During the recent ABC debate between Kamala Harris and Donald Trump, Harris claimed that if “Trump were to be re-elected, he will sign a national abortion ban,” and “the freedom to make decisions about one’s own body should never be made by the government.”  Trump answered that “I’m not signing a ban” and “I’m not in favor of an abortion ban” and added that because Roe v. Wade was overturned, “it doesn’t matter because this issue has now been taken up by the states.”

Harris refused to answer if she supports any abortion restrictions but has repeatedly claimed that Trump would ban abortions, including at her acceptance speech.  So has her running mate, Tim Walz, even adding that reproductive choice “is none or your damn business.”  But Trump has never supported an abortion ban, in the past (when he was pro-choice) or currently.  He’s also made clear that he supports exceptions for rape, incest, and life of the mother, and in November, he will be voting against Florida’s six-week abortion ban, saying, “You need more time than six weeks.” 

But what do Kamala Harris and Tim Walz really support?  When anointed Democrat nominee Kamala Harris chose far-left Tim Walz as her running mate, she validated something insidious and troubling.  Both have a history of supporting and even voting for abortion with no restrictions, even during the third trimester.  Even more troubling is they have voted against protecting babies who survive abortions attempts.

It began in 2013, when California House Democrat Judy Chu, who considers abortion “a fundamental human right,” proposed the “Women’s Health Protection Act.”  The proposed bill would ban any restrictions at any stage of the pregnancy unless there was a risk to the woman’s health.  The bill had several House Democrat cosponsors, but when it made it to the Senate, it died in committee.  In 2015, Chu again introduced the act, and then–Minnesota congressman Tim Walz became a co-sponsor.  When the bill arrived in the Senate, it once again died in committee.  

In 2017, Chu began the process again, and with Walz as a co-sponsor.  After Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.) proposed it in the Senate, there was a new cosponsor: then-senator Kamala Harris from California.  But it would again die in committee.  In 2019, Chu would try again, but Walz was now Minnesota’s governor, and Harris remained a co-sponsor in the Senate, where it again died in committee. 

But in the next session of Congress, the act would come perilously close to passing.  On September 24, 2021, the House voted along party lines, 218-211, with one Democrat defector, Henry Cuellar from Texas.  When the bill came to a Senate vote on May 11, 2022 (this time without Harris, who was now vice president), Joe Manchin of West Virginia was the only Democrat defector.  The final vote was 51-49 for the bill, but the 60-vote filibuster rule prevented its passage.

Both Biden and Harris slammed the defeat of the act, with Biden releasing a statement saying the bill had the support of the American people while attacking Republicans and added that if voters would elect more Democrats, he would sign the bill into law.  Harris soon spoke after the vote, echoing Biden, and in a speech that July (at the 24th minute) and another in November (at the 24th minute) — and right before the midterms — said that if Democrats could add two more seats in the Senate, they could overcome support for the 60-vote filibuster rule (which included Democrats Sinema from Arizona and Manchin) and permanently remove the filibuster and be able to pass many radical bills, including the Women’s Health Protection Act, but they failed. 

But just this past week, Harris threw a curve ball, claiming that if the Democrats hold the Senate (and with Manchin and Sinema retiring), they can eliminate the filibuster with 51 votes and re-establish Roe v. Wade, making no mention of her previous plans to remove all restrictions with the Women’s Health Protection Act.

As for the act in the current session, it was reintroduced last year on March 30 in the House, where it is stalled in committee.  In the Senate, it’s been indefinitely placed on the calendar, with Democrats hoping (as Harris said about her red-herring “plan” to reinstitute Roe) that with the upcoming election, they have enough votes in the Senate to finally eliminate the filibuster and establish the no-restrictions Women’s Health Protection Act as law.  If successful, that would dramatically supersede any plans to reinstitute any version of Roe. 

But another bill has been making its way through Congress since 2015, and the Democrat opposition to it is far more egregious and atrocious than their support for abortion with no restrictions. 

It’s the Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act, also known as the “Born Alive Act,” introduced by former congressman Trent Franks (R-Ariz.).  It required any health care practitioner to provide care for any child born after a failed abortion.  On September 15, 2015, it passed the House, 248-177, with only five Democrats voting “yes.”  Among those voting “no” was Tim Walz, and when the bill was sent to the Senate, it died in committee. 

Finally, on February 25, 2020, the bill received a full vote in the Senate.  The vote was 56-41 in favor, with just three Democrats voting “yes,” but because of the 60-vote filibuster, it failed.  One of those voting against was Kamala Harris, who was months away from accepting the vice presidential nomination.  So both Harris and Walz have cruelly voted against taking any action to save infants who have survived a failed or attempted abortion. 

Just last year, the Republicans tried again, with the bill finally receiving a second House vote.  It passed on January 11, 2023 along party-lines, 220-210, with Henry Cuellar from Texas the only Democrat voting “yes.”  It’s currently in limbo in the Senate. 

After Walz left the House to become governor of Minnesota in 2019, his obsession with no restrictions on abortion and not protecting infants born after a failed attempt has continued with a vengeance.  One day after the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade on June 24, 2022, leaving abortion laws to be decided by each state, Walz signed an emergency executive order on Saturday the 25th “Protecting Access to Reproductive Health Services in Minnesota.” 

The order invited people from other states to come to Minnesota to receive abortions.  This led to a marked increase of abortions within the state and even included 226 abortions in the third trimester, most of which had been previously barred by Roe.

Walz wasn’t finished.  After his re-election, Walz now had both houses in St. Paul, with Democrats in the majority.  During January, they debated the “Protect Reproductive Options Act,” which included no restrictions at any point of pregnancy except for the mother’s health.  Republicans failed to include provisions prohibiting third-trimester abortions.  So, on January 23, 2023 — one day after the 50th anniversary of the Roe decision — Walz proudly signed the state bill codifying abortions with no restrictions.

Walz was still not through.  In 2015, the state passed the “Born-Alive Infants Protection Act,” which required that “reasonable measures” be taken to save a baby after a failed abortion.  In May 2023, Walz moved to repeal the law.  The House narrowly voted to repeal along party lines, with only one Democrat voting against, while the Senate narrowly voted to repeal along party lines.  Walz signed the repeal of the Protection Act on May 24, 2023.

On the issue of third-trimester abortions, a majority of the country has consistently opposed the procedure.  Many Democrats and proponents argue that they are rare, and records show that 1.3 percent of abortions performed each year are late-term.  But there were approximately one million abortions in 2023, which means that 13,000 third-trimester abortions were carried out.  And a 2013 journal posted by the pro-choice Guttmacher Institute reported that most late-term abortions are elective, many of them because of indecision or partner abandonment.

As for Kamala Harris and Tim Walz, their adoration for abortion with no restrictions, not even to protect newborns who survive failed abortions, is truly unsettling.

Image: Nogwater via Flickr, CC BY-SA 2.0 (cropped).