Democratic nominee Tim Walz and Republican nominee JD Vance faced each other in the only Vice Presidential debate of the 2024 election cycle. During the debate hosted by CBS News, the two nominees discussed one of the forefront issues of this election: reproductive rights and Roe v. Wade. Life post-the overturning of Roe v. Wade has been very challenging, but with this election, the danger of losing what little access to reproductive healthcare remains is tremendous, and it’s important to understand what the limitations to reproductive healthcare mean.
After the unprecedented Supreme Court decision of Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, millions of American women across the country were stripped of their constitutional rights. Since then, according to the Guttmacher Institute, 13 states have enacted a total abortion ban while 28 states have abortion bans based on gestational duration, and eight of those 28 states ban abortion at or before 18 weeks gestation.
Access to abortion varies state by state, and there’s a direct correlation between higher maternal mortality and restriction to abortion. One of many studies done regarding this relationship is from Tulane University. They concluded that, “States with more restrictive abortion policy climate have higher total maternal mortality, measured as a death during pregnancy or within one year following the end of a pregnancy.” With the recent two year increase in abortion bans and restrictions, conclusive data and studies to evince the effects from the overturn of Roe v. Wade will not be available for years to come, but many studies, including the one performed by Tulane University, have demonstrated the direct correlation between abortion bans and maternal mortality, proving that with stricter abortion bans, more women die.
Because of these alarming statistics, the amount of Americans who support access to abortions for any reason has grown since the overturn of Roe v. Wade. In July of this year, PBS stated that, “Around 6 in 10 Americans think their state should generally allow a person to obtain a legal abortion if they don’t want to be pregnant for any reason, according to a new poll from The Associated Press-NORC Center for Public Affairs Research.” Despite the majority of Americans supporting the loosest access to abortion, the Republican ticket is still in opposition to reinstituting abortion on a national level, and both Republican nominees are in favor of leaving the determination up to the states.
Republican Presidential nominee Donald Trump and his running mate JD Vance have been outspoken, self-identifying “pro-life” politicians while on the ticket, but neither of them have been consistent with their anti-abortion stance. During the debate on Oct. 1, 2024, JD Vance attempted to reframe his opinions to a more neutral standpoint, and although it may distract from his past statements, it certainly cannot erase them. When running for Senate, Vance stated in a podcast interview with Aimee Terese, “I certainly would like abortion to be illegal nationally,” but in the debate, Vance counteracted this and stated, “I have never supported a national ban.” Vance also attacked Minnesota’s “Protect Reproductive Options Act,” and falsely claimed that, “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.” This is not what the law says. PBS describes the change to the law as follows: “Previously, state law said, ‘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.’ The law was updated to instead say medical personnel must ‘care for the infant who is born alive’… This update to the law means infants who are ‘born alive’ receive appropriate medical care dependent on the pregnancy’s circumstances.”
Minnesota Governor Walz has been a long-term supporter of abortion and signed the “Protect Reproductive Options Act,” passing one of the nation’s most protective legislations over reproductive healthcare. His opinions are clear, so why are Vance’s not? If Vance cannot maintain consistency in his own legislative propositions and opinions, then how are Americans expected to trust him and vote for him and his running mate in the upcoming election?
Vance and Trump’s ambivalence on this issue is disconcerting when analyzing the fatal way women have been directly affected. The meaning of “pro-life” under the Trump administration is indeed not pro-life at all. Amber Thurman is just one of the women who has died because of restrictive access to abortion. If Thurman had lived in a state where abortion was easily accessible, she could be alive today. But, because of the policies that Vance and Trump are in support of, Thurman is not alive, and died from a heartbreaking, preventable death. Thurman is not the first, the only, nor the last who has died or will die from being denied an abortion, and Vance and Trump clearly have no plans of combating this.
How can one claim they are “pro-life” when the policies they support are killing women? How can one claim they are “pro-life” when they do nothing in their position of power to save these women? How can one claim they are “pro-life” when Amanda Thurman is dead? They do claim the title, but they can’t, because they are in direct opposition to stopping preventable deaths.
With an unclear stance on a national ban, and an opposition to the restoration of Roe v. Wade, Vance’s debate performance proved yet again that he is anti-life, anti-facts, and anti-women. It’s simply a fact that more women would be alive if a constitutional right to abortion was still enacted, but Vance and Trump do not seem to mind that science has proven their own personal beliefs to be incorrect and harmful. Vance’s ambiguity around this subject is a direct attack on women and their well-being. The women of America deserve clear responses, but perhaps his lack of commitment to an opinion is clear enough. It certainly is for me.