Harris and Walz Hold Extreme Views on Abortion. It’s Time for Republicans to Address It.
As an activist, I find it troubling that Republicans appear hesitant regarding the protection of unborn life, yet we understand that political realities must be faced.
It is widely acknowledged that, following the overturning of Roe v. Wade, the Republican Party has grappled with its stance on abortion regulation.
While several conservative states have enacted substantial limitations on abortion, in various others, pro-life supporters have lost ballot measures on the topic, even in traditionally Republican-leaning states like Kansas, Kentucky, and Ohio.
Despite some Republican governors, such as Brian Kemp of Georgia, Mike DeWine of Ohio, Greg Abbott of Texas, Bill Lee of Tennessee, and Ron DeSantis of Florida, implementing significant abortion restrictions and still winning elections by wide margins, some attribute a decline in Republican midterm election outcomes in 2022 to this issue.
This has led figures like former President Donald Trump and Senator JD Vance of Ohio to seek to minimize the focus on abortion in their presidential campaigns, with the Republican Party moderating its previously stricter language regarding the subject found in its platform for the past four decades. The party is currently concentrating on matters like immigration, inflation, and crime.
As an advocate, I am disheartened that Republicans seem to waver on the importance of unborn life, yet we recognize that political engagement requires pragmatism, and there remains much to be done to inform the American populace about the ethical significance of our mission.
Regardless, Republicans should continue to speak on the importance of life in this election, particularly in light of the radical views held by Democratic presidential candidate Kamala Harris and her running mate, Minnesota Governor Tim Walz.
Harris and Walz’s Extreme Abortion Positions
It is no overstatement to claim that this pairing represents one of the most radically pro-abortion electoral tickets in U.S. history, far removed from the “safe, legal, and rare” rhetoric of the past, notably from Bill Clinton’s Democratic Party.
During her time as California’s attorney general, Harris co-sponsored a law demanding that pregnancy resource centers direct clients to abortion services, a law that the Supreme Court ultimately deemed unconstitutional based on free speech rights.
As vice president, she lauded state attorneys general’s efforts to restrict these centers, which provide women with alternatives to abortion—an option that Democrats once claimed to support.
During her Senate tenure, Harris co-sponsored legislation that would have eliminated any state-level abortion restrictions, extending even to the point of birth, and she opposed a bill requiring health professionals to attempt to save a baby that survived an abortion procedure.
Walz’s views are similarly extreme, yet the media often attempt to portray him as a friendly moderate. As Minnesota’s governor, he endorsed legislation that permits coercive actions towards women regarding abortion, utilizes taxpayer funds for abortions, eradicates informed consent protocols for the procedure, and reversed laws aimed at ensuring doctors would save the life of a baby born alive after an abortion attempt.
It is accurate to state that both Harris and Walz advocate for access to abortion up until delivery and actively work against those providing alternative options to women.
Sadly, public sentiment in America does not entirely align with pro-life advocates on abortion; however, many Americans do not share the extreme views of Harris and Walz either.
A recent Gallup survey reveals that a significant majority of Americans oppose abortion during the later stages of pregnancy, with only 35% supporting Harris and Walz’s stance of unrestricted access to abortion at any time.
Republicans Must Emphasize Harris’ Abortion Record
Republicans should actively highlight this to the electorate.
Given that the mainstream media generally supports pro-abortion rights perspectives, they are unlikely to emphasize this extremism. Therefore, it falls to Republicans to remind voters of the moral necessity to safeguard innocent lives.
When discussing abortion, instead of avoiding the topic or changing the subject abruptly, they could respond with something like: “We uphold the sanctity of unborn human life. It is understood that there is a life present that deserves the inherent rights and privileges outlined in our founding documents.”
We recognize that not every American shares our viewpoint. However, a significant number oppose the extreme stance of our adversaries, who support unrestricted abortion access right up until birth. We find this morally unacceptable.
The initiative to safeguard unborn children has a long journey ahead to change perspectives regarding this matter. Our motivation does not stem from a desire to control women’s bodies; rather, we understand, based on scientific evidence, that another human being is involved in the discussion.
It took fifty years to overturn Roe v. Wade and enable states to impose restrictions on abortion, and it might require a similar length of time to ensure that every unborn child receives the protection they rightfully deserve.
In the meantime, we must clarify to Americans who the true extremists are—those who aim to utilize federal authority to prevent any legal limitations on abortion.
Daniel Darling is the director of the Land Center for Cultural Engagement at Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary and the author of various books, including the upcoming “In Defense of Christian Patriotism.”