WASHINGTON — During Wednesday night’s vice-presidential debate, Sen. Kamala Harris refused to answer questions regarding specific plans the Biden/Harris campaign has on abortion or whether a Biden/Harris Administration would expand the number of seats on the U.S. Supreme Court.
“Senator Kamala Harris is unequivocally pro-abortion,” said Carol Tobias, president of National Right to Life. “But last night, she refused to answer questions about Roe v. Wade or whether a Biden/Harris Administration would pack the Court.”
During the debate, Vice President Mike Pence asked Sen. Harris about Court packing, something that has not been done since the middle of the 19th Century. He said:
There’ve been 29 vacancies on the Supreme Court during presidential election years from George Washington to Barack Obama. Presidents have nominated in all 29 cases, but your party is actually openly advocating adding seats to the Supreme Court, which has had nine seats for 150 years, if you don’t get your way. This is a classic case of, if you can’t win by the rules, you are going to change the rules. Now, you’ve refused to answer the question, Joe Biden has refused to answer the question.
I think the American people would really like to know if Judge Amy Coney Barrett is confirmed to the Supreme Court of the United States, are you and Joe Biden, if somehow you win this election, going to pack the Supreme Court to get your way?
Sen. Harris refused to answer the question.
“Despite her non-answer, we already know what would happen in a Biden/Harris Administration,” said Tobias. “Pro-abortion groups would line up with their golden tickets and the doors would open, giving them the ride of their dreams. Taxpayer funding of abortion? Check. Abortion on demand at anytime, for any reason, under any circumstances? Check. Court packing? Check. Abortion on demand entrenched in federal law? Check.”
A Biden/Harris Administration would seek to:
- enshrine abortion on demand in federal law;
- appoint justices who will commit, in advance, to uphold abortion on demand;
- reverse the Trump Administration’s pro-life policies;
- reverse President Trump’s Title X rule that prevents family planning grantees from co-locating with abortion clinics, or from referring clients for abortion;
- promote abortion around the world by reversing the Protecting Life in Global Health Assistance program which prevents federal taxpayer dollars from being used by abortion groups to perform or promote abortion overseas;
- abolish the Hyde Amendment and use federal tax dollars to pay for abortion on demand.
As a candidate for president, Sen. Harris announced a broad platform that would require states that have a history of passing pro-life laws to seek preclearance from the Justice Department before they could enact any new pro-life laws.
When Sen. Harris won her Senate seat, she was praised by the president of Planned Parenthood at that time, Cecile Richards. Richards said, “Kamala Harris is a staunch advocate for women’s health and rights. She ran proudly on an agenda to expand access to reproductive health care…”
Following Joe Biden’s announcement that Kamala Harris was his choice as a running mate, Planned Parenthood Action Fund tweeted, “Throughout her entire career, @KamalaHarris has been a steadfast champion for reproductive rights…”
In January 2020, The New York Times editorial board asked Joe Biden a series of questions including what he would look for in a U.S. Supreme Court nominee. He said:
They have to have an expansive view of the Constitution. Recognize the right to privacy, unenumerated rights that exist in the Constitution… that means I know they will in fact support Roe v. Wade.
“Joe Biden has essentially said that he would require any nominee to the Supreme Court to pledge, in advance, how he or she would rule on abortion-related cases and pledge to uphold abortion on demand,” said Tobias.
Joe Biden has also said he supports the elimination of the Hyde Amendment which has saved countless lives since it was first passed.
“A Biden/Harris Administration would force taxpayers to pay for abortions, would turn back the clock on pro-life policies and run rough-shod over the wishes of the American people,” said Tobias. “Pro-abortion groups and their wish lists would come first. Policies protecting women and their unborn children would get tossed out like yesterday’s newspaper.”