This week would have marked the 53rd anniversary of Roe v. Wade, the 1973 Supreme Court decision that legalized abortion nationwide — that is, until 2022, when the court overturned it. Since then, abortion has been banned in 13 states and severely limited in 10 others.

Yet anti-abortion activists remain frustrated, in some cases even more so than before Roe was overturned.

Why? Because despite the new legal restrictions, abortions have not stopped taking place, not even in states with complete bans. In fact, the number of abortions has not dropped at all, according to the latest statistics.

“Indeed, abortions have tragically increased in Louisiana and other pro-life states,” Liz Murrill, Louisiana’s attorney general, said at a Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee hearing this month.

That’s due in large part to the easier availability of medication abortion, which uses a combination of the drugs mifepristone and misoprostol, and particularly to the pills’ availability via mail after a telehealth visit with a licensed health professional.

Allowing telehealth access was a major change originally made on a temporary basis during the covid pandemic, when visits to a doctor’s office were largely unavailable. Before that, unlike most medications, mifepristone could be dispensed only directly, and only by a medical professional individually certified by the Food and Drug Administration.

The Biden administration later permanently eliminated the requirement for an in-person visit — a change the second Trump administration has not undone.

While the percentage of abortions using medication had been growing every year since 2000, when the FDA first approved mifepristone for pregnancy termination, the Biden administration’s decision to drop the in-person dispensing requirement supercharged its use. More than 60% of all abortions were done using medication rather than a procedure in 2023, the most recent year for which statistics are available. More than a quarter of all abortions that year were managed via telehealth.

Separately, President Donald Trump’s FDA in October approved a second generic version of mifepristone, angering abortion opponents. FDA officials said at the time that they had no choice — that as long as the original drug remains approved, federal law requires them to OK copies that are “bioequivalent” to the approved drug.

It’s clear that reining in, if not canceling, the approval of pregnancy-terminating medication is a top priority for abortion opponents. This month, Susan B. Anthony Pro-Life America called abortion drugs “America’s New Public Health Crisis,” referencing their growing use in ending pregnancies as well as claims of safety concerns — such as the risk a woman could be given the drugs unknowingly or suffer serious complications. Decades of research and experience show medication abortion is safe and complications are rare.

Another group, Students for Life, has been trying to make the case that the biological waste from the use of mifepristone is contaminating the nation’s water supply, though environmental scientists refute that claim.

Yet the groups are most frustrated not with supporters of abortion rights but with the Trump administration. The object of most of their ire is the FDA, which they say is dragging its feet on a promised review of the abortion pill and the Biden administration’s loosened requirements around its availability.

President Joe Biden’s covid-era policy allowing abortion drugs to be sent via mail ”should’ve been rescinded on day one of the administration,” SBA Pro-Life America’s president, Marjorie Dannenfelser, said in a recent statement. Instead, almost a year later, she continued, “pro-life states are being completely undermined in their ability to enforce the laws that they passed.”

Lawmakers who oppose abortion access are also pressing the administration. “At an absolute minimum, the previous in-person safeguards must be restored immediately,” Senate HELP Committee Chairman Bill Cassidy said during the hearing with Murrill and other witnesses who want to see abortion pill availability curtailed.

Sen. Jim Banks (R-Ind.) said at the hearing that he hoped “the rumors are false” that “the agency is intentionally slow-walking its study on mifepristone’s health risks.”

The White House and spokespeople at the Department of Health and Human Services have denied the review is being purposely delayed.

“The FDA’s scientific review process is thorough and takes the time necessary to ensure decisions are grounded in gold-standard science,” HHS spokesperson Emily Hilliard said in an emailed response to KFF Health News. “Dr. Makary is upholding that standard as part of the Department’s commitment to rigorous, evidence-based review.” That’s a reference to Marty Makary, the FDA commissioner.

Revoking abortion pill access may not be as easy as advocates hoped when Trump moved back into the White House. While the president delivered on many of the goals of his anti-abortion backers during his first term, especially the confirmation of Supreme Court justices who made overturning Roe possible, he has been far less doctrinaire in his second go-round.

Earlier this month, Trump unnerved some of his supporters by advising House Republicans that lawmakers “have to be a little flexible” on the Hyde Amendment to appeal to voters, referring to a decades-old appropriations rule that bans most federal abortion funding and that some Republicans have been pushing to enforce more broadly.

And while the anniversary of Trump’s inauguration has many analysts noting how much of the Heritage Foundation’s Project 2025 blueprint has been realized, the most headline-grabbing portions on reproductive health have yet to be enacted. The Trump administration has not, for example, revoked the approval of mifepristone for pregnancy termination, nor has it invoked the 1873 Comstock Act, which could effectively ban abortion nationwide by stopping not just the mailing of abortion pills but also anything else used in providing abortions.

Still, abortion opponents have decades of practice at remaining hopeful — and playing a long game.

HealthBent, a regular feature of KFF Health News, offers insight into and analysis of policies and politics from KFF Health News chief Washington correspondent Julie Rovner, who has covered health care for more than 30 years.

KFF Health News is a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues and is one of the core operating programs at KFF—an independent source of health policy research, polling, and journalism. Learn more about KFF.

USE OUR CONTENT

This story can be republished for free (details).

Subscribe to KFF Health News' free Morning Briefing.

This article first appeared on KFF Health News and is republished here under a Creative Commons Attribution-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.

A surprising new report has found agreement among both Democrat and Republican voters on key issues tied to some of President Donald Trump's biggest failings, per a report from SFGate, signaling more trouble to come for the GOP in the coming midterms.

In a report published Friday, SFGate broke down the findings of a new voter survey from the Public Policy Institute of California, which sought to map out "some core findings from California’s political divide," and in the process, affirmed "many long-held stereotypes" while also uncovering "some key surprises."

The survey that several of the state's traditional "conservative stronghold" counties have seen a marked shift to left politically, with Republican voters broadly agreeing with Democrats on "three key issues."

"The majority of Californians support action on climate change and abortion access, and view immigration positively, the study found," SFGate explained. "Only Shasta County and the central eastern border of the state (including counties like Inyo and Mono counties) have support for immigrants at less than 50 percent. The highest support for independent state action on climate change is around the San Francisco and Los Angeles metropolitan areas, but 65 percent of all state residents support it. Even abortion access, a perennially controversial issue, has most Californians in agreement — 70 percent support it without restrictions or with restrictions that leave it mostly legal."

While immigration has long been thought of as Trump's best issue with voters, the overt tactics of ICE and CBP during his second term mass deportation drive have soured many voters and sent his approval on the issue underwater in several polls. Abortion rights have also been a persistent thorn in his side since his three Supreme Court justices helped overturn Roe v. Wade in 2022. Republicans have attempted to hide from the issue ever since it was widely blamed for the party's underperformance in that year's midterms.

The survey also found an overall consensus on the negative state of the economy among both red and blue voters, with most believing that tough times are ahead. This is well in line with what poll after poll has found about voter sentiment heading into the midterms, with most voters saying that the rough state of the economy is their number one issue and a growing number blaming Trump for the situation outright.

"Overall, most Californians think rough economic conditions are ahead, though the liberal areas are the most concerned," SFGate added. "Over 80 percent of parts of the Bay Area and central LA predict bad economic times ahead, and more than 60 percent think that’s true in the far north and Central Valley."

TOPEKA — Kansas voters Tuesday overwhelmingly rejected a proposal to rewrite the state constitution and elect Kansas Supreme Court justices, spiking a plan long coveted by Republicans who want more conservative rulings on issues including abortion and school funding.

About 62% of Kansans were voting “no” on the constitutional amendment with 593,695 votes counted as of 11:15 p.m.

“This victory is beyond gratifying,” said retired Supreme Court Justice Carol Beier, who opposed the amendment. “Kansans have made their wishes known, and those wishes are noble. The Kansas Supreme Court must remain fair and impartial for every citizen. It cannot and will not be bought to give a few an unfair advantage.”

The primary ballot asked voters to evaluate a proposal that would spike a 68-year-old system for selecting justices for the highest court, a system born out of scandal from an era when justices were elected and the governor had total control over selecting replacements.

The amendment instead would give voters the power to vote on candidates for the Supreme Court, and mega-donors the power to influence court decisions.

Danedri Herbert, chair of the Kansas Republican Party, issued a warning Tuesday morning that the vote on whether to elect Supreme Court justices was “the most important election of our lifetime.”

“Yeah, I know everyone says that every year,” Herbert said. “This cycle, it’s true.”

Herbert, in a social media video, said the constitutional amendment “is the difference between Kansas becoming Detroit or Kansas becoming a land of prosperity.”

Conservatives have long raged against Kansas Supreme Court rulings that upheld constitutional rights to terminate a pregnancy and adequately fund public schools. They plotted to change the way Supreme Court justices are selected and, as a result, overturn those rulings.

With supermajorities in both the House and Senate, Republicans in the Legislature adopted a resolution during the 2025 session to place this constitutional amendment on the 2026 primary ballot. The goal was to hold the vote on a date when independent voters would have no other reason to show up at the polls. Republicans hold a sizable advantage over Democrats in the state in terms of affiliated voters who participate in primary elections.

The same gambit failed four years ago, when voters overwhelmingly rejected a constitutional amendment that would have removed abortion rights from the state constitution. That amendment failed by a 60-40 margin with 942,851 Kansans weighing in, just weeks after the U.S. Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade.

“I think a lot of people are just frustrated that we’re seeing this effort again to change the constitution because the state Legislature doesn’t like what the Supreme Court has done,” said Democratic U.S. Rep. Sharice Davids, speaking with reporters after she voted Tuesday morning.

“There are plenty of us who disagree with court rulings on a regular basis, but you don’t completely change the way that we get Supreme Court justices just because you don’t like some of the rulings that they make,” she added.

The American Civil Liberties Union of Kansas, Planned Parenthood Great Plains Votes and Kansas Appleseed joined forces to form Kansas United for Impartial Courts in a campaign to oppose the constitutional amendment. They warned that the amendment would allow out-of-state billionaires to buy the court.

“The billionaire political donors and politicians behind this amendment tried to buy our Supreme Court,” said Micah Kubic, executive director of the ACLU of Kansas. “They tried to turn our justices into politicians for sale, all so they could control the court’s rulings and take away our rights. But tonight, Kansas said no.”

Attorney General Kobach, though his PAC and various conservative groups, flooded airwaves and mailboxes with ads that criticized the current selection process.

Speaking at a GOP watch party Tuesday night in Wichita, Kobach said the vote “creates more certainty” that the current justices will decide cases that are making their way through the judicial system.

“If there had been a shift, there would be some question as to who would eventually be on the court that hears those cases,” Kobach said. “Now we know it’s probably going to be the justices right now, unless somebody retires.”

At least $12.8 million, much of it dark money, fueled “vote yes” and “vote no” campaigns ahead of Tuesday’s primary.

The current system is the result of a notorious political scandal known as the “triple play.” In 1956, incumbent Republican Gov. Fred Hall lost his primary election, and Democrat George Docking defeated the Republican nominee in November. Supreme Court Chief Justice Bill Smith, a Republican, was prepared to retire midterm but didn’t want a Democrat to choose his replacement.

At the start of the new year, Smith resigned from the Supreme Court, Hall resigned as governor, and the new governor appointed Hall to take Smith’s seat on the court.

The following year, more than 70% of Kansas voters approved a constitutional amendment that created a merit-based system. It established a nominating commission, with attorneys choosing five members and the governor appointing four. The commission vets candidates for Supreme Court openings and sends three finalists to the governor, who chooses from those three.

Justices face retention votes in the next general election, and again every six years.

This year’s constitutional amendment would have required justices to run for office like candidates for other political positions, and removes current restrictions on justices engaging in political activities or raising money for campaigns. The amendment authorized the Legislature to determine how elections would be conducted — partisan or nonpartisan, statewide or by districts that lawmakers draw.

Proponents of this year’s amendment point out that no justice has ever lost a retention election.

Rep. Bob Lewis, a Garden City Republican, said in a video ad posted on social media that it was “balderdash” to claim that voters already get to evaluate justices.

“A retention election is not an election at all. It’s not competitive,” Lewis said. “Voters are given only one choice: Vote yes or no for this particular candidate. A true election, as we all know, is grounded in competition, giving the voters a choice.”

He said a retention election is “a rubber stamp.”

“It’s a rigged election, much like in communist countries,” Lewis said. “The result is foregone. You pick the guy the politburo has picked, or you pick no one.”

The video was paid for by Derby Republican Rep. Blake Carpenter’s reelection campaign.

Advance voting totals showed a dramatic drop-off from the historic turnout four years ago, when the anti-abortion amendment was on the ballot. This year, 176,703 Kansans had voted by mail or in person as of Monday. In 2022, 320,048 voted by mail or in person before Election Day.

The stakes were underscored when Christopher Jayaram, minutes before becoming the newest Supreme Court justice Monday, issued an opinion that strikes down numerous abortion restrictions under state law, some dating to 1997. Democratic Gov. Laura Kelly selected Jayaram, who was a Johnson County district judge, from the three finalists for an open seat on the high court.

“Tonight Kansans rebuffed a constitutional amendment that was designed to undermine access to abortion, mislead voters, and politicize the state’s Supreme Court,” said Emily Wales, president and CEO of Planned Parenthood Great Plains Votes.

Although U.S. President Donald Trump continues to suffer from weak approval ratings in poll after poll, one group that, on the whole, still holds him in high regard is white evangelical Christian fundamentalists — who view him as a staunch defender of Christianity. But Trump's support among Christians is far from universal, and according to i Paper reporter Daniel Bates, some Christians believe that evangelicals are doing their faith a huge disservice by exalting the president as a prophet.

Bates, in the UK-based i Paper, explains, "White evangelical Christians have been vital for Trump's presidential wins, backing him by margins of between 75 and 85 per cent in his presidential campaigns…. Despite his multiple marriages, rumored infidelities, vulgarity, use of profane language and felony conviction for falsifying business records, evangelical Christians have stuck with Trump in what has been described as a 'devil's bargain,' since it has brought victories for their position on issues like abortion and trans rights. The president's supporters have described him as their 'savior' who was 'anointed by God' to bring Christianity back to America."

Rihanna Teixeira, a former Trump supporter who was raised evangelical in Arizona, views evangelicals as cult-like when it comes to Trump.

Teixeira told the i Paper, "I wish I had a logical answer as to why I voted for him, but the truth is that the evangelical church is a cult. I started following historians and people who I felt could give neutral and honest reporting on what was happening. I also moved out of the small town that I was living in and moved to Los Angeles where I met and became friends with people who were being directly impacted by Trump and his policies. I also worked with a lot of DACA (immigrant) students who were having to give up their dreams of bettering their lives. Seeing first-hand how he was impacting people made me start to question everything I had been taught previously."

Another Christian fundamentalist who now refuses to support Trump is the Rev. Jared Stacy.

The Baptist minister told the i Paper, "The story I inherited was that if Democrats were in charge, it would mean the end of America and the persecution of Christians. I remember the rhetoric around the (Monica) Lewinsky scandal and the importance of character in the White House, which is ironic now. When I voted for Trump in 2016, it was a hold-my-nose kind of thing. My political compass back then was disoriented from the faith I confess today. Though I would have defended my decision back then as 'biblical,' it was entirely a gamble — one that emerged from anxious fear, not faith, hope, and love…. When you see widespread evangelical embrace of a political figure, it's not just political support, it's the permission that embrace gives to ways of operating that have historically permeated how white evangelicalism in this country operates."

Christian author Karen Prior explained why so many white evangelicals continue to support Trump.

Prior told the i Paper, "His court succeeded in overturning Roe vs. Wade, and many white evangelicals felt like he delivered on his campaign promise on abortion. Four years after the decision, however, the abortion rate has slightly risen, and the Trump administration is increasing access to medical abortions. It's just becoming harder and harder to deny that Trump's positions on the moral issues traditionally important to evangelicals are anything but inconsistent and incoherent."

According to the Rev. Paul Brandeis Raushenbush, a Baptist minister and president of the Interfaith Alliance, more evangelicals are seeing the contradiction between supporting Trump and preaching a very strict form of Christianity.

Raushenbush told the i Paper, "There will always be true believers in Donald Trump but others are asking, 'Is he really the kind of leader that represents Christian values?' There's a large movable middle that’s beginning to say, 'Is this really the best we can do?'"

Four years have passed since the U.S. Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade with its June 2022 ruling in Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization — a ruling that, according to conservative GOP consultant Sarah Longwell, continues to be a political liability for Republicans.

Writing in the conservative website The Bulwark, Longwell — founder of Republican Accountability (RA), formerly Republican Voters Against Trump — explains, "Amid all the talk of inflation, war, and artificial intelligence, people are underestimating just how important abortion could still be to this fall's elections. That seems like an insane sentence to type because, after all, abortion proved decisive in 2022, when Democrats dramatically overperformed expectations. The consensus quickly formed that the Supreme Court's decision to overturn Roe v. Wade was the key contributor. But when the Democratic Party put a heavy emphasis on abortion in the 2024 elections, it didn't pan out. That's because voters were more motivated by economic issues."

Longwell adds, "Fights around abortion moved to the states — where Republican- controlled legislatures were passing sweeping bans — and receded from the federal level. Today, Dems may have over-learned the lesson of 2024."

Although Longwell is on the right politically, she is very much in the Never Trump school of conservatism and rooted for Joe Biden in 2020 and Kamala Harris in 2024. And she emphasizes, in her Bulwark piece, that not all conservatives want abortion to be illegal.

"I can't tell you how many times I've heard voters — even swing voters and conservatives — say some version of 'I'm pro-life, but I believe in a woman's right to choose,'" Longwell notes. "Translation: Voters can be personally uncomfortable with abortion and still believe that the state-level bans are a bridge too far. In recent focus groups I've conducted, abortion still pops up as an issue. That's especially true in states with very restrictive abortion bans — including some that have key Senate and gubernatorial races this year, like Iowa and Texas."

In Texas, outgoing Sen. John Cornyn — who recently lost a U.S. Senate primary to far-right Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton — is anti-abortion, but not as extreme on the issue as the Donald Trump-backed nominee.

"Paxton is a weak candidate for a lot of reasons, including his association with Texas' extreme abortion laws," Longwell observes. "This is something Democrats can and should hang around his neck. Sure, Texas is still Texas. But Paxton's liability on abortion, among his other indiscretions, could prove a major drag. In Iowa, Gov. Kim Reynolds also received plenty of fire. She isn't running for a third term. But Republican Zach Lahn is on the ballot, and he supports a total abortion ban with potential implications for IVF, which is even more extreme than the current law…. Dems seem aware that abortion itself isn't enough to tip any one race. Instead, it’s folded into a candidate's broader profile — and that can make all the difference."

Longwell continues, "Governors like Brian Kemp in Georgia and Mike DeWine in Ohio managed to get reelected in 2022, even though in 2019, both had signed 'heartbeat' abortion bans similar to Texas'. But they benefit from a broader 'normie' appeal. By contrast, patently insane candidates who supported near-total bans — like Doug Mastriano in Pennsylvania, Tudor Dixon in Michigan, or Kari Lake in Arizona — all lost their races. Extreme positions on abortion are often, though not always, a leading indicator of extreme positions on other issues, like whether or not the 2020 election was stolen."

President Donald Trump’s sometimes-ally in Congress, Sen. Susan Collins (R-ME), was just blasted in an op-ed from a major Maine newspaper for her role in overturning abortion rights.

“Mainers cannot and will not forget Sen. Susan Collins’ critical role in dismantling the nearly half-century-old constitutional right, causing cruelty and chaos to ensue,” wrote civil rights attorney Azaleea Carlea in the Portland Press Herald on Monday. “Either she was foolish or a hypocritical [sic]. Either way, she is not fit to serve another term in the U.S. Senate.”

Carlea detailed how Collins, despite promising to not vote in favor of confirming a Supreme Court Justice who would overturn Roe v. Wade, accepted Brett Kavanaugh’s word that he accepted the abortion rights ruling as “settled law.” After being confirmed, Kavanaugh joined four other judges to overturn Roe v. Wade in a 5-to-4 ruling. Three of those judges — Kavanaugh, Neil Gorsuch and Amy Coney Barrett — were appointed by Trump.

“Either she fell for it, or she secretly wanted the end result, but either way Americans across the country suffered and continue to live with this catastrophic attack on reproductive justice,” Carlea explained. “When the Supreme Court overturned Roe, it opened the floodgates to abortion bans across the country. Currently, 63 million women live in states with bans. Sen. Collins was crucial to the process for ensuring that SCOTUS was in a position to overturn Roe and for the subsequent fact that now 20 states have banned or significantly restricted abortions.”

In addition to reversing the right to abortion, the 2022 decision Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization also made it easier for states to ignore the Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act (EMTALA) that told hospitals to provide emergency care to all who require and seek it.

“Because of Susan Collins, women in the United States have been left to ‘bleed out’ in parking lots,” Carlea wrote. “They have been airlifted out of state to get the care they urgently needed and they have been left to deteriorate to the point where their health, future fertility, organ function was in grave danger.”

Carlea added, “Collins has also placed even greater barriers in the way of survivors of domestic violence and other forms of gender-based violence in accessing this form of healthcare. With reproductive coercion on the rise, abortion bans and reproductive healthcare restrictions make it even harder for victims to exert agency over their own lives, their own bodies and leave abusive relationships.”

The attorney reviewed how abortion restrictions have exacerbated America’s maternal health crisis and widened racial disparities in pregnancy outcomes.

“All this because Sen. Collins cast a critical vote to appoint Kavanaugh to the court,” Carlea wrote. “Four years later, in the wake of the devastation, suffering, cruelty and confusion she helped set into motion, she doubled down and said she did not regret voting the way she did. On Monday, June 22, she went on national television, dodged accountability for her vote and lied about how many Supreme Court justices overturned Roe.”

Because of Collins’ decisive vote and refusal to accept accountability for it, Carlea concluded that “Mainers deserve a senator who will take accountability, and fight for what two-thirds of Mainers are asking for — the right to an abortion. Graham Platner will do just that and more, all with a spine to stand up to the Trump administration’s attacks on bodily autonomy and our healthcare system. It’s well past time for Susan Collins to go. Mainers deserve better.”

This is not the first criticism Collins has received in June 2026 for her seeming ability to cozy up to Trump without wanting to take full responsibility for doing so. Even though many Senate Republicans came out to oppose Trump’s Memorandum of Understanding, which proposed to end the Iran War on terms perceived as favorable to Iran, Collins claimed she had not even read the 14-point agreement. It had been available for nearly 24 hours at that point and Collins is a member of the Senate Intelligence Committee. She has also been criticized for, like Trump, being too close to billionaires, with at least 79 billionaires donating to Collins’ network between January 2025 and May 20, 2026.

Despite these potential political liabilities, Collins could benefit from the presence of oysterman Graham Platner as her Democratic opponent in the general election. Platner has been accused of multiple infidelities toward his wife and exaggerating his working class background. He also had a Tottenkopf tattoo on his chest, which he claimed to not know was a Nazi symbol, although he has since gotten it covered up.

Sen. Susan Collins (R-ME) shocked the political world on Tuesday by announcing she would vote against confirming President Donald Trump’s acting attorney general, Todd Blanche, to hold that job in an official capacity.

“I have carefully reviewed Todd Blanche’s qualifications to be Attorney General,” Collins posted on X. “This includes his record and responses to questions from Senators at the Department of Justice Appropriations hearing, his confirmation hearing, and in the weeks that followed.”

She added, “While I believe Mr. Blanche is a capable lawyer, the Department of Justice has become increasingly political. Mr. Blanche has taken several actions that have further eroded the Department’s independence, and that is the basis for my vote to oppose his confirmation: Mr. Blanche approved an order to shield the President, his sons, and the family business from IRS audits, protections unavailable to other American taxpayers. He approved the creation of a $1.8 billion anti-weaponization fund. He promised an anti-abortion organization that he would seek to prohibit the mailing of abortion medication to women nationwide.”

Collins concluded, “Under his leadership, the Department attempted to indict Senators Mark Kelly and Elissa Slotkin over their ill-advised, but constitutionally protected, videos encouraging resistance to unlawful orders. More than 1,200 former Department of Justice employees have opposed his nomination, arguing that he has undermined the institution. For these reasons, I will vote against this nomination.”

Social media quickly blew up with reactions to Collins’ decision, particularly on X. Many of them focused on how her decision will make it harder for Blanche to get confirmed,

“BREAKING - Sen. Susan Collins is a no on President Trump’s attorney General nominee Todd Blanche,” wrote NewsNation's Hannah Brandt on Tuesday. “This makes the math very tough for Blanche, who can only afford to lose one more Republican vote and still get confirmed.”

“Big: Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine) says she's voting NO on Todd Blanche's nomination to serve as attorney general,” wrote MS NOW's Mychael Schnell on Tuesday. “With McConnell absent, Republicans can only afford to lose two GOP votes and still confirm Blanche. Murkowski and Cassidy haven't said how they'll vote.”

Gregg Nunziata, a right-wing lawyer and executive director of Society for the Rule of Law, praised Collins through a conservative framework, namely that she was correct in both opposing Blanche and supporting Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh.

“Susan Collins, correct on Kavanaugh, correct on Blanche,” Nunziata wrote.

“With Susan Collins a NO on Todd Blanche, his nomination as AG hangs by a thread,” wrote CNN's Manu Raju on Tuesday.

Raju added, “Lisa Murkowski just pointedly declined to comment to me just now when asked if she’d vote for Blanche. Bill Cassidy earlier today wouldn’t comment to me either. Blanche can only afford to lose two GOP votes with McConnell out.”

Fox News' Chad Pergram posted on Tuesday that “it’s about the math. The Senate is effectively operating at 52 Republicans and 47 senators who caucus with the Democrats with the absence of Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-KY). So with Collins’ opposition, and presuming that all Democrats are nays, that gets you to 51-48.”

He added, “What we don’t know is if the decisions by Sens. Thom Tillis (R-NC) and John Cornyn (R-TX) to support Blanche provides cover for other possible GOPers who may have reservations with Blanche. That includes Sens. John Curtis (R-UT) and Lisa Murkowski (R-AK). If Blanche loses the support of one more (presuming everything is equal) the vote is 50-49. Remember, Vice President JD Vance CAN ONLY vote if it’s a tie. So the nomination can only lose one more vote. An additional no vote from a GOPer blocks the nomination.”

Pergram concluded, “Keep in mind that Senate Majority Leader John Thune (R-SD) has been rather cryptic about the rest of the schedule this week.”

By contrast, CBS News' Caitlin Huey-Burns wrote that “Blanche can still get confirmed without her, but notable in election year.”

Meanwhile NBC News' Sahil Kapur posted on Bluesky that “Susan Collins is a NO on Todd Blanche for AG: ‘While I believe Mr. Blanche is a capable lawyer, the Department of Justice has become increasingly political.’ Unlikely to change the outcome; he can lose two Rs and get confirmed. Collins voted YES on Blanche as Deputy AG last year.”

From presidential immunity to abortion rights, critics of the U.S. Supreme Court's 6-3 right-wing supermajority have accused the justices of being overly deferential to President Donald Trump. Yet Trump is furious with the High Court for parting company with him at times, including key rulings on tariffs, the U.S. Federal Reserve, and birthright citizenship.

And according to the Washington Post, he is ramping up his campaign to get around SCOTUS rulings he doesn't like.

"Over the past few weeks," journalist Julian Mark reports in the Post, "President Donald Trump has made it clear that he will not take Supreme Court decisions as the final word on some of his most cherished priorities. The president has introduced new tariffs, renewed efforts to fire Federal Reserve governor Lisa Cook and issued new executive orders to limit birthright citizenship. While experts said the moves do not signal outright defiance of the High Court, they nonetheless push the limits of the rulings that Trump lost earlier this summer."

Richard Lazarus, a law professor at Harvard University in Cambridge, Massachusetts just outside Boston, told the Post that "without question," Trump is "challenging the bounds of the Court's opinions."

Mark notes that Trump "is not the first president to look for ways around adverse Supreme Court rulings." Former President Joe Biden, for example, was disappointed when the Roberts Court "struck down" his "plan to forgive student loan debt" — and wasted no time announcing a "separate plan to forgive the debt."

But David Super, a law professor at Georgetown University in Washington, DC, told the Post, "Most presidents treated Supreme Court rulings as dispositive of the issues involved rather than as technical documents to be evaded…. The second-term President Trump appears to have much less regard for the other branches of the federal government than the first-term one did."

Mark points out that former President Barack Obama was highly critical of the U.S. Supreme Court's controversial Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission ruling, he did so in a "more genteel manner" than Trump — whose administration has "a tense relationship with the federal judiciary more broadly."

"A Washington Post analysis last year found that Trump and his appointees were accused of flouting the courts in more than a third of the 160-plus lawsuits against the administration in which a judge had issued a substantive ruling," Mark observes. "The administration has also sparred with the judiciary over Trump’s picks to lead federal prosecutor's offices."