Adversarial re-check confirms the prior rating. All three originally cited sources were independently fetched and are REAL, live, and accurately quoted -- none invented or misrepresented. I additionally corroborated the rulemaking through the Federal Register API (RIN 2900-AS31 returns exactly two documents: a proposed rule published Aug. 4, 2025 and a final rule published Dec. 31, 2025) and pulled EO 14182 from govinfo directly. FINDINGS: (1) In the one federal health system the executive directly controls, VA reinstated the FULL pre-2022 exclusion of abortion and abortion counseling, adopted 'without changes,' effective Jan. 30, 2026, expressly striking the two exceptions permitting abortion where 'the life or the health of the pregnant veteran would be endangered' and where 'the pregnancy was the result of an act of rape or incest.' After the rule there is NO rape or incest exception in the VA medical benefits package -- two of the three exceptions Trump named were affirmatively deleted. (2) CMS/HHS rescinded the 2022 EMTALA guidance on stabilizing emergency abortion care (announced June 3, 2025), weakening the federal backstop tied to the life-of-the-mother exception; the EMTALA statute itself survives. (3) EO 14182 'Enforcing the Hyde Amendment' (signed Jan. 24, 2025) revokes EOs 14076 and 14079 and ends federal funding of 'elective' abortion; its text names no rape, incest, or life exceptions and does not extend any. I found no offsetting federal action defending rape or incest exceptions. I tested and rejected the strongest defense -- that this is merely Hyde-consistent funding policy rather than a test of a belief about ban exceptions. The Hyde Amendment itself PRESERVES rape, incest, and life exceptions; the VA rule went further than Hyde by eliminating rape/incest entirely, so it cannot be excused as routine Hyde alignment. I also rejected the 'never squarely tested because he left abortion to the states' defense: where the administration did hold direct authority over exception policy, it acted twice against the promise's direction. PARTY-SYMMETRY TEST: a Democratic president who stated a belief in three named exceptions and whose administration then published a rule striking two of the three from the federal health system it controls, while rescinding the guidance backstopping the third, would fairly be rated MISALIGNED on the identical standard. Not IGNORED (the administration affirmatively acted, it did not merely decline to engage). Not HOSTILE, because the life-of-the-mother exception functionally survives (retained in the CHAMPVA regulation at 38 CFR 17.272, and for 38 CFR 17.38 VA takes the position that life-saving procedures are not 'abortions'), the actions are confined to federal benefits and guidance rather than the legality of abortion, and no federal ban lacking exceptions was pursued. One refinement to the prior rationale, which does not change the outcome: the final rule does not leave a life-of-the-mother 'certification' inside 17.38 itself -- that exception sits in the CHAMPVA rule, while 17.38 relies on VA's characterization of life-saving care as non-abortion. Confidence held at 0.82 rather than raised, because genuine interpretive room remains over whether a campaign belief-statement about ban exceptions is squarely tested by federal benefits-funding policy.