After rambling about Roe v. Wade and waving examples of women who have suffered from anomalous circumstances, Walz focused his attention on attacking former President Donald Trump’s states’ rights approach.

“But those things are being proposed, and the catch-all on this is, ‘Well, the states will decide. What’s right for Texas might not be right for Washington.’ That’s not how this works,” Walz said. “This is basic human rights.”

Walz’s articulation is what abortion opponents have been arguing all along: It is a matter of life and death. Real lives are at stake every day abortion is on the table, and he wants it off. Walz is able to recognize the gravity of the issue, and that state-level iffiness might not cut it.

It is too bad that Walz is on the wrong side of the abortion issue because his instincts are fair. Human rights are trampled, and they are the unborn children’s rights to life. Women’s rights, on the other hand, do not extend so far that they disable others’ rights. The two do not have to be at odds if we have a proper valuation of human life, as well as an understanding of what abortion actually achieves. It places violent autonomy over basic dignity.

CLICK HERE TO READ MORE FROM THE WASHINGTON EXAMINER

This substance is why federal indifference seems insufficient. A national abortion ban remains ideal for many pro-lifers, so Walz’s comments land well. But Walz surrenders democratic realism for his extreme stance.

No matter Vance’s equally strong conviction at the other end of the abortion issue, it is reasonable and tactful that he advocates an incremental victory for the pro-life cause. Vance knows what he is doing and kept a good head on his shoulders during his debate with Walz. He believes in the people and in their capacity for good, but it has to start somewhere.