What Does J.D. Vance Actually Believe About Abortion?

Can he be the spokesman we need for the unborn?

By: Aubrey Gulick, originally published July 17, 2024, The American Spectator

I’ve seen JD Vance in person just once.

It was from about 200 yards away during a pro-life rally on the steps of the Ohio state capitol. He didn’t speak for long, but that event solidified him as a pro-life politician in my mind. (READ MORE: On JD Vance and His Critics)

I’ve always kinda liked Vance. The rags-to-riches story is attractive for a politician, and no one can deny that the guy is smart. I’m not too concerned about his position on the war in Ukraine or tax policy — there are many political issues on which reasonable and well-meaning people can disagree, and I’m willing to hear the arguments.

There are, however, a couple of issues about which reasonable people cannot disagree — issues that are so black and white that, if you stray from the white, I won’t be able to vote for you in good conscience. Abortion is one of those issues.

Vance has spoken openly and bluntly about abortion, and he doesn’t mince words. In 2022, he said that he would support a 15-week nationwide abortion ban when Sen. Lindsey Graham proposed a bill to do so. During an interview the previous year, Vance had even come out against exceptions for rape or incest, which so many well-meaning Republicans get behind. “I think two wrongs don’t make a right,” he told Spectrum News 1 in an interview.

When Ohio passed a constitutional amendment protecting abortion in the state, Vance released a statement on X that concluded, “There is something sociopathic about a political movement that tells young women (and men) that it is liberating to murder their own children.”

Most importantly, Vance has consistently voted pro-life, so much so, in fact, that the Susan B. Anthony List gave him an A+ rating. (READ MORE: The Democrats’ Panic Reveals Vance’s Strength)

Great. We have a pro-life vice presidential candidate. Right? Well. Maybe.

Earlier this month, Vance gave an interview to ABC’s Meet the Press during which host Kristen Welker grilled him on Project 2025 and the recent U.S. Supreme Court case dealing with mifepristone, the drug frequently used to end unborn children’s lives. First, he made this seemingly ill-informed comment: “The Supreme Court made a decision saying that the American people should have access to that medication [mifepristone], Donald Trump has supported that opinion, I support that opinion. I think it is important to say that we actually have to have an important conversation in this country about what our abortion policy should be.”

It should be noted that in FDA v. Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine, the court did not conclude that mifepristone should be widely accessible. It merely concluded that the Texas doctors didn’t have sufficient legal standing to make the argument they were making. Whether mifepristone should be widely accessible is still up for debate.

But then Welker pressed him on it and asked if he supported “mifepristone being accessible.” Vance replied: “Yes, Kristen, I do,” before redirecting the conversation to Project 2025.

I’ve talked about mifepristone before. It’s an abortive drug that effectively starves the unborn child of nutrients in his mother’s womb. It’s an absolutely horrific way to die, and it’s unconscionable to argue that doctors should be allowed to prescribe it under any conditions. (Yes, I know, I’m radical. But this is a human life and an eternal soul we’re talking about.)

There’s a possibility that Vance didn’t intend to endorse chemical abortion. I understand that thoughts can get addled during a hostile interview, and Welker was certainly hostile. There’s a “gotcha” element to the question, and Vance may have just fallen for it. Pro-life groups, including CatholicVote, are giving him the pass on this one and are still lining up behind the Trump–Vance ticket, especially given Vance’s stellar record up to this point. (WATCH: The Spectator P.M. Podcast Ep. 59: The Republican Platform Draft Is No Good on Abortion)

That being said, Vance is now the vice presidential candidate for a party that has signaled it wants to turn its back on the pro-life agenda because it isn’t voter-friendly. It’s a strategic shift, they claim. Voters don’t want a radical pro-life agenda, so Republicans aren’t going to give it to them.

I really hope that Vance hasn’t shifted his position to more closely align with his wishy-washy party colleagues. I hope the ABC interview was a fluke. Perhaps it was, although the fact that Vance has not disavowed his comments and has deleted pro-life sections of his Senate campaign website seems to suggest that it wasn’t.

Most of all, I hope and pray that if and when Trump and Vance make it to the Oval Office, they will turn back and be the spokesmen we need on behalf of the unborn.

Aubrey Gulick is a graduate of Hillsdale College (2023), the former Intercollegiate Studies Institute fellow at The American Spectator, and its current digital editor.