Catholic Moral Theologian Corrects Presidential Debate Record on Late-Term Abortion

dissecting the debate between Harris and Trump through the week. Joining us now to analyze the debate from a Catholic perspective is moral theologian Charles Camosy , professor of medical humanities at the Creighton University School of Medicine. Charlie, it's great to see you . And earlier this week you had a piece published in the Atlantic titled Pro-Life Voters Are Politically Homeless. You said pro-lifers don't fit into any major party . So after watching the debate this week, Charlie, is that still your stance ? >> I think it has to be. I mean, what we have before us, at least with the two major candidates, and there are other people we could consider. But the two major candidates are one is pro-abortion right up until birth, and sometimes after birth. The other is pro-choice, with , slightly less objectionable views. But I've spent, let's just say a lot of decades in the pro-life movement, and we've spent a lot of time working for pro-life candidates to try to get pro-life candidates into places where we could support them. And one of the things I argue in the Atlantic piece is what this unfortunate situation actually gives us is a chance to maybe get back to our roots, to say, maybe the most important thing isn't the next election cycle or the next 2 or 3 years. But those foundational values of nonviolence care for the most vulnerable and giving a voice to the voiceless. >> Abortion has definitely been a big topic this election cycle, and was a big topic at the debate. There's been a lot of buzz about the fact checking that the ABC moderators did throughout the debate. Let's take a listen to this comment from former President Donald Trump on abortion and how. ABC moderator Linsey Davis responded. >> Her vice presidential pick says abortion in the ninth month is absolutely fine. He also says execution after birth. It's execution no longer abortion because the baby is born is okay. And that's not okay with me. >> There is no state in this country where it is legal to kill a baby after it's born. >> Charlie , you study abortion laws closely. Is that an accurate fact? Check >> Let me know. But let me steel man her argument as best I could. If what she means by that is there's no possible place in a state where you can do an active killing, you know, with giving the child poison or with a sharp instrument or something. Then she's right about that. But she's totally wrong . If by what we're talking about, that's of course, what we're talking about is medical neglect aiming at death by omission after abortion or after this is something that hasn't been talked about as much. Catherine, I think it should be. What often happens is in these contexts is there's a disabled child prenatally and the medical team puts significant pressure on parents to have an abortion. Parents tell me stories about this all the time , and often the parents refuse, right? And sometimes the medical team will say, well, we could even make a decision about this after birth, right? They could. What they're saying is we can medically neglect the child after birth until they die by omission . This happens unfortunately, regularly. And so if what the fact checker is saying is that doesn't happen, she's unfortunately really incorrect about that. >> And we heard former President Trump mention the Democratic vice president, governor Tim Walz in Minnesota. What do we know about his stance on that in the state that he governs ? >> I mean, one of the reasons why we know this happens is because Tim Walz and company specifically, change the laws in Minnesota, which would have required, medical teams to care for babies in those particular situations. Newborn babies in those particular situations. It made it illegal to engage in medical neglect. Aiming at the death of children in those in those circumstances. They changed the laws specifically to allow medical neglect in those situations , which is the extension of abortion. Again, often this comes about because of a failed abortion or because abortion was pushed. And maybe he thought we could well do the same kind of thing after birth. Tim Walz in Minnesota changed the laws . Let's be absolutely clear about this to allow that kind of medical neglect to happen. >> Thank you for your clarification on that. Something that's unique in this cycle is that both major parties are supporting the use of in vitro fertilization, or IVF. As a theologian , can you explain why that is problematic for Catholic voters? >> I think the first thing to say about this is, is we can always start with what Pope Francis says as being a field hospital, right? So there's tremendous pain out there. And you and I both know about this, with regard to infertility and people trying to get pregnant. And, this is one answer. IVF is not the right answer, but that's one answer to some people experiencing this pain. So let's acknowledge that right up front. This is very personal for many people. What happens in IVF is most of your viewers know is that these embryos that are created, often don't get quote unquote used in the process. And so either get discarded as trash, this is another example of throwaway culture. We're just talking about medical neglect is throwaway culture. This is throwaway culture. Again Or they get used and killed via embryonic research. Or they get indefinitely frozen , essentially a kind of captivity , and none of this is this is classic throwaway culture. So if we're going to participate in this as a response, to the very real pain of infertility, this is not the right kind of response. We need to find alternatives that don't participate so dramatically in throwaway culture, >> Charlie, turning to the topic of the economy, though, it's still related to the pro-life issue. Vice President Kamala Harris boasted about her plan to extend a $6,000 child tax credit for families. And I should note, Republican vice presidential candidate J.D. Vance has campaigned on a $5,000 tax credit. How significant for families are these tax credit proposals? And are you surprised? It seems both parties are in agreement on this a little bit, though I think one good thing that has come from Trump's election back in 2016 is the Republican Party has been shifted pretty dramatically on these questions. >> The party that existed before him was a libertarian party , right? One that didn't really talk about these kinds of things as easily, J.D. Vance represents something quite different, a party that would support families, that would really be aggressive in supporting children this way. And so that's all to the good. And that's a big part, I think, that we can agree on across the we don't hear a lot about agreement across abortion difference these days. There's a lot more money to be made. You know, pitting people against each other. But one thing that we can agree on, isn't it, these kinds of supports for families to make it easier for women and families to choose life. This is deep, profound , common ground that we should be seeking, >> Charlie, with our final minute remaining together, was there anything else that stood out to you from the debate that you think is significant? And based on this debate, what's your pulse of the nation's political health right now? >> Well, this kind of gets back to the original point I was making in the Atlantic. I think it's good for pro-lifers and for Catholics to kind of step back and take a look at the horror show that that debate was. I mean, we have really two warring political and ideological ecosystems that couldn't care less, actually, about finding the kind of common ground I was discussing before. But if we can get back to our first principles and say that we are in, but not of the world, that Christ's kingdom is not of this world, that we're to witness to that kingdom coming later in its fullness, we can, I think , be step outside of what we saw in that debate and be pro-life Catholics in a way that can be unifiers, right? The bridge builders stepping outside of that morass. And I think the time could have ask for a better time for something like that than right now. >> That's a great reminder. We need to keep our eyes on Christ throughout this campaign season. Charlie Camozzi, so grateful for your perspective. Thank you for joining us. >> Thank you. Catherin