Since the Supreme Court’s overturning of Roe v. Wade in 2022 reproductive rights have been a hot topic in America, but is it something we should be concerned about in the upcoming election? As Americans count down the days towards the election, reproductive freedom and women’s rights are something that should be considered when deciding who to cast your vote for. As a woman, are your rights going to be endangered if a certain candidate gets elected vs. another? The answer is yes, and this was made evident in the 2024 Vice Presidential Debate between Republican nominee J.D. Vance and Democratic nominee Tim Walz.
Of course, the issue of reproductive rights didn’t fail to be brought up in this year’s vice-presidential debate, but one candidate’s response to the question is more concerning than the other. When the issue was brought up, J.D. Vance accused Harris’ agenda to “allow abortion in the ninth month.” Walz responded explaining that this is “not what the bill says.” He went on to explain how Harris’ and his agenda will allow abortion when medically necessary if a woman were to have a complication. The Harris-Walz policy is one that prioritizes the needs of women rather than restricting the care that goes into those needs, resulting in situations like Amber Thurman, who died at the result of not being able to receive care in her state. Thurman, a Georgia resident, was not given the care she needed due to Georgia’s restrictions on reproductive care, a ban on abortion at six weeks, and her doctor’s fear of being prosecuted for giving her said care. After taking abortion pills, Thurman’s body had failed to expel all of the fetal tissue from her body. She needed an emergency D&C (dilation and curettage.) In a desperate attempt to get the care she needed, Thurman attempted to travel to N.C., dying in the process.
Walz moved on to bring up Project 2025, the 920-page mandate that vice-presidential candidate J.D. Vance has ties with, having wrote the forward for one of the architects of the project’s books, and stating in an interview with Newsmax that there were “some good ideas in there.” Walz went on to explain how this mandate will make it even more difficult for women to receive abortion care and contraception in this country. While Donald Trump and J.D. Vance have tried to distance themselves from this project, with Trump having claimed he “has no idea who’s behind it,” it’s a very real danger that needs to be considered when you are deciding on a candidate. In Vance’s rebuttal to this comment, he mentioned that he knew a woman from his hometown who had an abortion. He stated that he loved her and understood that at that time it felt like her only option. He avoided the topic of Project 2025 and instead attempted to gain sympathy from viewers. Vance claimed the Trump agenda wants to “regain the trust” of Americans on this issue, and that they are “pro-family.”
“Pro-family.” This phrase stood out to me more than anything while watching this debate. This is an attempt to humanize the harmful policies that the Trump-Vance administration wishes to put in place against women. The administration also seeks to leave reproductive rights decisions up to the states, and Vance has voiced support for a national abortion ban. This distracts viewers from the reality of these policies the Trump-Vance administration aims to put in place. Policies that directly attack women and make it nearly impossible for them to receive the care they need. Vance stated that the Trump administration wishes to “support fertility treatments” and “make it easier for moms to afford to have babies.” If women can “afford to have babies,” as stated by Vance, maybe they won’t need abortions. However, we know this isn’t the case. There are still many instances where an abortion is necessary, whether it’s an economic, health or abuse situation. Leaving abortion bans up to the states as the Trump-Vance administration wishes to do is still a dangerous policy as the lack of federal government regulation on abortions creates unequal treatment of women from state-to-state.
Another instance of women being denied care based on their state is the Jaci Statton case, in which a woman in Oklahoma was denied a life-saving procedure based on her state’s abortion laws. Statton had developed a type of molar pregnancy, in which some of the pregnancy tissue was cancerous. Statton was told she was at risk of hemorrhage and possibly death but was met with the answer that they could not perform the necessary D&C operation in her state. Statton was told her best option would be to leave Oklahoma and travel to a state where abortion was legal to receive the care she needs. Walz makes a notable quote centered around this topic stating that the right to reproductive care shouldn’t be based on “geography,” as Vance stated in his last rebuttal. The Harris-Walz administration wishes to restore Roe v. Wade and bring back federal regulation on abortion for just this reason. While Walz may have some understanding on this issue, as he himself stated, Vance’s “running-mate does not.”
J.D. Vance went on to mention that in 2022 while he was in the Senate, he supported setting a “minimum national standard” for abortion. He accused Harris and Walz of being “pro-abortion,” in which Walz replied his administration is not pro-abortion, it is “pro-women.” Walz explained a policy where women’s rights are protected no matter where they live or what the reason is. This is the kind of policy we need in America right now. Not one where women are afraid that they will not be able to get the help they need, but one that protects them and ensures they know they are safe in their own home. The Trump-Vance administration’s dangerous, anti-women policies are hiding under the guise of being for families, when they are destructive for the women in our country. This election could be crucial for women in America. Keep women in mind this year and be conscious about your vote, every single one of them matters.
