Among the many untruths posited by Kamala Harris during a tense exchange between herself and Donald Trump during Tuesday night’s debate was a false claim about the former president’s stance on abortion. “If Trump were to be reelected,” Harris lied, “he will sign a national abortion ban.”

Trump has been repeatedly questioned on this matter since the Supreme Court, with the help of three of his judicial picks, overturned Roe v. Wade in 2022. Pressed incessantly about whether he would enforce a federal abortion ban, he has remained consistent in his position that the issue belongs in the hands of the states and that he has no intention of one-upping the Supreme Court.

A video made and circulated by Trump in April shared a clearly articulated viewpoint. Once again, he explained his position on all areas of family planning, including allowing each state to determine its own abortion laws while confirming his support for IVF treatments.

“Many states will be different,” Trump assured. “Many will have a different number of weeks, or some will [be] more conservative than others. … At the end of the day, this is all about the will of the people.”

To back up Trump, his running mate, JD Vance, recently sat down with NBC’s “Meet the Press” to explain, again, that Trump has no intention of passing a national abortion ban, and that if such a proposal were to land on his desk in the Oval Office, he would veto it.

In the same vein, the issue of medical care — or the denial of such care — to babies who are born alive from failed abortions is one on which voters may have been looking for clarity. They didn’t get it Tuesday night.

Trump prodded the conversation in that direction by pointing directly to Kamala’s vice-presidential pick, Tim Walz, and his abhorrent legislative record on the matter. “Her vice-presidential pick says abortion in the ninth month is absolutely fine,” Trump argued. “He also says execution after birth — its execution, no longer abortion because the baby is born — is okay.”

The inhumane practice of denying assistance to infants in these unfathomable situations has been quietly pushed by Democrat officials in many blue areas of the country. Yet despite repeatedly voting to prevent intervention from available doctors and nurses when an attempted abortion fails, Democrats will consistently deny their advocacy for such atrocities.

ABC’s Linsey Davis interjected with a “fact-check” to Trump’s accusations of Walz, saying, “There is no state in this country where it is legal to kill a baby after it’s born.” That’s technically true. However, it’s the semantics of the argument that allowed her to deny the reality of the situation.

As we know, Trump was not referring to the obviously criminal act of outright murdering children. Rather, he was exposing the verified protocols that have been permitted by Democrat politicians across the country, which prevent doctors from providing aid to these suffering babies.

Tim Walz’s Minnesota is, in fact, a state that has implemented such laws, and it was his own signature that put them in place. At least eight babies in Minnesota were left to die after abortion procedures. Walz “fixed” this by removing reporting requirements via the repeal of the Born Alive Infants Protection Act. Removing the safeguards for babies who survive these procedures was done by establishing that they would no longer be recognized as humans, and doctors and hospitals no longer need to report on what happens if a baby initially survives an abortion attempt.

Shockingly (or not), the monstrousness of allowing babies to die when an abortion procedure fails is not isolated to one or two extremists in the Democrat Party. Just months before Walz used his own signature to shatter the protections for these tiny survivors in his own state, nearly every Democrat in the House of Representatives marched in lockstep. When faced with a vote on the Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act, they overwhelmingly opposed the measure. Thankfully, the bill still passed despite nearly all of the House’s 210 Democrats voting against it.

Even as abortion has become somewhat synonymous with the Democrat Party today, it’s still shocking to consider the Democrats’ refusal to put any restrictions in place or recognize a baby as a person — whether inside or outside of the womb.

When Trump pushed the debate moderators to ask Kamala, “Will she allow abortion in the eighth month, ninth month, seventh month?” the candidate rolled her eyes and said, “Come on.” She later mouthed “That’s not true” when Trump accurately stated that late-term abortions are allowed and regularly happen in the U.S. — one of only seven nations in the world to allow them.

She, again, refused to say whether she would support limitations of any kind. However, an answer in the evening’s discussion was not necessary, as Harris’s own voting record and public statements overwhelmingly demonstrate that she will never defend infants in any scenario where the term “abortion” is applied. Indeed, it has become almost impossible to discuss this challenging issue with voters from the other side of the political aisle, particularly as they are the greatest advocates for the death of the unborn.

To be clear, if Kamala Harris were to be asked whether she supports providing life-saving care to living babies born after failed abortions, the answer would be “No.” She and every other elected Democrat today have shown and stated that they believe that saving the life of the baby in any capacity interferes with a woman’s “right to choose.”

If Kamala were asked whether she supports restricting abortion to a set number of weeks or months, or limiting access to abortion to the first or second trimester of pregnancy, the answer would be, and has always been, “No.”

Refusing to set limits or boundaries is Democrat language for “anything goes.” And the record speaks for itself.