Authors: John Stonestreet | Jared Hayden
The first debate between U.S. Presidential candidates Donald Trump and Kamala Harris made clear, again, that abortion is a front and center issue in this election. It also made clear that each candidate is more committed to a narrative about the preborn than the truth. Harris defended abortion by emotionally appealing to extreme cases that are either unlike the vast majority of abortions, like minors who are victims of sexual abuse, or flatly misleading, such as women who are refused care for miscarriages.
Trump attempted to distance himself from the issue. He again took credit for “the impossible,” the overturning of Roe and the returning of the issue of abortion to the states. He said that he supported abortion in cases of the exceptions of rape, incest, and the health of the mother, but he did not discuss abortion as evil as he did in 2016. He emphasized that voters were now free to decide if abortion should be legal where they live.
Trump rightly pointed out that under Roe, abortion was legal in the third trimester. Harris denied this claim, arguing that “no woman is carrying a pregnancy to term and asking for abortion.” In fact, under Roe v. Wade, there was nothing prohibiting late term abortions at the federal level. Today, in nine states plus Washington, D.C., late term abortion remains legal. In 2023, according to investigative research from Live Action, an estimated 10,370 pre-born babies were aborted after 21 weeks of pregnancy. That’s 28 third-trimester babies per day.
When Trump claimed that babies were being “slaughtered” after birth, debate moderator Linsey Davis jumped in to “fact check” Trump, stating, “There is no state in this country where it is legal to kill a baby after it’s born.” Contrary to this “fact check,” and though “slaughter” is not the right word, there are states in which babies have been and are allowed to die post-birth.
Recently, three states enacted laws that allow women to “make choices about abortion based on undefined ‘pregnancy outcomes.’” Under these bills, medical providers are not legally required to care for a newly born child if the mother instructs them not to provide “life-sustaining medical care.” In Minnesota, before Harris’ running mate Tim Walz changed the language in the state law in 2023, doctors were required to do everything possible to “preserve” babies born alive after failed abortions. They were also required to report babies born alive after botched abortions because some were left to die without any attempt to preserve their lives. Harris was one of 41 Senators who voted no (twice) on Congress’s Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act, which would have required healthcare providers to give the same care they would to any newborn needing treatment.
President Trump cited comments from former Virginia governor Ralp Northam, who stated that babies born after botched abortions should be left on the table until it is decided what to do. He wrongly referred to Northam as the former governor of West Virginia. Even if Trump’s lack of clarity made him less compelling, Harris (and the moderators) lied.
The most damaging lie, one repeated by abortion advocates and media outlets, is that pro-life laws prevent women suffering miscarriages from receiving health care. However, treating a miscarriage does not require an abortion, abortion laws do not prohibit caring for a woman in distress, and every state law specifies the difference. Still, the claims continue, using phrases such as “likely” and “almost certainly” to produce a narrative, while looking for examples to substantiate it. For example, in the oft-repeated story out of Texas, a woman tragically died after taking the abortion pill regimen which, according to another falsehood, is supposed to be safer than Tylenol.
Trump again endorsed the federal funding of in vitro fertilization, which he repeatedly called “fertility.” That’s misleading since, as currently practiced, IVF leads to far more human lives lost than born. Also, requiring insurance companies to pay for it would be a government-forced violation of conscience, similar to the HHS mandate under the Obama administration.
In the end, this election offers voters the choice between the most aggressively pro-abortion platform ever on record and a platform that resembles the Democratic position a decade ago. More troubling, voters are forced to navigate a deluge of misinformation on all aspects of this issue. This makes the responsibility that Christians have obvious. First, we must be clear-headed amidst so much confusion. Second, we must be able and willing to articulate what is true.