Overview
During Tuesday night’s debate, vice presidential nominee J.D. Vance sharply criticized his opponent, Minnesota Governor Tim Walz, for rolling back laws that previously protected babies who survive abortion attempts. Vance accused Walz of supporting policies that are “barbaric” for eliminating a requirement to preserve the life and health of these infants.
Why It Matters
The protection of vulnerable newborns is a critical moral issue, and removing safeguards for infants born alive raises concerns about the value placed on life. This highlights the ongoing debate about the limits of abortion policies in the U.S.
Who It Impacts
The issue affects newborns who survive abortion procedures, medical professionals responsible for their care, and pro-life advocates who fight for stronger protections for infants.
Vance Slams Walz for Rolling Back Protections for Babies Who Survive Abortions
In a tense exchange during Tuesday’s vice presidential debate, GOP nominee J.D. Vance condemned Minnesota Governor Tim Walz for his role in eliminating laws that previously protected babies who survive abortion attempts. Vance focused his criticism on Walz’s repeal of a bipartisan measure that required doctors to report instances where a baby is born alive after a failed abortion and what steps were taken to save the infant’s life.
Vance took aim at Walz’s actions, accusing the governor of supporting a system that neglects to safeguard the lives of infants in these situations. “That is fundamentally barbaric,” Vance said during the debate, emphasizing that Walz’s policies no longer require medical professionals to take measures to preserve the life and health of babies born alive after botched abortions. Instead, the law only mandates “care” without specific provisions for life-saving actions.
Walz denied Vance’s accusation, but the data from Minnesota’s own health department painted a troubling picture. Between January and December of 2021, there were five reported cases of babies born alive during abortions in the state. In one case, a baby with fetal anomalies was left without any medical intervention, resulting in death shortly after birth. Three other infants received “comfort care measures” before dying, and no life-preserving efforts were made for two “previable” babies.
Vance accurately points out that Tim Walz repealed Minnesota's requirement that measures be taken to preserve the “life and health” of a baby who survives an abortion, replacing it with a nebulous requirement for “care.”
Vance: "That is fundamentally barbaric." pic.twitter.com/KukWZS2lRL
— Mary Margaret Olohan (@MaryMargOlohan) October 2, 2024
Minnesota was once one of the few states that tracked these cases, providing transparency about what happens when a baby survives an abortion. However, in May 2023, Walz signed a law that repealed this reporting requirement, making it harder for the public to know how many babies are born alive in such circumstances and whether they receive proper care. This rollback has drawn intense criticism from pro-life advocates, including Vance, who view it as a dangerous move away from protecting vulnerable newborns.
Walz’s January 2023 signing of an expansive abortion law further fueled the debate, as the legislation removed nearly all restrictions on how late a woman can terminate her pregnancy. Vance highlighted this law to underscore his point that Walz’s policies are extreme and neglect to protect unborn and newly born babies.
The debate over how to handle these delicate situations reflects the broader national conversation about the limits of abortion rights and the importance of transparency in medical care for infants. Vance’s criticism of Walz is likely to resonate with pro-life voters who are deeply concerned about the moral and ethical implications of removing these protections. While only a handful of states report on babies born alive during abortions, the issue remains a lightning rod in the ongoing abortion debate.
