Skip to content Skip to footer

At Debate, J.D. Vance Falsely Said He Never Backed a National Abortion Ban

Vance has made numerous anti-abortion statements over the past two years.

Sen. J.D. Vance speaks during the vice-presidential debate at CBS Studios on October 1, 2024, in New York City.

During the vice presidential debate on Tuesday, Republican nominee Sen. J.D. Vance of Ohio strategically misrepresented his long-held extremist views on abortion, taking a softer tone on the issue to appeal to viewers at home.

Vance debated against Democratic vice presidential nominee Gov. Tim Walz of Minnesota. During the debate, the candidates discussed the issue of abortion for about 10 minutes.

Walz’s comments suggested that, like his running mate Vice President Kamala Harris, he wants to return to the federal abortion protections that were established by Roe v. Wade, which the Supreme Court overturned in 2022. He included in his answer stories of women who have been harmed by harsh abortion restrictions in states throughout the U.S.

“If you don’t know [women like this], you soon will. Their Project 2025 is going to have a registry of pregnancies,” Walz said, alluding to the Heritage Foundation document that outlines a far right plan for the next conservative president to implement once in office.

Meanwhile, Vance tried to present his anti-abortion views as reasonable, despite his past extremist statements. “We can be a big and diverse country where we respect people’s freedom of conscience and make the country more pro-baby and pro-family,” he said at one point.

When moderators inquired about statements he made just two years ago in support of a national abortion ban, Vance pushed back, falsely claiming that wasn’t his stance at all.

“I never supported a national ban. When I was running for Senate in 2022, I talked about setting a minimum national standard,” Vance said.

Of course, a “minimum standard” is itself a ban, restricting when people can obtain abortion services based on how many weeks pregnant they are.

Vance’s statements on the debate stage were not only disingenuous, but flat-out false, as he has consistently argued for a ban starting at the moment of fertilization.

In 2022, as he was running for the Senate seat he now sits in, Vance said on a podcast that he wanted to ban abortion altogether.

“I certainly would like abortion to be illegal nationally,” Vance said in the interview.

Within that same conversation — which took place before federal abortion protections were overturned — Vance speculated that if Roe were to be upended and states started enacting their own rules on abortion, billionaire George Soros might fund initiatives to help people obtain abortions by providing transportation from restrictive states to more lenient ones.

Vance questioned whether the federal government should get involved in restricting travel for pregnant people if that hypothetical were to come true. “If that happens, do you need some federal response to prevent it from happening?” Vance said, adding that he was “pretty sympathetic” to the idea.

Vance has also openly stated that he doesn’t support exceptions to abortion bans for rape or incest, callously claiming that “two wrongs don’t make a right.”

These comments from Vance, all made within the last election cycle, suggest his tempered remarks during the debate shouldn’t be trusted by voters concerned about reproductive rights.

Vance’s running mate, former President Donald Trump, has also tried to whitewash his far right stances on abortion.

In a post on X during the vice presidential debate, Trump claimed that he would veto a federal ban on abortion.

“EVERYONE KNOWS I WOULD NOT SUPPORT A FEDERAL ABORTION BAN, UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCES, AND WOULD, IN FACT, VETO IT, BECAUSE IT IS UP TO THE STATES TO DECIDE BASED ON THE WILL OF THEIR VOTERS,” Trump wrote.

This is the first time Trump has made a statement saying he would veto such a bill. In fact, Trump has taken conflicting stances on abortion over the past several years and throughout the election cycle, likely as an attempt to appease his Christian nationalist base while not losing support from more mainstream voters.

Trump, for example, has bragged about appointing enough far right justices to the Supreme Court to overturn Roe, saying that he has “no regrets” over doing so, even though several states have now passed draconian bans that forbid abortion at any stage of pregnancy.

Earlier this year, Trump suggested that he was in favor of a national abortion ban, only backing away from the idea when it became clear to him that it was unpopular.

“We’re going to come up with a time — and maybe we could bring the country together on that issue. … The number of weeks now, people are agreeing on 15. And I’m thinking in terms of that,” Trump said this past spring before abruptly changing his stance a few weeks later.

Reproductive rights advocates and health care experts agree that restrictions at that time of a pregnancy are unnecessary and dangerous.

“We know that [bans like these create] very real daily harms for pregnant people across the country — people who oftentimes want their pregnancy but abortion is the only viable treatment for them to save their own lives,” said MSNBC political analyst Juanita Tolliver, responding to Trump’s suggestion of a 15-week ban.

“When Trump says things like this, it can’t be dismissed,” Tolliver added.

We’re not backing down in the face of Trump’s threats.

As Donald Trump is inaugurated a second time, independent media organizations are faced with urgent mandates: Tell the truth more loudly than ever before. Do that work even as our standard modes of distribution (such as social media platforms) are being manipulated and curtailed by forces of fascist repression and ruthless capitalism. Do that work even as journalism and journalists face targeted attacks, including from the government itself. And do that work in community, never forgetting that we’re not shouting into a faceless void – we’re reaching out to real people amid a life-threatening political climate.

Our task is formidable, and it requires us to ground ourselves in our principles, remind ourselves of our utility, dig in and commit.

As a dizzying number of corporate news organizations – either through need or greed – rush to implement new ways to further monetize their content, and others acquiesce to Trump’s wishes, now is a time for movement media-makers to double down on community-first models.

At Truthout, we are reaffirming our commitments on this front: We won’t run ads or have a paywall because we believe that everyone should have access to information, and that access should exist without barriers and free of distractions from craven corporate interests. We recognize the implications for democracy when information-seekers click a link only to find the article trapped behind a paywall or buried on a page with dozens of invasive ads. The laws of capitalism dictate an unending increase in monetization, and much of the media simply follows those laws. Truthout and many of our peers are dedicating ourselves to following other paths – a commitment which feels vital in a moment when corporations are evermore overtly embedded in government.

Over 80 percent of Truthout‘s funding comes from small individual donations from our community of readers, and the remaining 20 percent comes from a handful of social justice-oriented foundations. Over a third of our total budget is supported by recurring monthly donors, many of whom give because they want to help us keep Truthout barrier-free for everyone.

You can help by giving today. Whether you can make a small monthly donation or a larger gift, Truthout only works with your support.