Melania Trump’s memoir covers a lot of ground about the former first lady’s multifaceted life, but the aspect that most took observers by surprise was her explicit support for abortion rights, then driven home by a video that she subsequently posted on X. In it, Trump says that “without a doubt, there is no room for compromise when it comes to this essential right,” a position that puts her starkly at odds with the policies of her husband Donald. Maybe she went public in such a noticeable way to undermine him or that she doesn’t want him to win or maybe it was to reassure pro-choice voters that it’s OK to vote for him. However, whatever Melania’s motivation, it puts her in line with the majority of Americans. The restrictionist position that her husband espouses — and the current post-Roe reality he did much to create with his appointment of three anti-choice Supreme Court justices — is that of a vocal minority, kept alive and in political play by outsize power of its proponents. It is also not a particularly acute surprise from a former first lady that was known to keep her own ideological positions often close to the vest. The sentiments of the public are not just based on opinion surveys and focus groups. Since 2022, six states have had ballot questions on abortion related to their state constitutions: California, Kansas, Kentucky, Michigan, Vermont and Ohio — and every time the pro-choice stand prevailed. Next month, another nine states will have constitutional ballot questions on abortion: Arizona, Colorado, Florida, Maryland, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada and South Dakota. New York is not included because we have a muddled ballot question thanks to legislative ineptitude. Melania’s pro-choice position is unlikely to really move the needle for the entrenched group of special interests, officials or hard-core anti-choice voters who’ve dedicated themselves to this position, and whose convictions are rooted in religious belief or deep ideological commitment. It might go a bit farther with those who’ve latched onto this position over some sort of pragmatism or perceived political gain, and who could be reminded of just how fringe this view is. Melania’s revelation goes to show that the proponents of abortion rights are never far from its foes, sharing the same communities, neighborhoods and sometimes even households as its detractors. Yet as much as the latter group will frame this as simply opposite moral or ideological positions, really it is only this group attempting to impose its preferences on the latter. There is no pro-choice advocate that contends that women must have abortions. It is the anti-choice side that would dictate that its absolutist position be observed absolutely. Ultimately, it is the pro-choice position that is rooted in the actual traditions and values of our Constitution and culture, which are geared to provide for individual self-determination. We hope that more policymakers and judges make the forceful case that “women are not some piece of collectively owned community property,” as Georgia state Judge Robert McBurney wrote in a recent ruling overturning that state’s de facto abortion ban. It will also help to have public figures like Melania — who don’t have direct legislative, judicial or administrative control but command public attention — keep making this case and for the pro-choice majority.