Washington, D.C. Newsroom, Aug 26, 2024 / 14:45 pm (CNA).
Days after former President Donald Trump posted on Truth Social that his administration would be “great for women and their reproductive rights,” Republican vice presidential nominee J.D. Vance confirmed that Trump would veto any national law to protect unborn life.
This follows the Democratic Party’s national convention Aug. 19–22 in which speakers — including now-presidential nominee Kamala Harris — emphasized abortion, which they refer to as “reproductive rights,” as a core issue in the 2024 election.
Vance was asked during a Saturday interview with NBC’s “Meet the Press” whether Trump would support a national law banning abortion.
“Democrats made the case this week and beyond this week that Donald Trump, if elected, will impose a federal ban on abortion if he wins. Now, Donald Trump says he won’t, but can you commit, sitting right here with me today, that if you and Donald Trump are elected that you will not impose a federal ban on abortion?” NBC reporter Kristen Welker asked.
“I can absolutely commit that, Kristen; Donald Trump has been as clear about that as possible,” Vance responded.
When pressed whether Trump would block any national law to protect unborn life, whether at 15 weeks or conception, Vance said: “I think he would; he said that explicitly, that he would.”
Vance’s statement echoes Trump’s messaging, which has been consistent since April that he considers abortion a states’ issue.
Shortly after announcing his official policy position on abortion in early April, Trump was similarly asked whether he would sign a national abortion ban, to which he responded repeatedly: “No.” Trump has also said that he considers many conservative positions on abortion to be “too severe” and that abortion “will never be a federal issue again.”
As the junior senator from Ohio, Vance has previously been outspoken about his pro-life stance. But some of his recent comments on abortion, most notably his statement that he supports access to the abortion pill mifepristone, have caused concern among some pro-life activists.
Chemical abortion now accounts for 63% of all U.S. abortions, according to the Guttmacher Institute.
Vance reiterated in the Saturday interview Trump’s position that abortion policy decisions be left to the states.
“Donald Trump, I think, has staked his position and made it very explicit: He wants this to be a state decision; states are going to make this determination themselves,” he said.
“Donald Trump wants to end this culture war over this particular topic. If California wants to have a different abortion policy from Ohio, then Ohio has to respect California and California has to respect Ohio,” Vance went on. “The federal government ought to be focused on getting food prices down, getting housing prices down … So, I think Donald Trump is right — we want the federal government to focus on these big economic and immigration questions. Let the states figure out their own abortion policy.”
The response from the pro-life community has been mixed.
Susan B. Anthony Pro-Life America President Marjorie Dannenfelser responded by urging pro-lifers to focus on the “short-term urgent threat” of Harris, who has pledged to sign a national pro-abortion law.
“The [pro-life] cause is way bigger and younger than Donald Trump. It will shape the GOP beyond this Trump moment,” Dannenfelser said. “The short-term urgent threat? Harris-Walz and all Senate candidates promising unlimited six-, seven-, eight-, nine-month abortion as the only option for women.”
Responding to Trump’s post about “reproductive rights,” Tony Perkins, president of the Family Research Council, urged the former president to “stop digging” himself into a hole.
“The DNC [Democratic National Committee] has the corner on the abortion market,” he said. “Trump is not only suppressing his own support, he is going to hurt the vast majority of Republican candidates who are 100% pro-life.”
Meanwhile, Lila Rose, president of Live Action, issued a much more pointed statement on X.
“Due to their increasingly pro-abortion position, Trump/Vance is stretching the lesser-of-two-evils voting strategy to an untenable position,” Rose said. “Without some indication that they will work to make our nation a safer place for preborn children, they are making it impossible for pro-life voters to support them.”
“They think it’s California’s ‘right’ to permit abortion up until birth, but if states like Arizona ban most abortions they ‘go too far,’” she said, concluding that “being less passionate about killing babies then [sic] Harris/Walz is not enough.”
If you value the news and views Catholic World Report provides, please consider donating to support our efforts. Your contribution will help us continue to make CWR available to all readers worldwide for free, without a subscription. Thank you for your generosity!
Click here for more information on donating to CWR. Click here to sign up for our newsletter.
Vance shows his true colours! Another Benedict Arnold to the unborn! Thought he was too good to be true, there was always something of the night about him; never trust blues eyes, especially in a politician like this apostate catholic!
Never trust blue eyes?
I agree with Lila Rose. Trump has sold out the Pro-Life movement, and if his opponents had not been so abysmal in every single policy area, I would be praying for his defeat. The transformation of the GOP from a Social Conservative party to Trump Personality Cult is one of the most disappointing political developments in my lifetime.
So…who do you plan to vote for? An unknown with no chance of winning? Exactly how will that help stop abortion? Or are you going to “righteously abstain” from voting at all? How will THAT help stop abortion?!
Often in life, we are faced with two alternatives, neither of which is ideal; e.g., House A or House B. You have to have a place to live and choosing House C isn’t an option–your only other option is not having a house and living in your parents’ basement or in your car. So you sigh, hold your nose, and choose between House A and House B and work really hard to try to make your choice eventually become your ideal
Who do you plan to vote for? Someone who will win or lose without your vote?
Or are you under the impression that your state will be perfectly balanced between Democrats and Republicans, and YOUR VOTE will break the time — and that, on top of that, the Electoral College will be essentially tied until your state breaks the tie? Because that is the ONLY way your vote will be actually change the outcome of the election. But you would be better off buying a lottery ticket and donating the winnings to your favorite candidate; your odds of winning a multi-million dollar jackpot are vastly better than your odds of casting the deciding vote.
I remember the 1990s. Bill Clinton was a womanizing narcissist who said he wanted abortion to be safe, legal, and rare, even as he moved his party to the left. Today, Trump is a womanizing narcissist who says he wanted abortion to be safe, legal, and rare, even as he moves his party to the left. Oh, and Ted Kennedy was a Catholic who went along with all that enthusiastically, just as J.D. Vance does today. I didn’t support Clinton or Kennedy. It appears that you at least approve of them now.
As for me, I would not approve of Clinton/Kennedy clones even if I knew I was casting the deciding vote, for reasons only a little less serious than why I would not choose a United Methodist church over a Hindu temple — I reject the false dilemma that tries to make me call the “lesser evil” truth. In reality, I already know which candidate will win the Electoral College votes from my state, probably by a margin of over 10% of the vote. If I would be unwilling to lie and say that Trump & Vance are good men deserving of high office even if I thought it would make a difference, what on earth could compel me to say that lie when I know it will make no difference?
Sure, Harris & Walz are worse. Just like Hinduism is less true than United Methodism. That changes precisely nothing about the situation as I have explained it.
When we have two Presidential candidates who are not pro-life as we Catholics interpret “pro-life”, we need to do some serious thinking about who we will vote for.
In my opinion, voting for a “totally pro-life” candidate who has absolutely no chance of winning unless God performs a miracle and multiplies the votes as He multiplied the loaves and fishes–is just a gesture which will mean NOTHING in this election, and will do NOTHING to help stop abortion and other grave sins that are becoming acceptable as “rights” in the United States!
What we need to do is vote for whichever candidate is most likely to create a “climate” in the U.S. (not talking about weather here!) that will make it more likely that a woman will be able to make a choice for life for her unborn child and a climate in which religious people will have a true voice in helping form public policy.
The economy is a major factor when it comes to a woman’s decision to keep or kill her unborn child. High taxation, heavy regulation on the development of new companies and businesses, high-cost regulations on businesses when it comes to their commitment to being “green-friendly,” regulations that impose quotas to bring about “diversity”, and many other government regulations that impede the ability of companies to grow and thrive mean less well-paying jobs (with health care benefits) for women and the fathers of their unborn children. Being poor with no realistic way out of poverty and inadequate job skills is one of the major factors that cause a woman to abort.
Lack of affordable health care is a major cause of abortion–and health care in this nation has become a business rather than a vocation. No longer are hospitals managed by local doctors who have decided to leave active practice and devote their lives to creating a “healing center” that will serve their local population. Hospitals are now run by huge companies and millionaires who see yet another source of profit. God help the uninsured in the U.S.A.–but health insurance is also big business which is often too expensive for anyone but the well-off and wealthy! It’s no wonder women choose abortion–yes it costs money, but it’s cheaper than all the pre-natal, birth, and post-natal health care that many poor and low-income women cannot afford. We need a President who understands this and who is an advocate for health care that is available to everyone regardless of income, and we also need a President who can advocate educational programs that ENCOURAGE children and teens to consider good-paying health care careers (which are dangerously short-staffed at this time in America’s history!)
Also, the cost, quality, and availability of educational opportunities is another major factor. When schools emphasize “diversity” and “inclusion” issues and do not teach subjects that adequately prepare young people to discern a job/career, the students end up unemployed, under-employed, and poor (assuming they even finish high school). Although many women who have abortions have good incomes and are financially sound, a large number of abortions are performed for poor and low-income women. We need our schools to educate, not indoctrinate.
Finally, when a political party utilizes hugely-popular entertainers (“stars”) who are unashamedly pro-abortion and pro-sexual promiscuity inside and outside traditional marriage, many Americans will respond with ‘stars in their eyes’ to the stars they love to hear on Spotify or see on Netflix. and vote for the candidates that these entertainment idols endorse without even bothering to examine the policies that the candidates are advocating!
Although it would be wonderful to vote for a committed Catholic who is totally submissive to Holy Mother Church, we need to accept that this will not happen in this particular election (and probably not in many future elections, and even our Catholic presidents in the past have been guilty of moral failures!). Rather than not voting, thinking that our absence will “send a message” to the U.S. government (yes, it will “send a message”–that we are naive!), or rather than voting for a candidate that would literally need a miracle to even gain 1% of the votes, we need to soberly study the two viable candidates and vote for the one who will be most likely (but not guaranteed) to bring about a political climate in which religion can continue to have an influence on public policy and those of us who are faithful can continue to have the right to practice our faith and share it with others.
Mrs. Sharon, Medicaid pays 100% of delivery & prenatal expenses in our state. I don’t know how it works in every other state but we have state sponsored children’s health insurance offered on a sliding income scale.
I really don’t believe healthcare costs are a driving cause of feticides. Every country that offers nationalized healthcare also has feticides committed.
If we support socialized medicine, ok that’s another conversation. All healthcare is costly. Either to the taxpayer or to the consumer & we have finite resources to fund that through taxpayers.
I’ve heard it said — maybe in the Wormwood Letters, it’s been a while — that the devil wants to get our souls and give us nothing in return. He’s already got your acquiescence to at least some abortions. What are you getting in return? Power to decide the election? The math says otherwise.
Trump should absolutely refuse to sign a national ban. What was the purpose of appointing judges to the Supreme Court to overturn Roe v. Wade? The court determined that there is no legal precedent in American or English common law that guarantees access to abortions at the federal level, so the law was unconstitutional. The decision was thrown back to the individual states, which is where it belongs.
Athanasius, Roe v. Wade wasn’t a law; it was a Supreme Court decision. Overturning it made state law relevant again, but did not preclude a federal abortion ban. In fact, denying a Constitutional right to abortion opens the door to a federal ban. Trump and Vance don’t support one because they think it’s a losing issue, not because it’s unconstitutional. If you are pro-life (ie, believe each human person deserves protection from conception to natural death) you should at least theoretically support a national ban on abortion. A politician insisting that he would work against one is not incrementalism either; it’s just pro-abortion.
Let the states decide.
Nothing precludes a federal abortion ban but this isn’t the moment for that.
If pro-life legislation can be passed at a national level, pro-abortion people can turn that around and pass a law imposing abortion on all the states. I think it’s probably safer to make it a state-by-state thing, though my preference would be for abortion to be recognized as the murder that it is and banned everywhere.
What are the chances that even a Republican-dominated Congress would ever pass a national abortion ban? The hypothetical was put forward to force Vance to either alienate pro-lifers or incite the ghouls who delight in the killing of babies. It was trap put out in the service of the Harris campaign.