On Sunday, Vice President Kamala Harris repeatedly dodged a simple question asked by “Face the Nation” moderator Margaret Brennan, who urged the VP to share what she believes should be the cut-off for legal abortion.

Brennan noted that Harris has long been an abortion supporter but that the “math doesn’t add up” for President Biden to come through on his promise of a federal law to codify abortion as a right. “Don’t you need to level with the American people and say this is not a realistic promise to make for 2024?” she asked Harris.

“What is it you believe?” continued Brennan. “I mean, what week of pregnancy should abortion access be cut off?”

Harris replied, “We need to restore the protections of Roe versus Wade. We’re not trying to do something new.”

Brennan called that “nebulous” and reminded Harris that Roe v. Wade allowed abortion on demand through viability (and for so-called health reasons until birth). She told Harris that viability fell at 20-24 weeks under Roe, but Harris still refused to give a direct response, despite using the words “clear” and “precise” multiple times.

“Let me be clear,” said Harris. “From day one, the president has been clear, I have been clear. We need to put back the protections that are in Roe v. Wade into law since the Supreme Court took it. Congress has the power and ability to pass legislation to put those protections back in law and Joe Biden will sign that bill. That is what we want.”

Vice President Kamala Harris on "Face the Nation with Margaret Brennan" | full interview

Brennan continued to press the Vice President, “But does it need to be specific in terms of defining where that guarantee goes up to and where it does not? At which week of pregnancy?”

A seemingly frustrated Harris responded, “We need to put back in place the protections of Roe versus Wade.”

Brennan quickly replied, “You know why I’m asking you this question though, because…”

But Harris again claimed, “We’re not trying to do anything that did not exist before June of last year.” (When Roe was overturned in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization.)

Brennan noted, “Republicans say the lack of a precise date in cutting it off, you know this, they say that allows Democrats to perform abortion up until birth.”

Both women agreed that this was “ridiculous” but Harris continued to claim, “I am being precise.”

But Brennan didn’t back down, continuing to ask if Harris believes there should be a precise cut-off week on abortion in order to ensure there will be some “protection” for preborn children at some point in pregnancy, just as some politicians are calling for an abortion cut-off at 15 weeks. Again, Harris replied that she wants to go back to abortion laws prior to the Dobbs decision, failing to answer the question.

“Out in New Mexico, for example,” said Brennan, “the governor there says it shouldn’t be nailed down to a week because it should be a private matter between a woman and her doctor. There shouldn’t be a precise number put on that. Is that what you believe as well?”

Harris again replied with frustration and avoidance, “I believe that we should put the protections of Roe v. Wade into law.”

Roe v. Wade allowed abortion for any reason up until the arbitrary, politically driven age of viability, which abortionists have admitted to changing from patient to patient. In addition, with the help of its sister case Doe v. Bolton, it allowed abortion after viability and until birth if the mother had a health concern that included mental health issues, financial issues, or even familial issues.

And while Brennan and Harris called it “ridiculous” that anyone would want abortion up to birth, that’s exactly what many pro-abortion politicians and the abortion industry want to allow.

Karishma Oza, the patient director of the DuPont Clinic abortion facility admitted, “[I]t’s a myth that having an abortion, you know, in the second or third trimester is always a hard decision. For a lot of people, it’s not. … You know, I love the calls we get from return patients. And they’re like: ‘Karishma, it’s me! I’m calling! I’m here for my abortion again!’ I’m like: ‘Who’s me? Who’s calling?’ They’re like: ‘This is so-and-so from Tennessee… I’m 24 weeks again. When can you see me?'”

When asked about the age of viability during the U.S. House Committee on Oversight and Government Reforms proceedings in 2019, Planned Parenthood abortionist Colleen McNicholas confessed that, to an abortionist, “viability” does not necessarily depend on gestational age.

Some politicians are calling for abortion on demand through pregnancy… while also claiming that abortion doesn’t typically occur in the third trimester unless there is a dire medical situation. This has been found to be untrue by the pro-abortion group ANSIRH which has said women have abortions in the third trimester for one or more of the following reasons: She didn’t know she was pregnant earlier, she had difficulty arranging an abortion, and/or the baby had a health problem or disability.

Codifying Roe into law as a right would lead to the undoing of state laws protecting the preborn. According to a 2023 Knights of Columbus-Marist Poll, nearly 80% of Americans oppose the idea of unrestricted abortion.

On Sunday, Vice President Kamala Harris repeatedly dodged a simple question asked by “Face the Nation” moderator Margaret Brennan, who urged the VP to share what she believes should be the cut-off for legal abortion.

Brennan noted that Harris has long been an abortion supporter but that the “math doesn’t add up” for President Biden to come through on his promise of a federal law to codify abortion as a right. “Don’t you need to level with the American people and say this is not a realistic promise to make for 2024?” she asked Harris.

“What is it you believe?” continued Brennan. “I mean, what week of pregnancy should abortion access be cut off?”

Harris replied, “We need to restore the protections of Roe versus Wade. We’re not trying to do something new.”

Brennan called that “nebulous” and reminded Harris that Roe v. Wade allowed abortion on demand through viability (and for so-called health reasons until birth). She told Harris that viability fell at 20-24 weeks under Roe, but Harris still refused to give a direct response, despite using the words “clear” and “precise” multiple times.

“Let me be clear,” said Harris. “From day one, the president has been clear, I have been clear. We need to put back the protections that are in Roe v. Wade into law since the Supreme Court took it. Congress has the power and ability to pass legislation to put those protections back in law and Joe Biden will sign that bill. That is what we want.”

Vice President Kamala Harris on "Face the Nation with Margaret Brennan" | full interview

Brennan continued to press the Vice President, “But does it need to be specific in terms of defining where that guarantee goes up to and where it does not? At which week of pregnancy?”

A seemingly frustrated Harris responded, “We need to put back in place the protections of Roe versus Wade.”

Brennan quickly replied, “You know why I’m asking you this question though, because…”

But Harris again claimed, “We’re not trying to do anything that did not exist before June of last year.” (When Roe was overturned in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization.)

Brennan noted, “Republicans say the lack of a precise date in cutting it off, you know this, they say that allows Democrats to perform abortion up until birth.”

Both women agreed that this was “ridiculous” but Harris continued to claim, “I am being precise.”

But Brennan didn’t back down, continuing to ask if Harris believes there should be a precise cut-off week on abortion in order to ensure there will be some “protection” for preborn children at some point in pregnancy, just as some politicians are calling for an abortion cut-off at 15 weeks. Again, Harris replied that she wants to go back to abortion laws prior to the Dobbs decision, failing to answer the question.

“Out in New Mexico, for example,” said Brennan, “the governor there says it shouldn’t be nailed down to a week because it should be a private matter between a woman and her doctor. There shouldn’t be a precise number put on that. Is that what you believe as well?”

Harris again replied with frustration and avoidance, “I believe that we should put the protections of Roe v. Wade into law.”

Roe v. Wade allowed abortion for any reason up until the arbitrary, politically driven age of viability, which abortionists have admitted to changing from patient to patient. In addition, with the help of its sister case Doe v. Bolton, it allowed abortion after viability and until birth if the mother had a health concern that included mental health issues, financial issues, or even familial issues.

And while Brennan and Harris called it “ridiculous” that anyone would want abortion up to birth, that’s exactly what many pro-abortion politicians and the abortion industry want to allow.

Karishma Oza, the patient director of the DuPont Clinic abortion facility admitted, “[I]t’s a myth that having an abortion, you know, in the second or third trimester is always a hard decision. For a lot of people, it’s not. … You know, I love the calls we get from return patients. And they’re like: ‘Karishma, it’s me! I’m calling! I’m here for my abortion again!’ I’m like: ‘Who’s me? Who’s calling?’ They’re like: ‘This is so-and-so from Tennessee… I’m 24 weeks again. When can you see me?'”

When asked about the age of viability during the U.S. House Committee on Oversight and Government Reforms proceedings in 2019, Planned Parenthood abortionist Colleen McNicholas confessed that, to an abortionist, “viability” does not necessarily depend on gestational age.

Some politicians are calling for abortion on demand through pregnancy… while also claiming that abortion doesn’t typically occur in the third trimester unless there is a dire medical situation. This has been found to be untrue by the pro-abortion group ANSIRH which has said women have abortions in the third trimester for one or more of the following reasons: She didn’t know she was pregnant earlier, she had difficulty arranging an abortion, and/or the baby had a health problem or disability.

Codifying Roe into law as a right would lead to the undoing of state laws protecting the preborn. According to a 2023 Knights of Columbus-Marist Poll, nearly 80% of Americans oppose the idea of unrestricted abortion.