Looks like we’ve got a new twist in the debate over reproductive laws, and this time, it’s the fact-checkers themselves getting fact-checked. You know things are getting dicey 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, where Ohio Senator J.D. Vance called out Minnesota’s extremely lenient policies under Governor Tim Walz. Vance highlighted that Minnesota no longer mandates life-saving care for babies who survive failed termination procedures, and the so-called fact-checkers pounced on him for it.
But hold up—Becket Adams from The Hill went through the evidence and confirmed that Vance was, in fact, telling the truth. Minnesota did, indeed, strip away some key protections after the fall of Roe v. Wade, making it one of the most loosely regulated states on this issue. During the debate, Vance brought up a chilling point about the absence of a requirement for doctors to provide care to infants who survive these procedures. And he wasn’t exaggerating. Minnesota’s current law, reworked post-Roe, doesn’t explicitly demand that doctors offer life-saving measures in these cases. “Barbaric” is an apt word, as Vance put it.
Naturally, Walz tried to deflect and play semantics. He claimed Vance was “distorting” the truth and that the law had been “misread.” But here’s the thing: Minnesota had statutes that required doctors to try to save babies born alive under these circumstances, going back to the 1970s. Those laws were repealed in 2022 under Walz’s administration. Facts are stubborn things, aren’t they?
Shannon Bream also pressed Walz on whether his extreme stance should be adopted nationwide. When Walz tried to pivot by saying his only goal is to restore Roe, Bream wasn’t having it. She pointed out that Minnesota now allows for terminations right up until birth, which is far more extreme than anything Roe v. Wade ever permitted. While Walz attempted to spin this as just another instance of “choice,” the reality is that Minnesota’s law now goes beyond even the most liberal interpretation of Roe. It’s clear he’s comfortable with a completely unrestricted approach—something that’s likely to ruffle feathers in states that have taken a more pro-life stance.
The truth is, Democrats are trying to paint Republicans as the extremists on this issue, but when states like Minnesota adopt policies that lack basic protections for newborns, they’re showing their own radical colors. By pushing for Roe to be reinstated, while also backing laws that go far beyond it, Walz and others are playing a dangerous game. And as this fact-check of the fact-checkers shows, they’re finding it harder to hide the truth about just how extreme their positions really are.
Leave a Comment