Staff Reports
Vice President Kamala Harris seems to have developed a unique approach to fielding questions on hot-button issues: dodge, deflect, and dance. When confronted directly about what specific abortion restrictions she might accept if she were to become president, Harris took a hard turn straight into the Trump bashing lane. Instead of answering the question that was asked, she opted to resurrect the Trump boogeyman as the culprit behind her party’s woes.
In a recent interview, Harris announced her unwavering support for Roe v. Wade being codified into law, echoing the liberal mantra that women need absolute autonomy, as if a child’s life may as well come with a Terms & Conditions checkbox. Essentially, her argument boils down to a simplistic view where making a decision about one’s body means it’s completely up for grabs—and this disregard for the unborn fails to sit well with many reasonable Americans.
When pressed further by CBS anchor Norah O’Donnell, who, shockingly, expected Harris to elucidate her position, the vice president redirected the conversation back to former President Donald Trump. Harris claimed that if it weren’t for Trump nominating three justices to the Supreme Court, they wouldn’t even be having this “debate.” Apparently, in her world, the judicial branches exist solely to validate liberal ideologies, and any push for common-sense restrictions on abortion is deemed unacceptable.
Harris dances around what abortion restrictions she would accept https://t.co/fNsLULFfuM
— Washington Examiner (@dcexaminer) October 28, 2024
O’Donnell, seeming to grasp the absurdity of claiming Trump has a clear agenda, pointed out Trump’s own denials of pushing for a federal abortion ban. Harris, rather than engaging in a spirited debate, simply rehashed her fearmongering tactics, taking jabs at Trump’s rhetoric and suggesting that he’s been all over the place. Raising concerns about Project 2025—an initiative desiring to bring conservatism back to government—seemed to be her ace in the hole for diverting the conversation.
But the deeper irony lies in Harris’s reluctance to even entertain the notion of religious exemptions to make her women’s health initiatives palatable to moderates, let alone conservative voters. When asked about the possibility of compromise, she stood firmly against any concessions under the guise of maintaining fundamental freedoms. It is fascinating that she sees “freedom” strictly in terms of abortion rights but has no interest in, say, the freedom of conscience for those anti-abortion Americans or the right to defend the lives of the unborn.
This shows a relentless commitment to preserving the status quo of extreme abortion rights, even if it means alienating potential allies. The question remains: does Harris believe there is a middle ground? Or is her relentless push for absolute abortion access just political theater?
