Tim Walz, the 2024 Democratic vice presidential candidate, advocates for third-trimester abortion rights, sparking intense debate over late-term procedures.
At a Glance
- Walz supports restoring Roe v. Wade, including third-trimester abortion rights
- He emphasizes abortion decisions should be between women and their doctors
- The Harris-Walz ticket focuses on maternal health in their abortion stance
- Walz criticizes Trump’s abortion policies, citing negative consequences
- The candidate avoids specifying limits on third-trimester abortions
Walz’s Stance on Late-Term Abortions Raises Eyebrows
Minnesota Governor Tim Walz, now running as the 2024 Democratic vice presidential candidate alongside Kamala Harris, has taken a controversial stance on third-trimester abortions. During a recent appearance on “CBS Mornings,” Walz articulated the Harris-Walz ticket’s position on abortion rights, particularly focusing on late-term procedures. His comments have ignited a firestorm of debate among conservatives and pro-life advocates.
Walz’s primary argument centers on restoring the rights established by Roe v. Wade, which he claims should govern abortion decisions, even in the third trimester. This position effectively advocates for allowing abortions up to the point of birth, a stance that many Americans find extreme and morally reprehensible.
Tim Walz twice refuses to answer questions on ‘CBS Mornings’ whether he and Kamala Harris oppose any restriction on abortions, even in the third trimester and well after a child reaches viability….
Adriana Diaz: “One of the things that Vice President Harris says she wants to… pic.twitter.com/fcU6AVnSfQ
— Curtis Houck (@CurtisHouck) October 30, 2024
The ‘Health of the Mother’ Argument
Walz and the Harris campaign are attempting to frame their position on late-term abortions as a matter of women’s health. They argue that decisions about third-trimester abortions should be left to women and their healthcare providers, focusing on the “health of the mother.” However, this broad and vague criterion could potentially be used to justify abortions for any reason, even when the baby is viable outside the womb.
During a CBS appearance, Walz said the next president should “restore the right of Roe v. Wade, making sure that women and their healthcare providers — because these services are health care — making sure those decisions are made in the best interests of the health of the mother.”
This stance raises serious ethical questions about the value of unborn life and the limits of personal autonomy. It’s worth noting that many medical professionals argue that there are virtually no medical situations in the third trimester where abortion is necessary to save the mother’s life – early delivery can achieve the same result without intentionally killing the baby.
Dodging the Tough Questions
When pressed by co-host Adriana Diaz about potential limits on abortion, including third-trimester procedures, Walz notably avoided providing a direct answer. Instead, he repeated the campaign’s talking point about restoring Roe v. Wade, without specifying any limits on late-term abortions.
“Look, I’m going to go back again. Roe was very clear on what they did. We want the restoration of Roe, and that’s the position we’re taking,” Walz said.
This evasion tactic is troubling, as it suggests that the Harris-Walz ticket is unwilling to draw any line when it comes to abortion, even in cases where the baby could survive outside the womb. Such an extreme position is out of step with the majority of Americans, who support some restrictions on late-term abortions.
Attacking Trump’s Policies
In an attempt to deflect attention from their own radical stance, Walz criticized Donald Trump’s abortion policies. He cited alleged negative consequences, such as women having miscarriages without proper care, and referenced a specific case in Georgia where a woman’s death was attributed to restrictive abortion laws.
However, these claims often lack context and fail to acknowledge that laws restricting abortion typically include exceptions for the life and health of the mother. The attempt to paint pro-life policies as dangerous to women’s health is a common tactic used to avoid addressing the moral implications of unrestricted abortion access.
