Former President Trump’s shifting stance on some of his abortion policies to attract independents and some disillusioned Democrats could alienate those who helped get him elected in 2016 – his pro-life base. But his growing support from middle-of-the-road voters could make up for it.

‘No one owns the pro-life vote,’ leading pro-life organization Live Action founder Lila Rose told Fox News Digital in an interview Tuesday. ‘It has to be earned.’

Rose stirred controversy on X, formerly Twitter, Monday by reposting a clip from Sen. JD Vance’s recent ‘Meet the Press’ interview, where he pledged that a Trump-Vance administration would likely veto a federal abortion ban.

‘If you don’t stand for pro-life principles, you don’t get pro-life votes,’ Rose said in the post.

When asked about the post, Rose said that as of now, Trump doesn’t have her vote – and he could be at risk of alienating others in the pro-life movement. She said she hopes she will be able to vote for him come November.

‘We’re over two months out of this election, and Trump has changed his position in the past, as everyone knows, and I think that he’s changing it now to support abortion,’ Rose said. ‘Thankfully, the election is not today, and he has two months to change his tune.’

‘I hope that Trump changes course,’ Rose said. ‘I think it’s politically foolish and morally wrong what he’s doing. I think he’s not winning any pro-abortion people to his side. Kamala Harris spent an entire week at the DNC cheerleading for the abortion industry to shore up her base, and then President Trump comes out and throws his base under the bus and tries to cheerlead for Kamala’s base.’

This election cycle, Trump has countered Democratic attacks by stating he would leave abortion access to the states, as determined by the overturning of Roe v. Wade, and opposes a federal abortion ban. The Republican Party also abandoned its long-standing position of advocating for abortion limits in July. However, Trump has remained opposed to late-term abortions.

‘President Trump has long been consistent in supporting the rights of states to make decisions on abortion and has been very clear that he will NOT sign a federal ban when he is back in the White House,’ Trump-Vance campaign press secretary Karoline Leavitt told Fox News Digital in a statement. ‘President Trump also supports universal access to contraception and IVF. Contrarily, Kamala Harris and the Democrats are radically out of touch with the majority of Americans in their support for abortion up until birth and forcing taxpayers to fund it.’

But Rose says the opposition to not supporting a federal ban is precisely the problem, because ‘the whole point of the pro-life movement politically, is to restrict abortion to save human lives.’

‘Increasingly, his platform and his rhetoric is pro-abortion and that should disturb and concern the pro-life movement as it is,’ she said.

To earn her vote, she said, Trump would need to champion pro-life laws and oppose Amendment Four – the right to abortion initiative – in Florida.

On Friday, Trump also upset anti-abortion activists when he posted on his Truth Social platform, ‘My Administration will be great for women and their reproductive rights.’ He has also indicated he would not restrict access to abortion prescriptions. 

Meanwhile, Trump continues to make gains with independents and former Democrats. On Sunday, former presidential candidate Robert F. Kennedy Jr. endorsed Trump, and a day later, former Democratic Congresswoman Tulsi Gabbard also endorsed the former president. Both politicians are now signed on to Trump’s ‘transition team,’ according to the campaign. 

Mark Zuckerberg just had to eat several large helpings of crow.

And some minor political flap wasn’t on the menu. 

As the Wall Street Journal first reported, the CEO of Facebook and Meta expressed regret on such weighty matters as government-induced censorship and free speech.

It’s good for Zuck to accept some degree of responsibility, but it’s kinda too late. By about three years.

The admissions came in a letter to Jim Jordan, the House Judiciary chairman, and is a major win for the Republicans. The onetime Harvard whiz kid usually digs in defensively, with vague promises of future reform.

After the pandemic hit, Zuckerberg wrote, senior Biden administration and White House officials had ‘repeatedly pressured our teams for months to censor certain COVID-19 content, including humor and satire, and expressed a lot of frustration with our teams when we didn’t agree.’

That is an important distinction. The Biden pressure tactics didn’t always work. Facebook could, and sometimes did, say no. But much of the time, the giant social media site just caved.

And Facebook had a publicly proclaimed agenda: prodding millions of people to take Covid vaccines.

Zuckerberg said the administration pressure ‘was wrong, and I regret that we were not more outspoken about it.’ His company ‘made some choices that, with the benefit of hindsight and new information, we wouldn’t make today…I feel strongly that we should not compromise our content standards due to pressure from any administration in either direction — and we’re ready to push back if something like this happens again.’

I don’t know: How confident are you that Facebook would publicly push back on some hot-button issue today?

A Biden White House spokesman, in lawyerly language that didn’t quite respond to Zuck’s accusations, said it had ‘encouraged responsible actions to protect public health and safety…Our position has been clear and consistent: we believe tech companies and other private actors should take into account the effects their actions have on the American people, while making independent choices about the information they present.’

Two years ago, a Free Press reporter who examined the ‘Twitter Files’ found that both the Trump and the Biden administrations ‘directly pressed Twitter executives to moderate the platform’s pandemic content according to their wishes.’

One document mentioned the White House chief technology officer, who ‘led the Trump administration’s calls for help from the tech companies to combat misinformation.’

The piece also said that Facebook, Google and Microsoft joined in ‘weekly’ calls with the Trump officials to talk about ‘general trends’ at the companies. Sounds euphemistic.

But Trump was also a victim. Just four hours after a 2020 campaign video was posted and drew a half million views, Facebook took it down, saying it violated the social network’s policy against Covid misinformation. 

The Trump camp had posted a clip from a Fox interview in which the president said children were ‘virtually immune’ from the coronavirus. Most medical experts disagreed at the time.

‘They’ve got much stronger immune systems than we do somehow for this,’ Trump said. ‘They don’t have a problem. They just don’t have a problem.’

A White House spokeswoman at the time called the move ‘another display of Silicon Valley’s flagrant bias against this president, where the rules are only enforced in one direction.’

Zuckerberg, for his part, also made news on the Hunter Biden laptop.

He told Jordan that Meta ‘shouldn’t have demoted’ a New York Post story about the laptop shortly before the 2020 election. 

Let me stop right there. Demoted is tech jargon for suppressing a story, blatantly burying it so that few if any users see it. This happened after Twitter, as you’ll recall, totally blocked the Post story.

Trump allies got access to the laptop from the Delaware computer shop owner, at a time when Biden was the Democratic nominee. Dozens of former intelligence officials signed a letter dismissing the laptop story as fake, and in a debate with Trump, Biden said the release of the emails had ‘all the classic earmarks of a Russian information operation.’

Zuckerberg writes: ‘It’s since been made clear that the reporting was not Russian disinformation, and in retrospect, we shouldn’t have demoted the story.’

Right. And it took the New York Times and Washington Post another year and a half to ‘authenticate’ the laptop’s contents.

In the 2020 election, Zuck funded nonprofits to set up Covid-era voting booths and equipment sorting mail-in ballots, which Republicans, calling it ‘Zuckerbucks,’ argued with some justification that this unfairly benefited Democratic areas. Zuckerberg now says he won’t repeat the effort this time.

Trump said in a posting last month: ‘All I can say is that if I’m elected president, we will pursue Election Fraudsters at levels never seen before, and they will be sent to prison for long periods of time. We already know who you are. DON’T DO IT! ZUCKERBUCKS, be careful!’

In his Mar-a-Lago interview with me, Trump made his distaste for Facebook quite clear, in fact using it to justify dropping his opposition to banning TikTok, saying that would only help Zuckerberg’s company.

Now some may dismiss all this as old news, given that the events date to the pandemic and the last election. But it raises fundamental questions that continue to reverberate today, when Elon Musk’s endorsement of Trump has prompted many liberals to leave or largely abandon X and join Threads, the Zuckerberg copycat site.

Politicians and special interests routinely lobby the federal government. But when they use their considerable clout to pressure tech giants – secretly, behind closed doors, shielded from the public – it is deeply troubling.

A Middle East policy expert who helped get the Iran nuclear deal signed into law is anticipating that Vice President Kamala Harris would seek a similar agreement with Tehran if she wins the White House.

‘The idea that the old nuclear deal can just be restarted, we’re past that. Iran’s progress on its nuclear program has exceeded the previous limitations… a firm, verifiable nuclear deal that corrals and runs the ability to accelerate the nuclear weapon, that has to be the goal,’ said Joel Rubin, a Democratic strategist and former Obama administration deputy assistant secretary of state for legislative affairs to the House.

‘The best way to do that is a nuclear agreement that’s firm and verified… Any realistic president would go for that. And that’s Kamala Harris, she’s a realistic president-to-be.’

The Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), commonly known as the Iran nuclear deal, was signed in 2015 by Iran, members of the United Nations National Security Council, and the European Union. 

Republicans and some moderate Democrats opposed the agreement, arguing it was too weak to successfully restrain the Islamic regime’s nuclear aspirations. Iran hawks in the U.S. also argued the lifting of sanctions on Iran would only serve to embolden its anti-Western leaders.

President Trump pulled out of the agreement in 2018.

But former President Barack Obama’s allies have maintained it was a necessary compromise to limit the threat from Iran’s nuclear capabilities and a sure way to bring Tehran to the negotiating table.

‘There has to be a way to curb Iran’s nuclear ambitions. If they were to get a nuclear weapon, that would be a threat to the region and to the world, including, of course, the United States. But it is not going to be an easy way forward,’ Rubin said. 

Harris said during her short-lived 2020 presidential campaign that she would rejoin the Iran deal if elected president. 

While It’s unclear whether she’s retained that stance in her 2024 campaign platform, it could expose her to GOP-led accusations of emboldening Iran at a time when the country is already growing more aggressive toward the U.S. and its allies.

Iran’s supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, suggested on Tuesday that Tehran could rejoin talks on a nuclear agreement, according to The Associated Press. Khamenei said there was ‘no harm’ in interacting with an ‘enemy’ in ‘certain situations.’

A State Department spokesperson told RadioFreeEurope, however, that rejoining the agreement ‘is not on the table right now.’

Fox News Digital reached out to the Harris campaign for comment.