Please ensure Javascript is enabled for purposes of website accessibility
couple looking at an ultrasound image on an ipad

The Vice Presidential Debate Revealed a Powerful Pro-Life Argument

October 22, 2024

Share

The recent vice presidential debate was watched by forty million Americans. Like past vice presidential debates, this one is unlikely to make much difference in the outcome of the election. But it may be remembered for a different reason: It brought to the foreground the troubling reality of post-birth abortion. It also provided pro-lifers an opportunity to make a powerful argument against the pro-choice position.

At issue was Minnesota’s repeal of its born-alive infant protection language in 2022, which Kamala Harris’ running mate, Minnesota Governor Tim Walz, signed. The language was altered as follows: “All reasonable measures consistent with good medical practice, including the compilation of appropriate medical records, shall be taken by the responsible medical personnel to preserve the life and health of the born alive infant care for the infant who is born alive.”

The duty to preserve the life and health of the infant born alive (in a botched abortion or otherwise) is removed and in its place is a mere duty to provide comfort “care”—i.e., make the dying infant comfortable. We know at least a couple dozen babies, including some with non-fatal diagnoses, were born alive and left to die after botched abortions in Minnesota over the past decade or so. And we know that this phenomenon is not isolated to Minnesota. Pro-life activist and former nurse Jill Stanek Jill Stanek testified as a witness to the practice in Illinois. And former Governor of Virginia Ralph Northam explicitly countenanced post-birth infant-killing by omission. 

In the vice presidential debate, vice presidential candidate JD Vance asked Walz about the Minnesota law, suggesting it permitted the barbaric practice of infanticide. However, Mr. Walz denied that and insisted that that wasn’t true and a misinterpretation.

Let us take Walz’s claim at face value for a moment. If Walz isn’t lying, he believes that the right to terminate a pregnancy does not equal a right to a dead baby. What would that logically imply? If the “right to terminate a pregnancy”—the euphemistic formulation of the right commonly invoked by pro-choicers—does not equal a right to a dead baby, then it logically follows that the right to terminate a pregnancy is secure in any state that protects a right to give birth. For, giving birth is the natural termination of a pregnancy. Walz’s denial logically implies that “reproductive freedom” is in fact secure across the country.

The born-alive infant protection acts plant a premise in the law that undermines permissive abortion regimes.

To further illustrate how the right to terminate a pregnancy does not equal a right to a dead baby, imagine a world in which artificial wombs were no longer the stuff of science fiction. A state in that case could consistently protect a right of “termination of pregnancies” while also requiring the unborn child to be transferred to an artificial womb. The distinction between the right to terminate a pregnancy and a right to a dead baby, which born-alive infant protection language forces us to recognize, turns out to be a dagger to the heart of the pro-abortion argument and the institutional forces that promote and profit from it.

In addition to the federal government, of the fifty states in the union, thirty-five have some form of born-alive infant protection. Thirteen have no legislation on the matter. Only three have removed protection: Minnesota, Illinois, and New York. As author Hadley Arkes has argued, the born-alive infant protection acts plant a premise in the law that undermines permissive abortion regimes. That premise is that the born infant has intrinsic dignity and is deserving of the same respect and equal protection of the laws as any other human. It further suggests that the pre-born infant has intrinsic dignity and is deserving of equal protection of the laws, since nothing about the nature of the child fundamentally changes before and after birth.

Of course, Walz insists that “reproductive rights” are under grave threat and that the Harris-Walz ticket deserves Americans’ votes because a Harris administration would support federal legislation mandating that states permit abortion nationwide. (Set aside for the moment that in every abortion, reproduction has already taken place, at the moment of conception.) Walz’s position is that reproductive freedom is not secure. Why? He could simply be inconsistent. But a likelier possibility is apparent: Walz affirms that the right to terminate a pregnancy is equal to a right to a dead baby. And he repealed the born-alive infant protection language precisely to codify that belief. If correct, Walz likely fibbed because his abortion radicalism is out of touch with most Americans’ beliefs on the subject. 

Walz is just one politician, and rhetorically he is simply a stand-in for the pro-abortion position. But his is one of only three states to remove protection for born-alive infants. And he does express the view of the person who would be president of the United States. His implicit denial in the debate that the right to terminate a pregnancy equals a right to a dead baby entails a clear either/or. Either “reproductive freedom” and the “right to terminate a pregnancy” is in fact secure across a country in which everyone has an equal right to have sex, conceive children, and give birth to them. Or the standard-bearers of the pro-choice political party and would-be leaders of the free world are liars covering up their pro-abortion radicalism. Choose one.