We’ve got a new twist in the debate over reproductive laws, and it’s a doozy. This time, even the fact-checkers are getting fact-checked! You know things are getting interesting when a liberal outlet like The Hill steps in to say, “Wait a second, that conservative guy was actually right.” That’s exactly what happened after the recent vice presidential debate. Ohio Senator J.D. Vance called out Minnesota’s extremely lenient policies under Governor Tim Walz.
The Shocking Truth About Minnesota’s Laws
Vance pointed out that Minnesota no longer requires life-saving care for babies who survive failed termination procedures. The so-called fact-checkers jumped on him for this claim. But hold your horses—Becket Adams from The Hill took a closer look at the evidence and confirmed that Vance was telling the truth. After Roe v. Wade fell, Minnesota stripped away some key protections, making it one of the most loosely regulated states on this issue.
During the debate, Vance made an alarming point about how there is no requirement for doctors to provide care to infants who survive these procedures. And he wasn’t exaggerating! Minnesota’s current law doesn’t explicitly demand that doctors offer life-saving measures in these cases. “Barbaric” is indeed an apt word to describe this situation.
Walz’s Attempted Deflection
Naturally, Walz tried to deflect by playing semantics. He claimed Vance was “distorting” the truth and insisted that the law had been “misread.” But here’s where things get sticky: Minnesota had statutes requiring doctors to try saving babies born alive under such circumstances since the 1970s! Those laws were repealed in 2022 under Walz’s watch. Facts are stubborn things; they don’t just disappear because you want them to!
Bream vs Walz: A Clash of Perspectives
Shannon Bream pressed Walz on whether his extreme stance should be adopted nationwide during their exchange. When he tried pivoting by saying his only goal is restoring Roe v. Wade, Bream wasn’t having any of it! She pointed out that Minnesota now allows terminations right up until birth—far more extreme than anything Roe ever permitted.
While Walz attempted to spin this as just another instance of “choice,” let’s face reality: Minnesota’s law goes beyond even the most liberal interpretation of Roe v. Wade! It seems clear he feels comfortable with a completely unrestricted approach—a stance likely to ruffle feathers in states with stronger pro-life positions.
The Radical Shift Among Democrats
The truth is simple: Democrats are trying hard to paint Republicans as extremists on this issue while states like Minnesota adopt policies lacking basic protections for newborns—they’re revealing their own radical colors instead! By pushing for Roe’s reinstatement while backing laws going far beyond it, Walz and others are playing a dangerous game with lives at stake.
This fact-checking episode shows just how difficult it’s becoming for them to hide their extreme positions from public view—and it’s high time we call it what it is!
Leave a Comment