Vice President Kamala Harris’s stance on abortion has been widely criticized for its inflexibility, with many questioning her ability to find common ground with those who disagree with her. When asked by NBC News’s Hallie Jackson about potential concessions in the wake of the Roe v. Wade reversal, Harris dismissed the idea outright.
Jackson posed the question of religious exemptions as a possible legislative fix, but Harris was unyielding in her response. “I don’t think we should be making concessions when we’re talking about a fundamental freedom to make decisions about your own body,” she said. “Let’s just start with a fundamental fact: a basic freedom has been taken from the women of America – the freedom to make decisions about their own body. And that cannot be negotiable.”
However, Harris’s absolutist stance on abortion is at odds with the history of the Roe v. Wade decision itself. The landmark Supreme Court ruling did not establish an absolute right to abortion, but rather a sliding scale of state regulation. The ruling allowed states to prohibit all abortions in the final third of pregnancy, raising questions about the supposed “fundamental freedom” to make choices about one’s body.
In reality, Harris’s position is far more extreme than the Roe v. Wade decision. She has advocated for the elimination of all regulations on the abortion industry, including the forced participation of medical professionals and institutions that object to the procedure on moral grounds. Under her vision, taxpayers would be forced to fund abortion, and medical professionals would be compelled to perform the procedure regardless of their personal objections.
This extreme stance is rooted in Harris’s far-left worldview, which prioritizes the interests of a narrow elite over the fundamental freedoms of God-fearing Americans. As James Madison wrote in 1795, the duty of every man is to render to his Creator such homage and such only as he believes to be acceptable to him. Harris’s approach would turn this fundamental insight on its head, placing the policy preferences of her coastal comrades above the rights of Americans who hold different views.
Under a Harris presidency, Catholic hospitals and doctors would be forced to perform abortions against their beliefs, abortion protesters would be thrown in jail, and Christian employers would be forced to pay for a procedure they believed was murder. These are not hypothetical scenarios, but rather the logical consequences of Harris’s extreme ideology.
Harris’s inability to see nuance on this issue is not unique to abortion. Throughout her career, she has demonstrated a lack of respect for conservative viewpoints, refusing to consider concessions or compromises with lawmakers who hold different views. This refusal to engage with opposing perspectives has been a hallmark of her tenure as vice president, and it raises serious concerns about her ability to govern effectively.
