Independently re-verified. All three sources cited by the prior researcher are real, live, and support the finding; I added a fourth. Sequence of verified facts: (1) On Aug 29, 2024, in an NBC News interview, Trump said of Florida's six-week ban that he was 'going to be voting that we need more than six weeks' (confirmed live at ms.now/MSNBC). (2) Within about 24 hours, on Aug 30, 2024, Trump told Fox News he would vote against Amendment 4 — the only concrete mechanism then available to replace Florida's six-week limit with a longer (viability) standard — while still maintaining 'You need more time than six weeks. I've disagreed with that right from the early primaries,' immediately followed by 'So I'll be voting no for that reason' (fetched and confirmed verbatim from the cited Fox News URL; note the prior rating's rendering of this quote was not verbatim, so the exact wording is corrected here). (3) Amendment 4 failed on Nov 5, 2024 with 6,070,758 yes (57.17%) to 4,548,379 no, short of Florida's 60% supermajority threshold (confirmed on the Wikipedia Amendment 4 page). (4) Florida's six-week Heartbeat Protection Act (SB 300) remains in effect (confirmed on the Wikipedia 'Abortion in Florida' page, current as of this review). ADVERSARIAL CHECKS RUN: (a) Could this be IGNORED? No — he did not merely fail to engage; he engaged in the opposite direction. (b) ABSTAINED? No — he announced and took a position rather than avoiding one. (c) HOSTILE? Too harsh — he continued to state publicly that six weeks is too short and did not lead a campaign against the measure; a single announced/cast no vote does not rise to sustained active opposition. (d) The strongest steelman for leniency is that Amendment 4 was a package (viability-plus-health-exception, which Trump characterized as 'nine months'), so a no vote is not strictly a vote for six weeks; he arguably faced a binary where neither option matched his stated position. That nuance is real and is why confidence is 0.83 rather than higher — but it does not change the label, because Amendment 4 was the only available mechanism to lengthen the limit, he voted against it, and in the roughly 20 months since he has advanced no alternative that would lengthen it; the six-week limit he called 'too short' still stands. (e) Party symmetry: a Democrat who said a restrictive limit 'has to be more time,' then voted against the sole ballot measure that would have extended it and pursued no alternative, would receive MISALIGNED under the same standard. Prior rating's outcome stands; confidence adjusted marginally down from 0.85 to 0.83 to reflect the package-deal nuance.