Vance, Walz clash over late-term abortion, protections for born-alive infants in debate

[Michie]

In their first and only vice presidential debate this election season, Republican Sen. JD Vance and Democratic Gov. Tim Walz on Tuesday night clashed on whether abortion should be a federal or state issue and sparred over each other’s records on abortion limits and protections for infants born alive from botched abortions.

During the Oct. 1 CBS debate, moderated by network anchors Norah O’Donnell and Margaret Brennan, both candidates quarreled over abortion policy and about which presidential ticket has the best track record on handling illegal immigration and the economy.

Vance is an incumbent senator from Ohio running on former president Donald Trump’s ticket, while Walz is the incumbent governor of Minnesota serving as Vice President Kamala Harris’ running mate. Vance is a convert to Catholicism and Walz was raised Catholic but now attends a Lutheran church.

Continued below.

Vance, Walz clash over late-term abortion in vice presidential debate

During the Oct. 1 CBS debate both candidates quarreled over abortion policy and about which presidential ticket has the best track record on immigration.

www.catholicnewsagency.com

 

[Danthemailman]

I will never understand the democrats obsession with abortion. They seem to view the right to kill an unborn child as a special right above all other rights.

 

[Danthemailman]

So, what's the verdict on that Minnesota bill in regard to whether or not it supports abortion in the ninth month? Walz claims “that’s not what the bill says.” He did not say whether he would support any restrictions on late-term abortions.

 

[Lady Bug]

This was the only debate in years that I could actually watch (I didn't catch all of it). There was actual civility and no personal attacks, from what I did see. I doubt I'll ever see a debate like that again.

 

[joymercy]

@Lady Bug I agree with you on that one. It was most pleasantly surprising to see a "reaching across the aisle" response being made in particular by Walz, who kept finding common ground on problem solving with Vance. This is American. We need not division but unity at this terrible time in the world. We can make America great again, but we need to work together on that. Are we not the United States?

 

[RileyG]

I will never understand the democrats obsession with abortion. They seem to view the right to kill an unborn child as a special right above all other rights.

It's the party of death.

They cry about children being shot but are ok with children being ripped from their mother's womb.

Hypocrites.

 

[Danthemailman]

It's the party of death.

They cry about children being shot but are ok with children being ripped from their mother's womb.

Hypocrites.

Proverbs 8:36 - but he who fails to find me injures himself; all who hate me love death.

 

[RileyG]

Proverbs 8:36 - but he who fails to find me injures himself; all who hate me love death.

We must pray for them. They need it.

 

[Akita Suggagaki]

So, what's the verdict on that Minnesota bill in regard to whether or not it supports abortion in the ninth month? Walz claims “that’s not what the bill says.” He did not say whether he would support any restrictions on late-term abortions.

A Minnesota law that had been on the books since 1976 required “responsible medical personnel” to use “[a]ll reasonable measures consistent with good medical practice” to “preserve the life and health of the born alive infant.”

The legislation Walz signed in May 2023 got rid of the word “preserve” and replaced the previous wording with a revised requirement “to care for the infant who is born alive.”

Pro-lifers say they find that change disturbing.

 

[mourningdove~]

Here is an entire article about the Minnesota law. ​

(And the pro-life concern is the difference between "Lifesaving Care" and "Comfort Care". There IS a difference.)​

​

Tim Walz Removed Requirement to Try to Save Babies Born Alive After Abortion​

Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz’s elevated profile as Vice President Kamala Harris’ Democratic running mate has led to wider awareness of his staunch support for abortion in his state — including a bill he signed into law last year that removed a requirement to try to save the life of a baby born alive after an attempted abortion.

A Minnesota law that had been on the books since 1976 required “responsible medical personnel” to use “[a]ll reasonable measures consistent with good medical practice” to “preserve the life and health of the born alive infant.”

The legislation Walz signed in May 2023 got rid of the word “preserve” and replaced the previous wording with a revised requirement “to care for the infant who is born alive.”

Pro-lifers say they find that change disturbing.

“The concern is that the law no longer requires that lifesaving measures be taken. It only requires ‘care.’ So the law as it’s now written could allow a baby to be left to die, even a baby who could be saved with appropriate lifesaving measures,” Paul Stark, communications director with the pro-life group Minnesota Citizens Concerned for Life, told the Register.

The law is one of the items the organization cited earlier this week in a statement by its co-executive director, Cathy Blaeser, that called Walz “an abortion absolutist.”

The same 2023 Minnesota law also removed a previous requirement to report to the state the deaths of aborted unborn babies 20 weeks’ gestation and older and stopped state funding for pro-life pregnancy centers.

The Register contacted the press offices of the Harris campaign and of the Minnesota governor on Wednesday morning, but did not hear back by deadline.


Tim Walz Removed Requirement to Try to Save Babies Born Alive After Abortion

 

[Akita Suggagaki]

Tim Walz Removed Requirement to Try to Save Babies Born Alive After Abortion

One would think the presumption is to do “[a]ll reasonable measures consistent with good medical practice” to “.the life and health of the born alive infant.” Does it really need to be explicit? In these times , yes. " “to care for the infant who is born alive” can mean sadly watch it die.

 

[Sword of the Lord]

The person who wants late term abortion (or any abortion, but especially late term, and especially 9th month/post birth) and says it with a straight face in all seriousness needs an exorcism, not a title and an office.

 

[RileyG]

The person who wants late term abortion (or any abortion, but especially late term, and especially 9th month/post birth) and says it with a straight face in all seriousness needs an exorcism, not a title and an office.

Amen!

They’re truly sick in their soul.

 

[Cosmic Charlie]

Ok,

I'm kinda sick of the propaganda of the Pro-life movement, and REALLY sick of my state being dragged through the mud so this movement can feel good about itself.

And, ftr, I'm complete done with the Minnesota Citizen's Concern for Life.

You want Hypocrites, Riles, go look at this crew.

Anyway....

Does the MN Pro-ACT have a viability date built into it ? No.

There, I said it. In Minnesota, a woman has a right to an abortion. Period.

If you're unhappy about it, don't move to Minnesota, I guess. Hey, it was a REPUBLICAN president who got Roe overturned and according to him EVERYBODY wanted this back in the hands of the states and no one but he could do it.

So go complain to him if you don't like it.

Now....

Why was the wording changed from "preserving life" to "supporting care" (paraphrasing here, don't care to look up the law right now)

At the request of both doctors and lawyers, that's why. They have been after Minnesota to change this wording for a while.

Understand, if you dare:

1) "Abortion" in this law is a medical term, not a moral one. It means the premature ending of a pregnancy. It doesn't specific nor indicate whether the premature ending occurred intentionally or not. What a layman would call a "miscarriage" is, medically, an abortion. Medically, the law doesn't make mention or nor make a difference in whether the abortion was intended, accidental or just one of those things that happens, they're all the same.

2) Nobody, like, seriously, nobody has an intentional abortion after about 25 weeks. It just doesn't happen. UNLESS: there's a serious medical issue, then you have might need of one. But 99.7% of abortions (of all types) after 30 weeks are because of serious medical issues.

3) There are, unfortunately, babies born early due to naturally, unintended abortions that are born alive and with horrible defects. The old law could have been interpreted as stating that, medically and legally, these babies had to have what is referred to as "heroic" medical measures preformed on them in an attempt to save their lives.

Medical professionals didn't like the law because all these heroic measure did was extend the life of the babies at great cost and suffering for a few days, and then they died anyway. Supportive, palliative care seems like an alternative that should be allowed as an option.

The lawyers wanted the wording changed because it was taking medical decisions out of the hands of the kid's parents, and, ultimately, the parents should have the ability to make a decision whether heroic care is desired or even appropriate.

So, there you are. Makes sense to me, working in the trenches, doing the grunt work necessary to change the law in order to give parents more control over the healthcare of their children and more options in the case of the unthinkable as the parent of a deformed and suffering child.

But it SOOOOOO much easier to run in circle and scream and shout, especially if it makes you feel all superior and stuff.

So....

Carry on.

PS : One more thing as long as I here and in a mood:

I don't care what third hand facebook/X/TicTok meme you've seen or whatever scare video someone found on Youtube or what story you've read about the "eyewitness" reports of some anonymous "medical professional":

This is no such thing as a fetus, no matter how many weeks mature, surviving an intended abortion. If you do the completely absurd thing and actually look up how these procedures are performed (I do these things so you don't have to, you should thank me) you see that it's an impossibility. Doctors are professionals. They do their jobs well.

The ONLY surviving babes are those whose survived unintended, accidental or one of those things that happens abortions.

 

[RileyG]

@Cosmic Charlie There are hypocrites on both ends of the spectrum. I'm not going to argue about that.