Jay W. Richards, a Heritage Foundation vice president and self-described pro-life conservative, argues in a Daily Wire opinion piece that Robert F. Kennedy Jr. earned conservatives’ backing for Health and Human Services secretary because of his opposition to COVID-era restrictions and his focus on chronic disease in children. Richards also points to several Trump administration actions on abortion-related policy that he says have reassured some pro-life supporters.
In a Daily Wire opinion column published March 7, 2026, Jay W. Richards, a vice president at The Heritage Foundation, describes why he supported President Donald Trump’s choice of Robert F. Kennedy Jr. to lead the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), despite Kennedy’s long history as a Democrat and past abortion-rights positions.
Richards writes that Trump nominated Kennedy for HHS secretary in late 2024 and that some Washington Republicans opposed the selection, arguing that Kennedy had been “for decades a liberal Democrat who supported abortion on demand.” Kennedy’s nomination was announced on November 14, 2024, and he was later confirmed by the Senate in February 2025.
Richards traces his own support to the COVID-19 pandemic. He says he spent much of 2020 co-authoring a book arguing that broad population lockdowns would do more harm than good. In the column, Richards calls COVID “the greatest test of wisdom and courage in a generation,” and writes that, in his view, most public officials from both parties failed, while Kennedy “aced it.”
In describing Kennedy’s appeal, Richards characterizes him as a “raspy-voiced lawyer” who warned of a “biomedical security state” and a form of corporatism that blurs the lines between government and private power. Richards argues that COVID-era lockdowns and vaccine mandates demonstrated that partisan history is not a reliable guide to future behavior, and that opposition to those policies became, for many voters, a more meaningful credential than party affiliation.
Richards also writes that conservative interest in Kennedy surged after Kennedy ended his independent presidential bid and endorsed Trump on August 23, 2024—an event widely reported at the time. Richards frames the endorsement as part of a broader political realignment, describing what he calls a “MAGA-MAHA coalition,” and says Kennedy elevated the “staggering rise of chronic diseases among American children” as a central issue.
As HHS secretary, Richards argues, Kennedy has made combating childhood chronic disease a defining priority. Richards acknowledges continuing criticism of Kennedy from public-health experts and others, but contends that the chronic-disease focus has gained broader attention.
On abortion policy, Richards writes that Kennedy does not have the authority to “stop all abortions” and is constrained by the president’s agenda, but points to actions by HHS under Kennedy that he says have been welcomed by pro-life advocates.
Richards notes that Kennedy announced a federal review related to the abortion medication mifepristone in September 2025, a move criticized by abortion-rights groups and others who cite the drug’s established safety record. Richards also points to an HHS Office for Civil Rights initiative announced in January 2026 that the department said was aimed at strengthening enforcement of federal health care conscience and religious-freedom protections, including new guidance and a notice of violation in an enforcement action.
Richards highlights a separate HHS announcement dated January 23, 2026, in which the department said it would end the use of human fetal tissue from elective abortions in HHS-funded research, applying the policy across NIH intramural research and NIH-supported extramural research.
Finally, Richards recalls a past Kennedy interview in which Kennedy criticized a Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) publication that he said treated “abortion” as a 20th-century public-health achievement. Richards notes that coverage of the episode pointed to a CDC document that lists “family planning” rather than “abortion,” but argues that Kennedy’s reaction nevertheless reflected opposition to treating abortion as a public-health milestone.
The Daily Wire column reflects Richards’ personal views and includes a standard disclaimer that opinions expressed are the author’s and do not necessarily represent the outlet’s position.
