(ZENIT News / Atlanta, 09.19.2024).- As anticipated, the topic of abortion quickly took center stage during the September 10 presidential debate hosted by ABC. Both the moderators and Vice President Kamala Harris faced criticism for their handling of the discussion, accused by some of sidestepping critical facts to advance a specific agenda.
One of the most contentious moments arose when Harris, pressed on abortion limits, refrained from stating any clear boundaries she would support. Her statements drew fire, particularly for misrepresenting the availability of healthcare for women who suffer miscarriages in pro-life states. Contrary to her claims, women in those states do retain access to necessary medical care, including after miscarriages.
Additionally, Harris asserted that women do not seek abortions after carrying pregnancies to term. However, the definition of «to term» became a focal point of disagreement, as thousands of late-term abortions—post-21 weeks—are recorded annually, even though many babies born prematurely at this stage can survive with appropriate care.
False Assumptions Fuel Debate
ABC moderator Linsey Davis further muddied the waters by stating that no state allows babies who survive abortions to be left to die. This statement was met with pushback, as several states lack comprehensive legal protections for infants who survive abortion procedures. In these states, the absence of such safeguards leaves the fate of newborns to the discretion of medical personnel, a grim reality that challenges Davis’ assertion.
Here are some facts that highlight the complexities behind the abortion debate in America:
Late-Term Abortions: More Common Than Acknowledged
A widespread misconception persists about the rarity of late-term abortions. In truth, nearly two dozen states either impose no limits on abortions or permit them after fetal viability for loosely defined «health reasons.» These reasons often extend beyond life-threatening emergencies, allowing for broader interpretations.
In 2021, the CDC recorded over 4,000 abortions past 21 weeks of gestation—a point when many premature babies could survive if provided medical care. The actual figure is likely higher, as states like California and New York, with some of the most permissive abortion laws, do not report such data.
Elective Late-Term Abortions: A Stark Reality
Contrary to popular belief, most late-term abortions are not performed due to fetal anomalies or risks to the mother’s life. According to research, the reasons women seek late-term abortions are often similar to those driving earlier terminations—factors like financial strain, relationship issues, or personal readiness. Even organizations supportive of abortion rights, such as the Guttmacher Institute, acknowledge that the majority of late-term procedures do not stem from medical emergencies.
Infants Surviving Abortions: A Growing Concern
While data on infants surviving abortions is limited, the existing numbers are troubling. Reports from a handful of states suggest that dozens of babies are born alive each year following failed abortion attempts. From 2003 to 2014, the CDC documented 143 such cases, although the true figure is likely higher. Survivors, such as those represented by groups like Melissa Ohden’s Abortion Survivors Network, stand as living testimony to the reality of abortion survivors.
Despite these reports, over half of U.S. states have yet to implement laws that require medical care for babies who survive abortions. In these states, abortion providers face no legal repercussions if they neglect to assist these newborns.
Harris and Walz’s Positions on Abortion Protections
Vice President Harris’s stance on abortion limits has long been controversial. During her time in the Senate, she voted against the Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act, a bill that would have mandated medical care for infants who survive abortion attempts. Similarly, Minnesota Governor Tim Walz, Harris’s potential running mate, has taken a permissive stance, signing laws that allow elective abortions at any stage of pregnancy and weakening protections for infants born alive.
In Minnesota alone, five babies were recorded as surviving abortion procedures in recent years, only to be abandoned without medical care. Critics argue that both Harris and Walz have failed to safeguard the rights of these vulnerable newborns.
The Future of the Abortion Debate
As the nation heads toward the 2024 elections, abortion remains a divisive issue. Vice President Harris’s inability to define limits on abortion contrasts starkly with the legal landscape shaped by the 2022 *Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization* decision, which overturned *Roe v. Wade*. In the aftermath, many states have moved to implement pro-life laws that reflect public opinion on the issue.
Meanwhile, Harris and her political allies have backed legislation that would expand access to abortion throughout all nine months of pregnancy, dismantling the gains made by pro-life advocates. The upcoming election presents a stark choice between two competing visions for abortion policy in America.
With misinformation and heated rhetoric dominating the debate, voters are left to navigate the complex realities of abortion laws and medical ethics. The facts tell a story of late-term abortions, abortion survivors, and a political climate that often overlooks the rights of the unborn. As the election approaches, Americans are challenged to confront these difficult truths and decide the future of abortion in the United States.
Thank you for reading our content. If you would like to receive ZENIT’s daily e-mail news, you can subscribe for free through this link.
