Yes, Joe Biden and Kamala Harris Are Planning to Legalize Abortion Up To Birth

Agresti, J. D. (2020, September 3). Yes, Joe Biden and Kamala Harris Are Planning to Legalize Abortion Up To Birth. Retrieved from
Agresti, James D. “Yes, Joe Biden and Kamala Harris Are Planning to Legalize Abortion Up To Birth.” Just Facts. 3 September 2020. Web. 19 June 2024.<>.
Chicago (for footnotes)
James D. Agresti, “Yes, Joe Biden and Kamala Harris Are Planning to Legalize Abortion Up To Birth.” Just Facts. September 3, 2020.
Chicago (for bibliographies)
Agresti, James D. “Yes, Joe Biden and Kamala Harris Are Planning to Legalize Abortion Up To Birth.” Just Facts. September 3, 2020.

By James D. Agresti
September 3, 2020


In the face of overwhelming facts to the contrary, five prominent “fact checkers” are claiming that Joe Biden and Kamala Harris don’t support legalizing abortion up until birth. To reach this false conclusion, these individuals repeatedly use a propaganda technique condemned by George Orwell, the author of 1984.

The resulting misinformation shrouds the policies of Biden and Harris, who are planning to legalize abortions of humans who are capable of living outside the womb. This stance is opposed by about 80% of Americans and involves ending the lives of pre-birth humans who have passed the following milestones:

Conflicting Claims

At the 2020 Republican National Convention, keynote speakers and others stated:

  • “Joe Biden supports taxpayer funding of abortion right up to the moment of birth.”
    – Vice-President Mike Pence
  • “Joe Biden claims he has empathy for the vulnerable—yet the party he leads supports the extreme late-term abortion of defenseless babies right up to the moment of birth.”
    President Donald Trump
  • “President Trump will stand up against Biden-Harris, who are the most anti-life presidential ticket ever, even supporting the horrors of late-term abortion and infanticide.”
    Deirdre Byrne, a Catholic nun, retired surgeon, and retired Army officer
  • “If you watched the DNC last week,” their “argument for Joe Biden boiled down to the fact that they think he’s a nice guy,” but policies that “allow abortion up until the point of birth are not nice.”
    Ronna McDaniel, Chair of the Republican National Committee

Taking issue with those statements, various fact checkers reported:

  • “Biden does not support ‘late-term abortion and infanticide’.”
    – Glenn Kessler, Salvador Rizzo, and Meg Kelly of the Washington Post Fact Checker
  • Trump “mischaracterizes the Democratic Party’s stance on abortion and Biden’s position.”
    – Unnamed staff at PolitiFact
  • “Biden has not explicitly expressed support for late-term abortions.”
    – Asma Khalid and Sam Gringlas of NPR
  • “Democrats generally back abortion rights, but Biden isn’t pushing to allow abortions for any reason up until birth.”
    – Eugene Kiely, Lori Robertson, Robert Farley, D’Angelo Gore, Jessica McDonald, Brooks Jackson and Rem Rieder of
  • “Democrats support abortion rights, but that does not mean they call for women to have an unfettered right to terminate pregnancies up until the point of birth.”
    – Sheryl Gay Stolberg of the New York Times

In support of those claims, these fact checks all use a mix of similar half-truths that lead readers to believe the polar opposite of reality.

The Implications of Roe v. Wade

Biden’s campaign website says that he “will work to codify Roe v. Wade,” the Supreme Court’s 1973 ruling that struck down the laws of 30 states that prohibited abortions except to save the life of the mother. This means he will try to pass federal laws that enforce the provisions of Roe instead of relying upon judicial dictates.

Biden’s website also says that he will “appoint U.S. Supreme Court justices and federal judges” who will uphold Roe. The 2020 Democratic Party Platform embraces the same position.

In and of themselves, these stances constitute support for abortion up till birth because Roe v. Wade:

  • mandates that abortion be legal after “viability” when needed to protect “the health of the mother.” Viability, or the stage of development where humans are capable of living outside the womb with medical care, begins around 22 weeks gestation and extends to birth.
  • defines the word “health” so broadly that it includes practically anything. Some illuminating examples of what Roe considers harmful to health include the work of “child care,” the “stigma of unwed motherhood,” and “the distress, for all concerned, associated with the unwanted child.”
  • gives the power to determine what comprises a health risk to anyone who is licensed to perform abortions. It does this by mandating that Roe “be read together” with Doe v. Bolton, a companion case that the Supreme Court issued on the same day. In Doe, the Court ruled that all abortion providers have full authority to decide if an abortion is necessary to protect “health” based solely upon their “best clinical judgment.”

The implications of Roe were made clear by late-term abortionist Warren Hern, author of “the nation’s most widely used textbook on abortion standards and procedures.” He stated, “I will certify that any pregnancy is a threat to a woman’s life and could cause grievous injury to her physical health.”

In direct contradiction to the actual words of Roe, all of these fact checkers allege that supporting Roe does not mean supporting late-term abortions. PolitiFact, for example, writes that the Democratic Party platform “does not address late-term abortion” and that Biden’s goal to codify Roe “would generally limit abortions to the first 20 to 24 weeks of gestation.”

PolitiFact then casually adds that Roe and “related precedents” require states to allow abortions after viability “to preserve the life or health of the mother.” This is a quintessential half-truth because it fails to reveal that “health,” as defined by Roe, means virtually anything that any abortionist says it means.

The Women’s Health Protection Act

Further proof that Democrats plan to legalize abortions up till birth is found in the text of the Women’s Health Protection Act, which is actively cosponsored by 44 of 47 Democrats in the U.S. Senate and 217 of 235 Democrats in the U.S. House of Representatives.

Both the House bill and the Senate bill, which is cosponsored by Kamala Harris:

  • would eliminate all “limitations or requirements” on “abortion after fetal viability” if the “treating health care provider” decides that “continuation of the pregnancy would pose a risk to the pregnant patient’s life or health.”
  • defines a “health care provider” to include “any entity or individual” who is “licensed or certified” to perform “abortion services.”
  • would overturn more than 400 restrictions on abortion that have been passed by state and local governments since 2010.

The Washington Post Fact Checker is aware of the Women’s Health Protection Act but claims that it would merely prohibit states “from banning abortion before the fetus reaches viability.” This description is at flagrant odds with the text of the bill, which again, bans states from prohibiting “abortion after fetal viability” when any licensed abortionist says there is “a risk” to the “health” of the mother.

State Laws

A third line of evidence that Biden, Harris, and other Democrats are intent on legalizing abortion after viability is the enactment of state laws that do just that, along with promises to nullify state laws that limit late-term abortions.

For example, New York governor Andrew Cuomo signed a law in 2019 that repealed a section of the state’s criminal code which had banned third-trimester abortions except when necessary to protect a woman’s life. In its place, the new law allows such abortions “at any time when necessary to protect a patient’s life or health.”

As a NY State agency explains, the purpose of the bill was to bring the state’s law “in line with” with Roe v. Wade. States such as Rhode Island and Illinois have recently enacted similar laws.

Biden is also on board with this agenda, as his campaign website says that his “Justice Department will do everything in its power to stop the rash of state laws that so blatantly violate Roe v. Wade.”

While she was running for president, Kamala Harris’ campaign website vowed that she “will require, for the first time, that states and localities with a history of violating Roe v. Wade obtain approval from her Department of Justice before any abortion law or practice can take effect.”

Given that Roe has not been overturned, and the Supreme Court “reaffirmed” its “essential holding” in the case of Planned Parenthood v. Casey, how can states defy Roe? A 2011 New York Times commentary by Yale Law School fellow Emily Bazelon explains that this is the norm because abortion advocates have decided not to challenge such laws in court.

She writes that “abortion rights groups” have “been wise to avoid” suing states that prohibit “abortion after 20 or 22 weeks of pregnancy” because:

  • 72% of the public favors “making late-term abortion illegal,” and it is “best” not to tread on this “dangerous political ground.”
  • the current members of the Supreme Court might overturn Roe if such a case came before them.
  • “recent polls” show “that more Americans now identify as ‘pro-life’.”

Likewise, a 2018 Gallup survey found that 65% of U.S. adults favor making abortion illegal in the “second three months of pregnancy,” and 81% favor making it illegal in the “last three months of pregnancy.”

Yet, NPR misleads their audience to believe the converse by reporting that “a majority of Americans (61%) say abortion should be legal in all or most cases.” NPR provides no evidence or link to support his claim.

Downplaying the Number of Late-Term Abortions

Bazelon’s commentary, which provides strategic advice for abortion advocates, stresses that “abortion foes … reduced popular support” for abortion by “making late-term abortion seem as if it were the norm rather than the exception. Yet only 1.5 percent of abortions occur late in the second trimester.”

Four of the five fact checks present that same narrative. PolitiFact, for instance, writes that “late-term abortions are very rare, about 1%.” In the context of whether such abortions should be legal, this is a brazen half-truth because it fails to mention that the total number of abortions is so enormous that this small percentage amounts to thousands of late-term abortions per year.

A 2013 paper in the journal Perspectives on Sexual and Reproductive Health estimates that “more than 15,000” abortions are performed each year in the U.S. “at 21 weeks or later.” The authors note that this amounts to about 1% of all abortions, “but given an estimated 1.21 million abortions in the United States annually,” “later abortions” add up to “a substantial number of abortions.”

Hence, these supposedly “very rare” late-term abortions are more numerous than incidents that the media portrays as common occurrences in the United States. Examples include:

  • the 12,000 murders per year committed with guns.
  • the 5,000 Covid-19-related deaths of people under the age of 45.
  • the 50 people per year who are executed under the death penalty.
  • the 7 police officers per year who are arrested for murder or manslaughter in an on-duty shooting, and the 1–2 officers who are ultimately convicted of such crimes.

Pro-Abortion Rhetoric

Beyond the common arguments of the other fact checkers, the Washington Post adds a unique one to the mix. “Experts told us,” say the Post’s fact checkers, that just because “some Democrats support abortion rights,” this “doesn’t mean they support ‘extreme late-term abortions’.” As proof of this, they name one “expert,” who they describe as “Katie L. Watson, a professor at Northwestern University’s Feinberg School of Medicine.”

That is yet another half-truth because Watson’s official bio reveals that she is not a doctor but “a lawyer” and “bioethicist” who “is currently serving terms on the Board of the National Abortion Federation (NAF, the professional organization of independent abortion clinics) and on the National Medical Council of the Planned Parenthood Federation of America.”

After whitewashing Watson’s bio, the Post quotes her stating, “That’s like saying everyone who ‘supports’ the Second Amendment ‘supports’ school shootings.” This analogy is inapt because Second Amendment advocates don’t support legalizing school shootings, but abortion advocates do support legalizing abortions.

This follows another attempt by the Post’s Fact Checker to place a veneer of factuality on a pro-abortion talking point. In a fact check published earlier this year, the Post argued that “supporting abortion rights is not the same as supporting abortions.” This is akin to saying that “supporting the legalization of rape is not the same as supporting rape.” Or “supporting the legalization of murder is not the same as supporting murder.” Or “supporting the legalization of slavery is not the same as supporting slavery.”

All of the examples above materially differ from saying something like “supporting drug legalization is not the same as supporting drugs.” This is because abortion, rape, slavery, and murder all involve actions that people take against other humans. In contrast, taking drugs is something that people do to themselves.


George Orwell is the author of 1984, a famed novel that depicts tactics of mass propaganda. In his renowned essay, “Politics and the English Language,” Orwell identified one of these strategies as using words “in a consciously dishonest way. That is, the person who uses them has his own private definition, but allows his hearer to think he means something quite different.” Thus, in the writings of fact checkers at NPR,, the New York Times, PolitiFact, and the Washington Post:

  • “not supporting abortions after viability” actually means supporting such abortions if any abortion provider claims it is for health.
  • a “health risk” actually means child care, the stigma of unwed motherhood, being the mother of a unwanted child, or nearly anything that any abortionist says it means.
  • “very rare” actually means more than 15,000 times per year.
  • “favored by a majority of Americans” actually means opposed by 81% of Americans.
  • “a professor at a medical school” actually means an abortion industry lawyer.
  • “not supporting late-term abortions” actually means legalizing them.

Based on those semantic distortions and half-truths, these so-called fact checkers are claiming that Biden and Harris don’t want to legalize abortions of humans who are capable of living outside the womb. However, an abundance of verifiable facts prove that they clearly do and are planning to pursue this agenda.

  • September 3, 2020 at 2:05 PM

    A hundred years from now this society will be known for many things…amongst them will be the genocide known as women’s reproductive rights.

  • September 4, 2020 at 1:47 AM

    Thank you, this was very informative. Just want to point out that, while NPR didn’t post a link to their research as they should have, Pew Research Center did in fact conduct a 2019 poll claiming 61% of Americans do support abortion remaining legal.

    “a majority of Americans (61%) continue to say that abortion should be legal in all (27%) or most (34%) cases”

    • September 4, 2020 at 8:54 AM

      Thank you for finding this poll. Pew has a habit of structuring their poll questions to manufacture support for abortion. This particular poll never even raised the topic of late-term abortions. Thus, “most cases” could easily be misconstrued by the survey respondents as “most cases in early pregnancy.”

      Pew, in fact, has even misled respondents to believe that Roe only allows abortions in the first trimester. In 2013, Pew asked: “In 1973 the Roe versus Wade decision established a woman’s constitutional right to an abortion, at least in the first three months of pregnancy. Would you like to see the Supreme Court completely overturn its Roe versus Wade decision, or not?”

      • September 4, 2020 at 11:19 AM

        This is a good point. In a popular high school statistics textbook, it says, “The wording of questions is the most important influence on the answers given to a sample survey. Confusing or leading questions can introduce strong bias. Changes in wording can greatly affect a survey’s outcome.” (p. 227, The Practice of Statistics by Starnes, Tabor, Yates, and Moore, 5th edition, 2014)

  • September 19, 2020 at 4:00 PM

    Dear James,

    Thank you for this “Just Facts” web site and you best efforts to avoid bring political bias into determination of facts. However, it appears you may have let some of your own bias into this article: “Yes, Joe Biden and Kamala Harris Are Planning to Legalize Abortion Up To Birth.”

    I have noticed two core problems with this article:

    1.) Misconstruing the facts of the Roe vs Wade decision by the U.S Supreme Court in 1973;

    2.) Getting into prognostications about the Biden-Harris campaign’s intent (because there no “facts” about the future).

    You may wish to address both after reading my analysis of these problems below.

    (BTW: My personal view on abortion is complex and not relevant here).

    Problem #1: You quoted sections of Supreme Court’s Roe v. Wade decision from January 22, 1973, ( which I search and read (in part) — after reading this article — to verify what you quoted from that decision.

    While your quotes are correct, the context of those quotes are very different than what you imply, and unfortunately appear not to support your main contention on this article. Here is the part of your article I am referring to, where the quotes are yours from Roe v. Wade

    ——– from your article ————
    ” [Roe v. Wade] …defines the word “health” so broadly that it includes practically anything. Some illuminating examples of what Roe considers harmful to health include the work of “child care,” the “stigma of unwed motherhood,” and “the distress, for all concerned, associated with the unwanted child.”

    Yes, it does define health this broadly, which is shocking — if taken out of context — as you have done. Here is the full paragraph from Roe v. Wade:

    ——– from U.S. Supreme Court’s Roe v. Wade Decision – Section VIII —
    This right of privacy, whether it be founded in the Fourteenth Amendment’s concept of personal liberty and restrictions upon state action, as we feel it is, or, as the District Court determined, in the Ninth Amendment’s reservation of rights to the people, is broad enough to encompass a woman’s decision whether or not to terminate her pregnancy. The detriment that the State would impose upon the pregnant woman by denying this choice altogether is apparent. Specific and direct harm medically diagnosable even in early pregnancy may be involved. Maternity, or additional offspring, may force upon the woman a distressful life and future. Psychological harm may be imminent. Mental and physical health may be taxed by child care. There is also the distress, for all concerned, associated with the unwanted child, and there is the problem of bringing a child into a family already unable, psychologically and otherwise, to care for it. In other cases, as in this one, the additional difficulties and continuing stigma of unwed motherhood may be involved. All these are factors the woman and her responsible physician necessarily will consider in consultation
    —– end of quote from Roe v Wade ——

    James, the problem here is that the very next paragraph in Roe v. Wade, which says clearly they (in 1973) did NOT accept these examples as relevant to the “right of privacy” they see in our Constitution with respect allowing for abortions unlimited circumstances:

    —–next paragraphs from the Roe v. Wade Decision – Section VIII —
    On the basis of elements such as these, appellant and some amici argue that the woman’s right is absolute and that she is entitled to terminate her pregnancy at whatever time, in whatever way, and for whatever reason she alone chooses. With this we do not agree. Appellant’s arguments that Texas either has no valid interest at all in regulating the abortion decision, or no interest strong enough to support any limitation upon the woman’s sole determination, are unpersuasive.
    —– end of quote from Roe v. Wade ——

    So in this respect you have seriously mis-read or mis-interpreted the Roe vs. Wade decision. While, in your defense, there are important, newer interpretations of Roe v.Wade from the U.S. Supreme Court (such as Planned Parenthood v. Casey, 1992), I do not think any of those have yet expanded that “right to privacy” to the extent you claim. (However, neither you nor I are trained constitutional attorneys).

    Problem #2: While, I know that you are correct that many activists in the Democratic Party (as well as many independents and perhaps even some moderate Republicans) wish to expand access to abortion geographically (by over ruling state laws with a Federal law) and by expanding the number of situations — particularly the # weeks of pregnancy during which an abortion may be obtained without regard to viability of fetus/infant, by broadening the definition of the “health of the mother,” I do think that the article has gone, beyond “just facts” into prognostication.

    It would more in keeping with the guidelines of this and your intent for it if you and others working on this topic could focus on the written or recorded statements from the Biden-Harris campaign, Legislators and the Courts regarding the specific topic of expanding the meaning of the “health of the mother” or other avenues for the purposes of increasing (or decreasing) access to abortion after the viability of the fetus/baby (if any), and not try to extrapolate just how far they (or anyone or any court) intends to expand (or restrict) abortion rights.


    • September 19, 2020 at 11:23 PM


      1) You are misconstruing the paragraph you quoted from Roe. It does not say that the Court “did NOT accept” these factors as examples of health. Instead, it states that these factors don’t mean a woman can “terminate her pregnancy at whatever time, in whatever way, and for whatever reason she alone chooses.” The ruling makes clear this means that:

      • the woman needs a licensed abortion provider to declare that an abortion is necessary to protect her “health.”
      • states can regulate certain aspects of abortion but not completely ban them at any time during pregnancy.

      You mention Planned Parenthood v. Casey, but it actually refutes your argument. In this 1992 ruling, the Supreme Court required that “Roe’s essential holding be retained and reaffirmed as to each of its three parts … (2) a confirmation of the State’s power to restrict abortions after viability, if the law contains exceptions for pregnancies endangering a woman’s life or HEALTH.”

      3) Your claim that I am “getting into prognostications about the Biden-Harris campaign’s intent” is debunked by the plain text of my article. The article repeatedly quotes Biden’s campaign website and the exact text of the Women’s Health Protection Act. Again, this bill is actively cosponsored by 44 of 47 Democrats in the U.S. Senate, including Harris.



  • October 19, 2020 at 6:00 PM

    Nice article as always.

  • November 4, 2020 at 3:05 AM

    Lol! People don’t know how to define “sex” nowadays and now let’s give them license to warp the word “health” as well!

  • February 2, 2021 at 10:44 AM

    It has always been the position of the democrats to exploit the most vulnerable. Abortion is a prime example. Ask yourself this, if a fetus could vote would the democrats be pro-life?

  • February 18, 2022 at 8:10 AM

    This doesn’t contain any evidence that they do support it. You have polls with less than 1500 people with no information about wealth or region. You use quotes from Republicans as evidence. Plus you misrepresent roe vs wade.

    • February 18, 2022 at 1:43 PM

      You either failed to understand the article or are deliberately misrepresenting it. Read it carefully. I’m not going to spoon feed it to you.


Make a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Articles by Topic