The Minnesota abortion law signed by Walz came under scrutiny during the VP debate

Abortion access and reproductive rights remain a key issue for voters this election and featured prominently in the showdown between vice presidential candidates Tim Walz and JD Vance.

According to Google Trends, during the vice presidential debate Tuesday evening and into Wednesday morning, there were high internet searches about Minnesota's abortion law – the first state to codify access after the Supreme Court ruled on Roe v. Wade had picked up.

Although Vance and Walz were generally friendly, they clashed over the wording of the law, with Vance echoing Republican rhetoric that Democrats were OK with abortions in the ninth month of pregnancy or preventing doctors from saving an infant's life.

“The law you signed says that a doctor who presides over an abortion in which the baby survives is not obligated to provide life-saving care to a baby who survives a botched late-term abortion,” Vance said. “That said, I think whether you’re pro-choice or pro-abortion, this is fundamentally barbaric.”

Walz interjected and said the claims were not true.

“These are women’s decisions about their health care and the doctors who know best when to make them,” Walz said. “Trying to distort the way a law is written to make a point – that is not the case at all. There is a continuation of these guys trying to tell women or get involved. I use this line for this. Just mind your own business. Things were going best when Roe v. Wade was in office.”

However, Walz did not address the nuances of the law and how it was something many doctors in Minnesota advocated for. So The 19th's reproductive health reporter Shefali Luthra joined Morning Editon host Cathy Wurzer on Wednesday to delve into the details.

Listen to their entire conversation by clicking the player button.

Minnesota law sets no viability limit for when a pregnant person could have an abortion

While Minnesota has not enforced a viability limit or termination of fetal pregnancy since 1976, state lawmakers eliminated the language entirely last year. A similar lack of restrictions exists in some parts of the country, including Washington, D.C. and Colorado, Luthra said.

“The idea there is pretty similar to what the governor has said, which is that people and their doctors are usually the ones who decide if and when they need an abortion. And I want to make that very clear when we talk about the abortions that take place after viability has been achieved. First of all, they are very, very, very rare,” she said.

As the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention reports, the vast majority of abortions occur in the first trimester, at or before the 13th week of pregnancy.

“In such cases, it is usually due to some health complication during the pregnancy – something that may mean the fetus is not viable, something that threatens the health of the pregnant person,” Luthra said. “These are often very hard, to be honest, very heartbreaking stories. I have spoken to many patients about their experiences with abortions at this point in pregnancy, and these are largely wanted pregnancies where they have no other choice and, frankly, there are very few places to access medical care to receive care.”

The most recent data from Minnesota shows only seven induced abortions in the third trimester over a period of five years.

Vance: Minnesota will no longer require doctors to provide life-saving care to babies with often fatal fetal abnormalities

Among the numerous revisions to the state's abortion law last year was a change to a law that required doctors to take all reasonable measures to “protect the life and health” of live-born infants. The law now says that doctors should “care” for the child and deletes the word “preserve.” Walz did not attempt to explain why, but this change leaves room for palliative care for infants who are not expected to survive.

“This is something we’ve seen with a lot of Republicans and anti-abortion groups,” Luthra said. “They understand that much of the public opposes abortion restrictions, and so they have tried to portray Democrats as very extreme on this issue by focusing on areas where they suspect it might be less popular, such as abortion later in pregnancy.” where the polls are a little more uncertain and people don't fully understand the context in which this is happening, but also argue without evidence and, frankly, incorrectly, that babies are being killed, and that's part of it.”

This is illegal.

“What we included in the bill is what I would call comfort language,” co-author Tina Favoriten, DFL-Rochester, testified in the House of Representatives in April 2023. “Repeal of the so-called 'Born Alive Infant Act' does not legalize infanticide, as has been claimed.

“If you are born prematurely or give birth to a child with a devastating defect, the child will not be ripped from your arms because the politicians have decided that is what should happen and that there should be significant intervention… there should be “Between the parents and the doctor,” said Favoriten. “People in these tragic situations deserve this privacy.”

Allowing some flexibility in the laws provides such options for doctors and parents, Luthra said.

“If you know your child won’t survive, perhaps you deserve a chance to nurture them, spend some time bonding and provide palliative care rather than focusing on medical interventions that don’t work.” said Luthra.

Vance: Republicans need to regain public trust on the abortion issue

It's not the first time Vance has said this, Luthra said. He made the same argument in his home state of Ohio after Ohioans approved a ballot measure enshrining abortion rights in state law.

“And if you look at the polls again, he’s right. “We've seen poll after poll showing that voters, particularly those who care about abortion, largely don't trust Republicans on this issue,” Luthra continued. “JD Vance is trying to counteract that, but it's a very uphill battle to regain trust on an issue where, frankly, you've been aligned with an organization and an advocacy group that opposes abortion for a very, very long time .”

Vance has not consistently spoken out in favor of a nationwide ban on abortion, nor has Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump.

What awaits you in the final weeks before Election Day?

“I would be very surprised if we didn't see a lot of abortions [[discussion]]is just around the corner,” Luthra said. Walz's naming of women whose lives have been changed or ended because of abortion restrictions is “very powerful and very resonant,” she added.

She expects there will be more real-world examples in Harris' campaign and remains curious to see what the Republicans' strategy will be as they appear to change their stance on reproductive rights.

On Tuesday evening, Trump wrote on Truth Social, “Everyone knows I would not support a federal abortion ban,” and said he would veto it if such a ban came to his desk. “It’s up to states to decide based on the will of their voters.”