Kamala Harris vs. Donald Trump: Abortion and I.V.F

Congress passes a bill to put back in place the protections of Roe v Wade as president of the United States. I will proudly sign it into law. >> As far as the abortion ban, no, I'm not in favor of abortion ban . But it doesn't matter because this issue has now been taken over by the states. >> Harris and Trump face off in their first debate, each taking on abortion and IVF. It was the first time the two met in person, and it began with a bit of an awkward handshake offered by Harris when each candidate walked on stage. The two candidates shared contrasting views of America now and the America they hope to build if they're elected . With just eight weeks before the election and final ballots are cast, this debate may have been a critical moment for undecided voters seeking to better understand where each candidate stands on the issues. The top three issues leading the debate the economy , abortion and immigration. The main takeaways on abortion. Vice President Kamala Harris wants to legalize abortion with no limits at a federal level. Former President Donald Trump mentions that third trimester abortions are radical, but he has not issued a gestational limit he would support. Most recently, he wavered on his vote in Florida, initially to extend a six week limit and then retracting that statement , offering his support. He has said there should be exceptions for rape and incest. During the debate , Kamala Harris even brought religion into her argument in support of abortion. Let's take a listen. >> And one does not have to abandon their faith or deeply held beliefs to agree . The government and Donald Trump certainly should not be telling a woman what to do with her body, Harris claimed. >> If Donald Trump is elected, that in vitro fertilization access would be in danger. Trump has openly supported IVF recently, saying he would have federal funding for the procedure . As we know, in vitro fertilization is not supported by the teachings of the Catholic Church. >> I have been a leader on IVF, which which is fertilization, the IVF. I have been a leader. In fact, when they got a very negative decision on IVF from the Alabama courts, Tim Carney, senior political columnist at the Washington Examiner and senior fellow at the American Enterprise Institute, joins us alongside Alexandra Desanctis, a fellow at the Ethics and Public Policy Center, to weigh in on this debate. >> Thank you both for joining us. Throughout the debate, there were somewhat heated exchanges. At one point, Harris scoffed at the idea that late term abortions would even occur, and the two sparred over the issue. We've put those moments together for you to hear. Let's take a listen . >> Nowhere in America is a woman carrying a pregnancy to term and asking for an abortion. That is not happening. >> Will she allow abortion in the eighth month? Ninth month? Seventh month? Come on. Okay. Would you do that ? Why don't you ask her that question? Why don't you answer? That's the problem. Because under Roe v Wade, the question you could you could do abortions in the seventh month. The eighth month, the ninth month, and probably after birth . Just look at the governor, former governor of Virginia, now former President Trump there is doing the fact checking for the moderators. >> They were missing many that night, one in reference to late term abortions, as we just heard . And that reference Trump made to the governor of Virginia was accurate . We have the tape of it from 2019 when governor, Governor Northam, a pediatric neurosurgeon , was discussing cases where a baby may have severe deformities. Let's take a listen to that . >> The infant would be delivered . The infant would be kept comfortable. The infant would be resuscitated. If that's what the mother and the family desired. And then a discussion would ensue between the physicians and the mother. >> Alexandra, your thoughts on this part of the debate? >> Well, I think there's a lot of confusion about this issue. And interestingly, you know, President Trump was right that that the moderators would not ask Harris whether she would support abortion. After that point, she was insisting this never happens. In fact, we know that abortion does happen later in pregnancy. It's not certainly not the most common time that abortion happens, but it does happen. There are plenty of states where it's allowed. And Harris herself, had she been asked the question , certainly would have said yes. I would allow it through all nine months. That's been her stance as long as she's been a politician. I think that's what of course, viewers ought to have taken away, but couldn't because of the lack of questioning. >> Well, we're glad to clarify it here. Tim, let's go to you on the issue of words, word choice, word use. There were several times when Vice President Harris was discussing abortion, but used the words health care instead. Is this typical of pro-abortion candidates, or is this shift in language a move towards the center without actually having to change her policies? >> It's interesting because about four years ago, the other side, the pro-choice side, stopped calling themselves pro-choice. Remember, they started saying, well, no, that's an outdated term. They started, you know, more of the shout your abortion. And I think 2019 through 2022 was sort of the peak of them believing that the left was just taking over the culture and Kamala Harris's entire campaign has been about sort of moving to the center. But abortion is a tricky issue for them. They feel they cannot, even ones who would want to cannot give an inch to say in the ninth month, I would not allow an abortion of a perfectly healthy baby, or even to say that abortion in that case is morally wrong. They can't go there. They're held captive by the abortion lobby and they can't compromise at all. So it would be a perfect place for Trump to point out what he's pointing out that seventh month, eighth month abortions happen and they're legal. And that Democrats defend them because Democrats want to move to the middle . But their abortion lobby, which is a huge part of their funding base, won't allow that. >> Well, Kamala Harris herself is someone who has walked into abortion clinics. She did that for the first time as a vice president ever in the history of the United States. Had a vice president walked into and supported a Planned Parenthood center, your reaction to that and this flip flop on the language, trying to show compassion for women who would be offended by the idea that late term abortion would even exist . >> Well, I mean, so Kamala was very careful in her words there. She said, nobody goes to term no mother. So a 40 week abortion, we don't have evidence of that happening. But as Alexandra said earlier , certainly what Trump was talking about in the seventh and eighth month on healthy babies, abortionist Warren Hern has said he's done one just in that late in the pregnancy when the baby was fully viable just for sex selection. Okay, because the baby wanted a mom or wanted I mean baby wanted. The mom wanted a girl or wanted a baby boy. And so Kamala was very careful on that sort of indignant response to say, well, it just doesn't happen. And the obvious comeback then is well. And she said she didn't that didn't support abortion in the seventh, eighth and ninth month. That's factually false . But the way to test it is say, okay, fine, let's start by passing a bill banning abortion after six months. It wouldn't do that much for ending abortions, but it would do a lot to show that the Democrats are extremists in defense of abortion. >> Well, we certainly know that they are. We've seen this on this campaign. Alexandra, you write about public policy for children and mothers and families often. Has either party clarified what they would do for families and how they would pay for it ? >> No. I mean, I think this is something that some Republican politicians have tried to gesture toward. Certainly you know, very robust paid family leave is something that Democrats have wanted for a long time, you know, fully bankrolled by the federal government. Republicans have tried to be a little bit more creative about, you know, drawing Social Security money forward. For example , and using it when you have a child born or expanding the child tax credit, things like that. So I think both parties have have gestured towards that, but I don't think either party is really correct in well, certainly the Democrats are not. But even the Republicans, I don't think, have done a very good job of thinking through how that's really connected to the abortion issue. And I think unfortunately, you know, as as important as it is to support mothers and families and children after they're born, most women are not getting abortions because they can't afford diapers or can't take enough time off work. That's really not not the reality of the situation. >> Well, Tim, in your article in The Examiner titled What's Not to Love About IVF? Moving into this very hotly contested issue, you call the process abortion. But outside of the mother's room, I thought that was really precise and important language. And we heard Trump's comments earlier about being a leader on IVF. Harris also vigorously supports IVF. Can you weigh in on this debate? >> Yeah, I think Donald Trump is trying to defuze the issue of IVF, and he's making a big mistake by doing this full fledged embrace of it rather than just say, look, we're not going to touch it at the federal government, he goes ahead and he says the federal government should subsidize it or should force insurers to cover it, basically force every single person to pay for IVF insurance. Even Catholics who find it immoral. That's a mistake. It's a mistake because it further adopts this, what I call a bad anthropology. This view that we are the sole authors of our own life, that autonomy is the one good, and that the one good in life, and a rejection of the connection between marriage, love, sex, family formation , pregnancy, all those things are connected naturally and IVF, the thinking behind it , regardless of the intentions of the parents who just desperately want a kid, the whole philosophy around it is a different one. And it's one that dissolves all of these bonds. And so Trump, by trying to make the Republicans a pro IVF party, I think is making a mistake adopting an anthropology which ultimately doesn't go hand in hand with family values in the pro-life position, an important distinction to make, and one that I think both parties really need to reflect on. >> Well , we'll give you the last word, Alexandra. On October 1st, the vice president will face off. JD Vance continues to support a national ban on abortion. Tim Walz supports abortion and gender transitions for children . They are complete opposites on the life issue. How does that or should that impact voters? >> Well, I think it's really important for both Trump and Vance to clarify their their position on this issue. I think there's been a lot of lack of clarity from the Republican Party, from both, both the candidates on whether they actually would vote or rather, you know, sign an abortion ban into law. I think there's a lack of clarity about whether the party is really in favor of protecting unborn children at the national level, or whether the party would prefer to let it be a states rights issue. I think that would be a mistake to punt this to the states. We really have to have eventually a national solution. A house divided against itself cannot stand, as Lincoln said, and on this issue, it's two fundamental of a right. All our other rights come from the right to life. So I think that debate would be an important time for the for JD Vance to clarify, you know, where is the Republican Party, where is this ticket on this issue? And is there really a big contrast with the Democrats, or is it simply a kind of slightly more pro-life version? And on the issue of gender transitions? Oh, I certainly think that that ought to be talked about. That ought to be highlighted, because an incoming pro-life administration and strong administration on that issue would be a major win for Americans. And the contrast could not be clearer between the parties on that. >> Well, we're grateful for your analysis, Tim and Alexandra, and we look forward to seeing more of your commentary. Thank you so much. >> Thank you, thank you.>> Thank you, thank you. the presidential debate. Log on to NC register.com for in-depth analysis. And don't forget to take a look at the EWTN news and Realclear opinion research poll at EWTN news.com/poll. Find out what the outlook is on the Catholic vote, and find