In the wake of the post-Roe era, battles over abortion laws have intensified, with states like Minnesota passing legislation that starkly contrasts with pro-life values. The recent exchange between Senator J.D. Vance and Governor Tim Walz on Minnesota’s abortion law during the vice-presidential debate highlights the very heart of this conflict. Vance’s remarks, calling attention to the most vulnerable among us — infants who survive failed abortions — expose a moral crisis that demands attention.

At the center of the controversy is a provision in Minnesota’s 2023 abortion law that removes the explicit requirement for doctors to “preserve the life and health” of an infant born alive following an abortion. While proponents of the law claim that such cases are rare, we must ask: does rarity justify indifference to even one innocent life?

The Sanctity of Life and God’s Command

The sanctity of human life is non-negotiable. From conception to natural death, life is sacred, and the Bible clearly teaches that each life is a gift from God (Psalm 139:13-16). Every child, no matter the circumstances of their birth or the challenges they may face, deserves love, care, and protection. To deny life-saving medical care to a newborn, regardless of the situation, stands in direct opposition to these values.

Vance was right to call the provision “fundamentally barbaric.” When a child survives an abortion, the child is no longer a theoretical or potential life (not that it ever was!) — it is a living, breathing human being. How could anyone in good conscience argue that this tiny human doesn’t deserve the same right to life as any other? For Walz and his allies to defend this portion of the law is shocking, as it flies in the face of both Christian ethics and basic human decency.

The Slippery Slope: Infanticide by Any Other Name

The defenders of the law argue that it doesn’t legalize infanticide, and technically they’re correct — killing a baby after birth is illegal in all states. But let’s not mince words: by removing the requirement for life-saving care for babies who survive abortion, we are walking perilously close to infanticide. As Vance pointed out, the refusal to provide medical intervention for a baby who survives an abortion is a moral failure and an affront to human dignity.

What’s most disturbing is the implication that some lives are not worth saving. In cases of catastrophic pregnancies or fetal abnormalities, advocates of the law claim that allowing the baby to die naturally is an act of compassion. They argue that these parents should be able to hold their child as it passes away rather than subjecting it to “futile” medical interventions. But is it truly compassionate to stand by and allow a child to die when there may be a chance to save them?

We must reject the false compassion of such arguments. Compassion is found in fighting for life, in cherishing every heartbeat, and in providing the medical care that could give these babies a chance to live. Even when the odds seem grim, we believe in the power of life, and we stand with the vulnerable, just as Christ stood with the outcast and the defenseless.

The Slippery Slope of “Medical Reasons”

Another defense of the law is that most late-term abortions are performed for “medical reasons,” often involving severe fetal abnormalities. But as we’ve seen time and time again, laws that permit the termination of life for medical reasons can quickly expand into broader justifications. What starts as compassion for parents facing a devastating diagnosis could lead to a societal mindset that values some lives over others, depending on their perceived “quality” of life.

Let us not forget that medical advancements occur all the time, and conditions once considered terminal can become treatable. What if a child who survives a botched abortion could thrive with proper care? The pro-life position is not naive; it recognizes the complexities of difficult pregnancies and heart-wrenching diagnoses. But it also holds firmly that life is always worth fighting for, no matter how difficult the circumstances.

The Call to Action: Protecting the Most Vulnerable

Our duty is clear: we must continue to advocate for laws that protect the unborn, as well as those who survive abortion attempts. The fight does not end with the reversal of Roe v. Wade; it has only just begun. In states like Minnesota, where laws now allow for abortion without gestational limits and weaken protections for infants born alive, we must stand firm in defense of life.

The argument that women do not typically seek abortions in the ninth month of pregnancy, or that late-term abortions are rare, misses the point entirely. Whether one baby or 10,000 babies are affected by this law, every single life matters. We cannot allow ourselves to become desensitized to the moral and spiritual implications of such legislation.

In a world where the most innocent among us are treated as expendable, we must be the voice that declares: all life is precious, and every child deserves a chance to live.