AG Nominee Blanche: Trump’s DOJ Believes Biden’s Lax Abortion Pill Rules Are Wrong 43%

By Jordan Boyd75%

7/15/2026, 8:30:08 PM

BS Summary: This article contains 19 faulty reasoning types, including Ambiguity (Equivocation), Framing Effect, and Pessimism Bias, with Appeal to Emotion as the most egregious example at 23.6% saturation with 125 hits. Analysis detected 820 faulty-reasoning hits from 530 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 46.6% and a BS Rank of 43% (12,568 of 21,887 articles). This article is better (less manipulative) than 57.40% of the article peer group.

Attorney General nominee Todd Blanche told U.S. senators during his confirmation hearing on Wednesday that the Trump administration’s Department of Justice believes the Biden administration’s radically relaxed rules for obtaining abortion pills “were wrong.” 
In his exchange with Missouri Sen. 
Josh Hawley, Blanche explained that the DOJ is “not defending what Biden did, and will not,” when it stripped the safety regulations from mifepristone following the Supreme Court’s Dobbs v. 
Jackson decision. 
“We want to get to a good result consistent with President Trump's administrative directive and priorities,” Blanche claimed. 
Blanche repeatedly refused to discuss the DOJ’s “litigation strategy” in the ongoing landmark Louisiana v. 
FDA case because “it's not appropriate.” 
Instead, the nominee pledged the DOJ and the Trump administration as a whole to “protect the life of the unborn and work with states and obviously [Hawley] to make sure that we do that in the best way.” 
According to Blanche, that pledge to protect extends to defending the abortion pill safety guidelines, which included an in-person doctor visit, set by the first Trump administration. 
“I anticipate we, the department, would defend those rules,” Blanche told Hawley. 
Even though no review is required for the FDA to reinstate some of the common-sense abortion pill safeguards, Blanche was careful to note that the DOJ believes the burden of correcting the mifepristone guidelines rests on the U.S. 
Food and Drug Administration’s abortion pill review. 
The FDA previously signaled it does not plan to reinstate the first Trump administration’s mifepristone Risk Evaluation and Mitigation Strategy until its review is complete. 
“Remember, we have to have studies that we can defend in court. 
We have to be able to say to a judge, probably in this district, that our change was not arbitrary and capricious,” Blanche began. 
“So we're trying to let FDA  we, meaning the Department of Justice  do their work so that we can have, continue to protect the lives of the unborn children, and frankly, the state's laws, like Missouri's, which is really what's being violated here at its core.” 
The exchange concluded shortly after Blanche responded positively to Hawley’s pitch for a “Protecting Women and Children Initiative, that would work then with states to go after these coerced abortions,” like the one suffered by Louisiana v. 
FDA plaintiff Rosalie Markezich. 
“I very much commit to looking at that. 
I share your concerns. 
The story you mentioned, I'm aware of that story. 
It's horrible. 
I think there's, a lot of that is not necessarily a federal crime, but the federal government can certainly help in that space,” Blanche said 
Blanche also answered in the affirmative to Texas Sen. 
Ted Cruz, who asked whether the DOJ “will carefully evaluate every lawful action available to ensure the faithful enforcement of the Comstock Act and other federal pro-life acts.” 
Some pro-life activists, including Susan B. 
Anthony Pro-Life America, have called for Blanche to settle the landmark mifepristone case by signing a consent decree. 
Other pro-life voices, however, fear such a settlement could be appealed by abortion drug manufacturers, potentially overturned, and overall set back the FDA’s mifepristone review. 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 11.5%Jordan Boyd: 7.8%The Federalist: 8.5%Confirmation Bias11.5%This article: 0.0%Jordan Boyd: 1.0%The Federalist: 0.6%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 1.7%Jordan Boyd: 6.6%The Federalist: 3.5%Availability Heuristic1.7%This article: 0.0%Jordan Boyd: 0.2%The Federalist: 1.2%Representativeness Heuristic0.0%This article: 0.0%Jordan Boyd: 0.2%The Federalist: 0.7%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 2.3%Jordan Boyd: 2.8%The Federalist: 2.3%Overconfidence Bias2.3%This article: 12.8%Jordan Boyd: 10.0%The Federalist: 10.1%Framing Effect12.8%This article: 0.0%Jordan Boyd: 0.3%The Federalist: 0.4%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 7.2%Jordan Boyd: 0.8%The Federalist: 0.6%Status Quo Bias7.2%This article: 0.0%Jordan Boyd: 0.0%The Federalist: 0.1%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Jordan Boyd: 1.2%The Federalist: 1.0%Optimism Bias0.0%This article: 11.9%Jordan Boyd: 5.4%The Federalist: 1.7%Pessimism Bias11.9%This article: 9.4%Jordan Boyd: 10.3%The Federalist: 12.4%Negativity Bias9.4%This article: 5.7%Jordan Boyd: 1.2%The Federalist: 0.9%Self-Serving Bias5.7%This article: 0.0%Jordan Boyd: 0.6%The Federalist: 1.7%Fundamental Attribution Error0.0%This article: 0.0%Jordan Boyd: 0.0%The Federalist: 0.1%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 0.8%Jordan Boyd: 2.4%The Federalist: 3.9%In-Group Bias0.8%This article: 0.0%Jordan Boyd: 2.8%The Federalist: 2.2%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Jordan Boyd: 1.1%The Federalist: 2.2%Halo Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Jordan Boyd: 0.0%The Federalist: 0.7%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Jordan Boyd: 0.0%The Federalist: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Jordan Boyd: 1.3%The Federalist: 1.3%Recency Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Jordan Boyd: 0.1%The Federalist: 0.6%Primacy Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Jordan Boyd: 0.0%The Federalist: 0.1%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Jordan Boyd: 0.7%The Federalist: 5.3%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%Jordan Boyd: 0.8%The Federalist: 2.7%Straw Man0.0%This article: 7.5%Jordan Boyd: 7.2%The Federalist: 5.0%Appeal to Authority7.5%This article: 0.0%Jordan Boyd: 0.6%The Federalist: 2.8%False Dilemma0.0%This article: 4.7%Jordan Boyd: 5.6%The Federalist: 2.3%Slippery Slope4.7%This article: 4.5%Jordan Boyd: 0.3%The Federalist: 0.4%Circular Reasoning4.5%This article: 0.0%Jordan Boyd: 12.0%The Federalist: 11.4%Hasty Generalization0.0%This article: 0.0%Jordan Boyd: 0.8%The Federalist: 0.5%Red Herring0.0%This article: 0.0%Jordan Boyd: 0.8%The Federalist: 0.5%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 23.6%Jordan Boyd: 14.7%The Federalist: 8.2%Appeal to Emotion23.6%This article: 9.1%Jordan Boyd: 4.4%The Federalist: 3.1%Begging the Question9.1%This article: 0.0%Jordan Boyd: 4.4%The Federalist: 2.3%Post Hoc (False Cause)0.0%This article: 0.0%Jordan Boyd: 0.0%The Federalist: 0.5%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 1.1%Jordan Boyd: 1.3%The Federalist: 1.1%Burden of Proof1.1%This article: 0.0%Jordan Boyd: 0.0%The Federalist: 0.3%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%Jordan Boyd: 0.4%The Federalist: 0.4%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 4.7%Jordan Boyd: 4.0%The Federalist: 2.8%Anecdotal4.7%This article: 0.0%Jordan Boyd: 0.0%The Federalist: 0.3%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 22.6%Jordan Boyd: 2.4%The Federalist: 1.7%Ambiguity (Equivocation)22.6%This article: 0.0%Jordan Boyd: 0.0%The Federalist: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Jordan Boyd: 0.0%The Federalist: 0.1%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Jordan Boyd: 0.0%The Federalist: 0.2%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Jordan Boyd: 0.7%The Federalist: 0.2%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Jordan Boyd: 0.4%The Federalist: 0.8%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Jordan Boyd: 4.1%The Federalist: 3.1%Unattributed Quote0.0%This article: 6.4%Jordan Boyd: 2.8%The Federalist: 2.1%Quote-first Misdirection6.4%This article: 0.0%Jordan Boyd: 18.2%The Federalist: 19.7%Biased Writer Voice0.0%This article: 7.2%Jordan Boyd: 14.0%The Federalist: 5.2%Indoctrination7.2%This article: 0.0%Jordan Boyd: 0.0%The Federalist: 0.3%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Jordan Boyd: 13.2%The Federalist: 15.8%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Jordan Boyd: 1.2%The Federalist: 1.7%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…0.0%

530 words analyzed.

Speakers

3speakers65%attributed speech187writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 13 words • 0.0% coverageTodd Blanche • 34 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 6 words • 0.0% coverageTodd Blanche • 30 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 2 words • 0.0% coverageTodd Blanche • 18 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 15 words • 0.0% coverageTodd Blanche • 6 words • 0.0% coverageTodd Blanche • 38 words • 100.0% coverageTodd Blanche • 27 words • 0.0% coverageTodd Blanche • 12 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 38 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 7 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 25 words • 0.0% coverageTodd Blanche • 12 words • 0.0% coverageTodd Blanche • 24 words • 0.0% coverageTodd Blanche • 48 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 37 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 4 words • 0.0% coverageTodd Blanche • 8 words • 0.0% coverageTodd Blanche • 4 words • 0.0% coverageTodd Blanche • 9 words • 0.0% coverageTodd Blanche • 2 words • 0.0% coverageTodd Blanche • 25 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 9 words • 0.0% coverageTed Cruz • 28 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 6 words • 0.0% coverageSusan B. Anthony Pro-Life America • 18 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 25 words • 0.0% coverage
Selected voice

Ted Cruz

100%flagged-word coverage
28 attributed words8.2% of attributed speech60% writer coverage

No manipulation-pattern hits were found in this speaker's attributed words or the writer's voice.

Attribution is sentence-level. Pattern percentages are calculated only from words assigned to that voice.

Loading…
Loading…
Loading…
Loading…

Analysis

Hover over highlighted words in the article to view the associated bias or fallacy analysis.