Transcript

So last night was the vice presidential debate between J.D. Vance and Tim Walz.

And we are going to fact-check Tim Walz's lies and distortions on the issue of abortion.

So, let's jump right in.

Governor Walz, after Roe versus Wade was overturned, you signed a bill into law that made Minnesota one of the least restrictive states in the nation when it comes to abortion.

Former President Trump said in the last debate that you believe abortion, quote, In the ninth month is absolutely fine.

Yes or no, is that what you support?

I'll give you two minutes.

That's not what the bill says, but look-

The only way out of this would be for Walz to say something like, I don't think abortion is absolutely fine, but I think it should still be legal.

But Walz is so radical he can't even do that.

Instead, he interprets absolutely fine to mean should be legal.

And he claims the law in Minnesota that he passed does not make abortion in the ninth month of pregnancy legal, which is false.

The 2023 Protect Reproductive Options Act that he signed clearly says, Every individual who becomes pregnant has a fundamental right to continue the pregnancy and give birth or obtain an abortion and to make autonomous decisions about how to exercise this fundamental right.

End quote.

Every individual includes women who are nine months pregnant.

Walz then tries to use various stories about women seeking abortion to use them as arguments against laws to protect unborn children.

He starts with a woman who claimed Texas's abortion ban threatened her life.

And then he tells us, Oh, we send it to the states.

It's a beautiful thing.

Amanda Zwirksy would disagree with you on it's a beautiful thing.

A young bride in Texas waiting for their child.

At 18 weeks, she has a complication, a tear in the membrane.

She needs to go in.

The medical care at that point needs to be decided by the doctor, and that would've been an abortion.

But in Texas, that would've put them in legal jeopardy.

She went home, got sepsis, nearly dies, and now she may have difficulty having children.

Amanda Zwirksy is an abortion advocate who spoke at the Democratic National Convention.

She was 18 weeks pregnant when her water broke, which is before viability.

Texas state law allows abortion if there is a life-threatening condition and an unmanaged rupture of the amniotic sac, AKA water breaking, is a life-threatening condition.

This wasn't the fault of the law.

It was the fault of the hospital for not providing care.

A lawsuit filed by the pro-abortion Center for Reproductive Rights even admitted that, quote, The health exception does not require that any of the risks to the pregnant person, which normal people call woman, be imminent.

To the contrary, the exception only requires that a physician certify that the patient is in danger of death or has a condition that creates a serious risk of substantial impairment of a major bodily function, nor does the best reading of the exception require that the pregnant person have a condition that is imminently and/or definitively life-threatening.

End quote.

Texas's law allows doctors to determine health exceptions according to their good faith judgments or reasonable medical judgment.

And this language is used in hundreds of laws and malpractice cases in Texas.

So, it isn't unusual to find it in abortion laws either.

And since we don't throw out that language in non-abortion cases, we shouldn't throw it out in abortion cases either.

Or in Kentucky, Hadley Duvall, a 12-year-old child raped and impregnated by her stepfather.

Those are horrific.

Now, when got asked about that, Senator Vance said, Two wrongs don't make a right.

There is no right in this.

Hadley Duvall is another abortion advocate who spoke at the DNC. She was raped by her stepfather, and she suffered a miscarriage in 2012 when abortion was still legal in Kentucky.

Abortion in the case of rape is traumatic because every outcome after pregnancy from rape is traumatic, be it abortion, adoption, or parenting after sexual assault.

But one act of violence against an innocent person does not justify another act of violence against an innocent person.

If you don't know Amanda or a Hadley, you soon will.

Their Project 2025 is gonna have a registry of pregnancies.

Trump has repeatedly said he has nothing to do with Project 2025, which is a policy proposal from The Heritage Foundation.

But even CNN says Tim Walz is wrong about Project 2025, including a, quote, registry to monitor pregnancies.

They write, Project 2025 does not propose to make people register with any federal agency when they get pregnant.

And there is no indication that a Trump-Vance administration is trying to create a new government entity to monitor pregnancies.

End quote.

There's a young woman named Amber Thurman.

She happened to be in Georgia, a restrictive state.

Because of that, she had to travel a long distance to North Carolina to try and get her care.

Amber Thurman died in that journey back and forth.

Amber Thurman was a 28-year-old woman in Georgia who went to North Carolina for an abortion.

She did it because she found out she was pregnant with twins and didn't want to change her, quote, newfound stability.

She was 15 minutes late to her appointment, so the abortion facility in North Carolina gave her abortion pills instead.

Pro-abortion advocates love to say abortion pills are safer than Tylenol, but pro-abortion author Michelle Goldberg admits in The New York Times that, quote, In about 3% to 5% of cases, women end up needing either another dose of misoprostol, one of the two drugs in the regimen, or surgery.

That's what happened to Thurman.

End quote.

That means in one out of 25 women, they must seek another medical intervention after taking the abortion pills or they could die.

How often does that happen to you when you take Tylenol?

The abortion pills didn't cause Thurman's child to be fully expelled from her body, so she got an infection, which led to a severe case of sepsis.

When she went to the hospital, the doctors delayed her care by 20 hours.

Thurman did not die going back and forth between a clinic in North Carolina, as Walz claims.

Moreover, Georgia law specifically allows abortion if, quote, a physician determines in reasonable medical judgment that a medical emergency exists, and that was clearly the case here.

Pro-abortion advocates claim the staff at the hospital waited 20 hours because they were afraid of violating Georgia's abortion law, but there's no evidence to back that up.

Many pro-abortion advocates cite this article about the Thurman case by Kavitha Surana, but the doctors, nurse, and hospital involved in Thurman's case did not give a comment for Surana's article.

She even admits that, quote, It is not clear from the records available why doctors waited to provide a D and C to Thurman, though the summary report shows they discussed the procedure at least twice in the hours before they finally did, end quote.

It's plausible that this was a case of medical malpractice, and now abortion advocates are trying to blame Georgia's law when they should be blaming incompetent medical staff.

It certainly doesn't prove these laws led to Thurman's death, and the laws are not vague because the same language about medical necessity is used to justify all kinds of uncontroversial emergency interventions.

Finally, here's an analogy to show what's wrong with these kinds of arguments against laws to protect unborn children.

Basically, bad unintended consequences do not justify making it legal to hurt children.

Every year, untold numbers of parents are falsely accused and even convicted of child abuse when they're innocent, when their children became sick or died of natural causes.

But if we use pro-abortion logic, we would say that these laws hurt and even kill parents who might die from things like suicide, and therefore we should get rid of laws preventing child abuse.

But that's stupid.

The fact that a law protecting human beings may not be fully followed or someone may be falsely accused of breaking it does not mean we should get rid of the law and just be okay with killing tiny human beings.

As I read the Minnesota law that sh- you signed into, into, into s- into law, the statute that you signed into law, it says that a doctor who presides over an abortion where the baby survives, the doctor is under no obligation to provide life-saving care to a baby who survives a botched late-term abortion.

That is, I think-

That's not true.

whether you're pro-choice or pro-abortion-

That's not

Unalloyed.

that is fundamentally barbaric, and that's why I use that word, Norah, is because some of what we've seen, do you wanna force Catholic hospitals to perform abortions against their will?

Because Kamala Harris has supported suing Catholic nuns, uh, to violate their freedom of conscience.

We can be a big and diverse country where we respect people's freedom of conscience and make the country more pro-baby and pro-family, but please.

Yes, g- governor, please respond.

Look, this is one where there's always something there.

This is a very simple proposition.

These are women's decisions to make about their healthcare decisions, and the physicians who know best when they need to do this.

Trying to distort the way a law is written to try and make a point, that's not it at all.

But what was I wrong about, governor?

This w-

I, please tell me.

I- i- th-

What was I wrong about?

Th- th- that is not the way the law is written.

Look, I, I've given this-

But how?

I've given this advice on a lot of things that getting involved, getting aga- That's been misread, and it was fact-checked at the last debate.

Ah yes, the last debate.

See my previous video where I show how those fact-checkers were also completely wrong.

But Vance is right here.

What he said was that according to Walz's law, the doctor in Minnesota is under no obligation to provide life-saving care to a baby born after a failed abortion.

According to ABC News, previously, Minnesota state law said, All reasonable measures consistent with good medical practice, including the compilation of appropriate medical records, shall be taken by the responsible medical personnel to preserve the life and health of the born-alive infant.

The law was updated to instead say medical personnel must, Care for the infant who is born alive, end quote.

What this means is that if an infant survives an abortion, the doctors might say, Well, he has a disability anyways, so we're just going to provide him comfort care and give him a blanket as he dies, from something that could be treated with life-saving care.

Finally, I need to point out that Walz is a giant hypocrite here, because on the one hand, he claims that abortion needs to be legal because it's a private choice between a woman and her doctors, and we should just trust women and trust doctors.

This is about healthcare.

In Minnesota, we are ranked first in healthcare for a reason.

We trust women, we trust doctors.

We're pro-women, pro-freedom to make your own choice.

We know what the implications are to not be that.

But in spite of saying he believes in freedom, Walz also believes the government should be able to force you to buy health insurance, as revealed in this exchange with JD Vance.

The question about this of young people or whatever, that's the individual mandate piece of this.

And Republicans fought tooth and nail saying, Well, Americans should be free to do this.

Well, then what happens is-

So, so you think the individual mandate's a good idea?

you shrink I, I think the idea of making sure the risk pool is broad enough to cover everyone, that's the only way insurance works.

When it doesn't, it collapses.

The courts have previously ruled that the government's mandate to buy health insurance was unconstitutional.

But what happened to the government having no business in my healthcare?

In fact, Walz is fond of saying, Mind your own damn business.

Even if we wouldn't make the same choice for ourselves, there's a golden rule: mind your own damn business.

However, during the COVID pandemic, Walz had no problem violating people's bodily autonomy by mandating masks, even if that person's doctor said they didn't need to wear a mask.

Whatever happened to trusting doctors?

And then he said masks needed to be worn or else hospitals would be overwhelmed, which, of course, didn't happen.

Minnesota Governor Walz commented on Reynolds' decision to lift a mask mandate and several capacity restrictions.

I can't imagine being at 25% positivity rate like we're seeing in Iowa again.

That is th- you're going to overwhelm your hospitals.

It's, it's inevitable.

It's just a math, it's math, it's not anything else.

And that can all be alleviated by the situation we're in.

Walz kept the mask mandate for two years, and when he finally lifted it, he still required unvaccinated people to wear masks.

But what happened to, Mind your own damn business?

I'm sure he would say masks are necessary to protect people's lives.

Well, that's also true for laws that protect unborn children from being dismembered by abortion.

Oh, well, maybe Walz just forgot about all those times he used the government to violate people's bodily integrity, just like he forgot he wasn't actually in Hong Kong during the 1989 Tiananmen Square protests, even though he said before that he was, because, oh, gosh, golly, he's just a knucklehead.

I've tried to do the best I can, but I've not been perfect, and I'm a knucklehead at times, but it's always been about that.

Governor, just to follow up on that, the, the question was can you explain the discrepancy?

No, just All's I said on this was is I got there that summer and misspoke on this, so I, I will just That's what I've said.

So I was in Hong Kong and China during the democracy protests went in, and from that, I learned a lot of what needed to be in, in governance.

Thank you, governor.

Knucklehead indeed.

But really, the thing I couldn't stand the most was his citation of Matthew chapter 25.

Look, I don't talk about my faith a lot, but Matthew 25:40 talks about to the least amongst us, you do unto me.

I think that's true of most Americans.

They simply want order to it.

Since the unborn are completely helpless, completely at the mercy of people who are bigger than them and the unborn cannot even speak for themselves, aren't they the least among us that should be protected?

And Tim Walz hasn't only failed to do anything for the unborn, he has actively worked against them, probably more than almost any other politician today, except for perhaps his running mate, Kamala Harris.

Thank you all so much for watching, and don't forget to get a copy of the second edition of my book, Persuasive Pro-Life, if you wanna learn how to make a compelling case for the unborn in the public square.

Thank you all so much, and I hope you have a very blessed day.