JD Vance Avoids Question on Women’s Right to Travel for Abortions: ‘Am I OK with it?’

J.D. Vance, who previously argued for a “federal approach”to obstruct women from traveling for abortions, has now refrained from specifying his current views on this sensitive issue.

As the running mate of Donald Trump, Vance’s abortion-related policies are garnering attention ahead of the upcoming election. Despite Trump’s assertion that abortion rights should lie with individual states, Vance had previously advocated for a comprehensive nationwide abortion ban. He has consistently pushed for restrictive abortion laws, rejecting exceptions for rape and incest cases. However, he appears to be backtracking on his earlier positions, now claiming alignment with Trump’s views. During the U.S. vice presidential debates, Vance emphasized his desire to regain public “trust”regarding abortion. Nonetheless, his contradictory statements and lack of clarity have left many Americans skeptical and uncertain about his future priorities if he and Trump were to be elected.

Further complicating matters, Vance notably sidestepped inquiries regarding his stance on women traveling out of state for abortions. His history of making alarming statements on this topic raises concerns about his evasiveness.

J.D. Vance Evades Question on Women Traveling for Abortions

During a recent interview with The New York Times, the journalist sought to elicit clarification from Vance about his previous declarations surrounding federal intervention and nationwide abortion restrictions. He diverted the conversation to discuss how his earlier comments stemmed from a different context, emphasizing his focus on earning back public trust. He asserted that restoring trust does not equate to a shift in his abortion principles; rather, it involves making it “easier for young women to choose life.”

When directly asked if he approves of women traveling to other states for abortion services, a question seeking a straightforward “yes or no” response, Vance evaded. Instead, he reiterated his belief that states should independently craft their abortion regulations, stating, “Am I OK with it? I don’t think that’s the proper perspective. I support each state making these determinations, regardless of what JD Vance or Donald Trump might decide.” Yet, he avoided explicitly confirming his approval or disapproval of women traveling to obtain abortions.

His reluctance to tackle this question is particularly notable given his alarming past remarks on women’s travel for abortions. In 2022, he made a controversial claim suggesting that planes funded by George Soros were transporting “disproportionately Black women”to have abortions in California, calling it “creepy”and endorsing a “federal response”to prevent such occurrences. Vance previously argued states should prohibit their residents from seeking abortions out of state, positing, “Ideally, Ohio would ban abortions in California, and the Soroses of the world should adhere to it.”

These prior statements raise alarming implications, suggesting a potential violation of women’s rights and personal freedoms. The concept of a “federal response”or Ohio enforcing abortion bans in California for its residents invokes a disturbing scenario, enhancing a narrative where women might need to provide proof of non-pregnancy to travel, limiting their ability to move freely while under surveillance to ensure compliance with state laws regarding abortions. Legislatures in anti-abortion states have attempted to enact laws targeting pregnant women’s travel, despite pushbacks citing infringement on the right to interstate travel upheld by the Supreme Court. Yet, Vance’s suggestion of a federal level intervention against women seeking abortions across state lines remains in stark contrast to this legal precedent.

Moreover, his unwillingness to clarify his position on women’s travel for abortion services is troubling. Accepting state sovereignty over abortion laws differs fundamentally from endorsing freedom for women to travel for abortions, and it’s unsettling that Vance did not assure Americans that he would safeguard those rights.

Source