a predator able to strike at will but rather that it’s a pack of hyenas circling Norm Eisen, Mike Luttig, and Dick Durbin as they hunt. Is that really going to increase their standing on the right?
Ultimately, the pro-life movement seems intent to draft off resistance liberals to send a message to other conservatives. Good luck with that.
There’s some shrewdness in identifying a life issue where the president likely has Blanche pinned down and then hitting him on it. But that’s like Teddy Roosevelt shooting the bear cub chained to a tree. There’s a reason Roosevelt didn’t do it; it would have been wrong and undercut his reputation. It’s the same dynamic here. The message being sent with such demands is that pro-lifers either won’t or can’t go after their actual targets to truly demonstrate their strength.
This isn’t really about Todd Blanche. The controversy over mifepristone is about Donald Trump and Robert F. Kennedy, Jr.
Linking arms with the Society for the Rule of Law isn’t going to increase pro-life standing with either of them. At the end of the day, if the pro-life movement wants influence, it needs to focus on winning elections.
Michael A. Fragoso is a fellow at the Ethics and Public Policy Center in the Constitution, the Courts, and the Culture Program, where he writes and speaks on issues relating to the law, the federal judiciary, and Congress. An attorney in private practice, he served in all three branches of the federal government, including most recently as chief counsel to the Senate Republican Leader, Mitch McConnell (R-KY). His writing has appeared in The Wall Street Journal, National Review, The Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy: Per Curiam, and elsewhere.
