In the vice presidential debate, Sen. J.D. Vance accused Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz of signing a bill that allows for infanticide. He said, “as I read the Minnesota law 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 lifesaving care to a baby who survives a botched late-term abortion.”
Walz responded by saying Vance is “trying to distort the way the law is written, to try to make a point. That’s not it at all.”
Vance asked, “What was I wrong about? Governor, please tell me, What was I wrong about?”
Walz replied, “That is not the way the law is written.”
Walz lied. That is exactly the way the law is written. Here’s the proof.
In 1976, Minnesota passed a law that required medical personnel to “preserve the life and the health of the child” who was born as a result of an abortion. To read the law, click here.
In 2023, Walz signed a law that amended this law to read that in such circumstances medical personnel should take steps to “care for the infant who is born alive.” Stricken was the requirement to “preserve the life and the health of the child.” To read the evidence, click here.
In other words, Vance was right to say that in cases of a botched abortion, “the doctor is under no obligation to provide lifesaving care.”
Now why did Walz remove the requirement that medical personnel “preserve the life and the health of the child,” replacing it with the much lower standard of merely providing “care for an infant who is born alive”? To “care for an infant” is not the same as to “preserve the life” of an infant. Keeping the baby warm is a poor substitute for keeping him alive.
Those who think there is no difference need to explain why Walz found it necessary to amend the law.
In short, under the law that Walz signed last year, there is no medical requirement, or legal penalty, for passively promoting infanticide. That’s what he allows. And make no mistake, once this is allowed, it’s a short walk to allowing the elderly in nursing homes and hospitals to die. Keeping them warm while not attending to their condition is sufficient.
Still, the question is: Why does he want this? Here’s why: A baby born alive as a result of a botched abortion is testimony to the humanity of the child, thus undercutting the lie that abortion is not about killing the unborn.
To abort is to stop. Every honest person knows what is being stopped—the birth of a human being that originated at conception.
Vance was right to say that what Walz has done is “fundamentally barbaric.” The fact that Walz could not defend his decision, choosing instead to lie about it, is further proof of just how extreme he is.
Contact Walz’s chief of staff: Chris.Schmitter@state.mn.us
