Tuesday’s Vice Presidential was refreshingly substantive and civil. Once again, though, the debate moderators were biased in the way they asked questions and in the issues they covered, or didn’t cover. Our analysis focuses on the issue of abortion. Bias was apparent in the way the question was posed:
NORA O’DONNELL: Now to the issue of reproductive rights.
The use of the term ‘reproductive rights’ was tested in focus groups by pro-abortion organizations. It has proven to be very effective, and corporate media quickly adopted it, because it seems so benign. It’s not, not when a unique human being is killed for simply being inconvenient. What about their rights?
NORA O’DONNELL: Governor Walz, after Roe v. Wade was overturned, you signed a bill into law that made Minnesota one of the least restrictive states in the nation when it comes to abortion. Former President Trump said in the last debate that you believe abortion, quote, in the 9th month is absolutely fine. Yes or no? Is that what you support? I’ll give you two minutes.
You see the bias …
In essence, she asks “are you fine with killing fully formed, viable babies in the womb?” No one but the most hard-hearted person (or perhaps Bill Maher) would respond, “Yes, I’m totally fine with that.”
How would an unbiased moderator ask the question? How about like this:
“Governor Walz, after Roe v. Wade was overturned, you signed a bill into law that made Minnesota one of the least restrictive states in the nation when it comes to abortion, a law that allows abortion even after the point of viability. A lot of people aren’t comfortable with that. What is your response to them?”
Our revised question changes the dynamic from a slam dunk ‘yes’ or ‘no’ response to one that gives Governor Walz an opportunity to flesh out the philosophical, as well as political, underpinnings of his position.
In light of the fact that some 800,000 babies will be aborted in the next twelve months under the current legal framework, and will increase under the plan advocated by the Harris/Walz campaign, they owe it to the nation to take the time to provide a comprehensive explanation for such a radical position, one their own party once rejected.
One-hundred and twenty seconds is simply not enough time to spend on an issue upon which so many lives hang.
Walz responded:
TIM WALZ: That’s not what the bill says.
So what DOES this bill say? We covered it in a blogpost last month. Take a look:
Sec 56. Minnesota Statutes 2022 section 145.423, subdivision 1, is amended to read:
Subdivision 1. Recognition; medical care. A born alive An infant as a result of an abortion who is born alive shall be fully recognized as a human person, and accorded immediate protection under the law.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.
EFFECTIVE DATE. This section is effective the day following final enactment.
You can see that their amended law strikes out wording that protects babies who survive their abortion. Eight Minnesota babies survived their abortions, only to be left to die under Governor Walz’s legal regimen.
Don’t you think Norah O’Donnell should have explored the subject?
Reasons why most women have abortions
In response to Ms. O’Donnell’s question, Walz focused in on three examples of women who were either raped or had pregnancy complications that led them to seek abortions, but were denied due to their state laws.
Our vice-presidential debate analysis must point out that rape and incest are the cause of but 1.5% of all abortions. These are significant and understandable reasons why someone might want an abortion. Most (but not all) pro-life laws allow for these types of exceptions. (Legitimate counter arguments can be made, which we’ve made in previous posts.)
But the reasons for the other 98.5% of abortions have to do with inconvenience. Here’s how the pro-abortion Guttmacher Institute ranked the reasons women express for having abortions:
74% Having a baby would dramatically change my life (inconvenient)
73% Can’t afford a baby right now (inconvenient)
48% Don’t want to be a single mother or having relationship problems (inconvenient)
These reasons are certainly understandable, but totally inadequate for ending the life of the innocent party (the baby) who was brought into the world by choice of a man and woman to engage in sexual relations. Even more, couples desperate for a family wait in line to adopt these babies.
Mr. Walz ignores the reality that most abortions have nothing to do with rape or incest. He calls for top-down federal laws that eliminate all regulation on abortions at the state level, again a subject on which Norah O’Donnell had no interest in pursuing. Rather, she took Walz’s bait that Republicans want to create a federal pregnancy monitoring agency. (For the record, the Centers for Disease Control already reports on abortion data, regardless of the party in control of the Congress or White House.)
Vance’s response
So how did Senator Vance do in his response? Some was very good, some a little too defensive.
As this blog has observed, pro-life politicians who are defensive on the issue don’t tend to do well in their elections, while those who go on offense tend to win big (Kim Reynolds, Kay Ivey, Sara Huckabee Sanders, Brad Little, Kevin Stitt, Kristi Noem, Greg Abbot, Brian Kemp, Mike Dewine, Bill Lee, Henry McMaster, Ron DeSantis, etc.).
Senator Vance prosecuted Trump’s position on abortion well as a state’s rights issue:
“Donald Trump has been very clear that on the abortion policy specifically, that we have a big country and it’s diverse. And California has a different viewpoint on this than Georgia. Georgia has a different viewpoint from Arizona. And the proper way to handle this, as messy as democracy sometimes is, is to let voters make these decisions, let the individual states make their abortion policy. And I think that’s what makes the most sense in a very big, a very diverse, and let’s be honest, sometimes a very, very messy and divided country.”
Mr. Vance missed an opportunity when he said,
“You know, I grew up in a working class family in a neighborhood where I knew a lot of young women who had unplanned pregnancies and decided to terminate those pregnancies because they feel like they didn’t have any other options. And, you know, one of them is actually very dear to me. And I know she’s watching tonight, and I love you. And she told me something a couple years ago that she felt like if she hadn’t had that abortion, that it would have destroyed her life because she was in an abusive relationship.”
This is where Vance could have identified that more than half of the women that had abortions were pressured to do so by boyfriends.
This is where he could have informed the American people about the free, non-governmental resources available to women in crisis pregnancies, such as pregnancy resource centers, to help these women survive the crisis, and land on their feet.
Instead, he went on defense, pinning blame on Republicans:
“We’ve got to do so much better of a job at earning the American People’s trust back on this issue where they frankly just don’t trust us.”
Is this a good debating tactic? We don’t think so.
Republicans aren’t the radicals on abortion, it’s the side that wants to take the Minnesota model of no restraints on abortion and nationalize it. If Harris/Walz have it their way, Iowa’s hard-fought Heartbeat Law will be in grave jeopardy.
What if the filibuster goes?
Democratic leaders say they will abolish the filibuster if they retain control of the Senate, the only obstacle to imposing their national ban on pro-life regulations like Heartbeat and Fetal-Pain laws.
Our Vice Presidential debate analysis likes the way Vance used the term, ‘pro-family policies.’ (But IVF, in vitro fertilization, shouldn’t be included in the conversation, because it can lead to the destruction of fertilized eggs, which are complete human beings.)
Vance ended the exchange by going on offense, and he was very effective:
“As I read the Minnesota law that you signed into law, the statute that you signed into law, it says that a doctor who presides over an abortion, where the baby survives, the doctor is under no obligation to provide lifesaving care to a baby who survives a botched late term abortion. That is, I think, whether it’s not pro-choice or pro-abortion, that is fundamentally barbaric. And that’s why I use that word, Norah, is because some of what we’ve seen, do you want to force catholic hospitals to perform abortions against their will? Because Kamala Harris has supported suing catholic nuns to violate their freedom of conscience? We can be a big and diverse country where we respect people’s freedom of conscience. And make the country more pro-baby and pro-family.”
All in all, good job by J.D. Vance, but a less than forthright presentation by Tim Walz on this critical issue.
