Dear Chair Moran, Ranking Member Blumenthal, and Committee Members:

We write to express our concern regarding the nomination of Daniel F. Rendleman for the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims. When a claim for health care coverage or reimbursement is denied by VA, veterans can appeal the decision to the Board of Veterans’ Appeals, and, subsequently, to the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims. As a judge on this court, Rendleman could decide whether a veteran’s claim for reproductive health care coverage or reimbursement is denied, and his alarming anti-abortion record seriously calls into question his ability to remain impartial on the issue. Veterans already face significant barriers to health care and the actions of this administration have put reproductive health care, in particular, even further out of reach. Given Rendleman’s extreme opposition to essential health care like abortion, confirming him to the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims could further put the health and well-being of veterans and their loved ones at risk.

Rendleman made his opposition to abortion abundantly clear in 2017 when he wrote an article for The Federalist, a conservative online magazine.¹ In it, he stated, “I believe that a fetus is a human being with all the rights that I possess….” He went on to declare, “abortion is murder and, therefore, by far the greatest moral failing of our times.” Although he acknowledged that it “is not the only moral failing”, he insisted that “700,000 murders every year, performed by doctors at the behest of parents, overwhelms any other moral or political consideration on the ballot each November.”

The article is an attempt to portray Rendleman as open-minded or measured, but he is clear that his ultimate goal is to provide a roadmap for the anti-abortion agenda. For example, he writes in hopes that the “pro-life movement finds itself poised to make significant gains” in that the newly-appointed Supreme Court Justice, Neil Gorsuch, is “one of us.” Rendleman is explicit about his political calculus in service of the anti-abortion movement: “But if they [pro-abortion advocates] can find opportunities in this turbulent and polarized political climate, so can we.”

Rendleman’s stance on abortion is especially concerning given recent actions by the Trump administration. In December 2025, the Trump administration’s VA implemented a near-total abortion ban for veterans and their families, marking the strictest abortion policy among federal agencies. This draconian policy prohibits abortion counseling for veterans and their beneficiaries in all circumstances, and denies abortion care except where a VA clinician certifies that the life of the pregnant person is endangered.² The policy bans abortion even in health-threatening situations or cases of rape and incest. This policy is not only morally reprehensible, but it also overlooks that abortion is a fundamental component to the full spectrum of comprehensive pregnancy-related care. Abortion bans like the one at VA not only deny people the abortion care that they need, but they also can and do interfere with miscarriage care³—increasing medical risks such as infections that could jeopardize life, health, and fertility—which is often treated and coded identically to abortion care.

Amidst the fear and confusion created by this new abortion ban, veterans and their loved ones are now, more than ever, in need of an impartial judge on the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims. If confirmed, Rendleman’s strong ideological beliefs call into question his ability to remain impartial when considering appeals related to reproductive health care coverage, including miscarriage management or the extremely limited abortion care currently available at VA. Veterans deserve a fair chance when seeking the health care coverage they are entitled to. Given the significant reproductive health care barriers all people, including veterans, are facing today, we are deeply concerned that Rendleman’s anti-abortion views would compromise his ability to respect the rights and health of those who would come before him. Veterans deserve fair consideration of their claims by an unbiased authority, not an ideologue. We are deeply concerned that confirming Rendleman would put the health and lives of our nation’s veterans at risk.

Signed,

Abortion Forward
ACCESS REPRODUCTIVE JUSTICE
Alliance for Girls
American Atheists
Arkansas Black Gay Men’s Forum
Autistic Women & Nonbinary Network
Clearinghouse on Women’s Issues
Common Defense
Feminist Majority Foundation
Guttmacher Institute
Legal Momentum, The Women’s Legal Defense and Education Fund
Minority Veterans of America
National Abortion Federation
National Council of Jewish Women
National Health Law Program
National LGBTQ Task Force Action Fund
National Network of Abortion Funds
National Organization for Women
National Partnership for Women & Families
National Security Leaders for America Veterans Working Group
National Women’s Law Center Action Fund
National Women’s Political Caucus
NSL4A
Out in National Security
Physicians for Reproductive Health
Planned Parenthood Federation of America
Power to Decide
Pregnancy Justice
Reproductive Freedom for All
UltraViolet Action

Find a pdf of the letter here.

1 Daniel Rendleman, 5 Things The Right Can Learn From Abortion Supporters At Yale Law, The Federalist (May 25, 2017), https://thefederalist.com/2017/05/25/5-things-right-can-learn-abortion-supporters-yale-law/.

2 This new policy rescinds a critical rule established in September 2022, which allowed veterans and eligible family members to access abortion care in cases of rape, incest, or when the life or health of the pregnant person was at risk. Previously, the VA had imposed a blanket ban on abortion care without exceptions. See Reproductive Health Services, 90 Fed. Reg. 61310 (2025), https://www.govinfo.gov/app/details/FR-2025-12-31/2025-24061/summary; see also NWLC, PROTECT VETERANS’ ACCESS TO ABORTION CARE, https://nwlc.org/protect-veterans-access-to-abortion-care/?ms=MRDAFVTAUDA_c3-AW_PRO_&utm_campaign=&utm_source=viant&utm_medium=audio.

3 Shefali Luthra, Abortion bans are restricting miscarriage care, new study finds, The 19th (May 18, 2026), https://19thnews.org/2026/05/abortion-bans-miscarriage-care-research/; see also Maria Rodriguez, et al., Management of Spontaneous Abortion Among Commercially Insured Individuals in the United States After Dobbs v Jackson, JAMA. 2026;336(1):48–55, https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/article-abstract/2849131?resultClick=1.