Kamala Harris: A Critical Examination Of Women's Health Policies And Their Implications

As Vice President Kamala Harris aims for the Democratic nomination for president, her commitment to women's health is under intense scrutiny. While she positions herself as a protector of this vital issue, her record suggests otherwise. Critics argue that her policies may actually put women and girls at greater risk, raising questions about her true stance on crucial health matters.

In the realms of science and medicine, precision in language is paramount, as it can mean the difference between life and death. The National Institutes of Health emphasizes the necessity of recognizing sex as a biological variable in research, highlighting significant differences in how men and women respond to medical treatments. Their definition emphasizes that "Sex is a biological variable defined by characteristics encoded in DNA, such as reproductive organs and other physiological and functional characteristics." This clear differentiation is critical in ensuring appropriate medical care and outcomes.

One significant concern among voters is the ambiguity surrounding what constitutes a woman—a topic that has become increasingly politicized. The controversy escalated when Supreme Court Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, a nominee under the Biden-Harris administration, refused to provide a straightforward definition during her confirmation hearing. In a climate where even governmental health agencies offer clear definitions, the reluctance to define basic biological terms raises alarms about the administration's commitment to women's health.

The Dilemma of Language and Policy

Harris's messaging regarding women's health seems to fluctuate depending on the audience she addresses. During a recent speech, she posed the question, "Do we trust women?" However, official documents from the Biden-Harris administration frequently use the more ambiguous term "birthing people." The inconsistency in terminology is more than a semantic issue; it impacts the lives of millions of women and shapes federal healthcare spending. Clarity in language is vital for effective policy-making and for ensuring that women's health is prioritized correctly.

Moreover, Harris's policies on women's health issues are often viewed as extreme when compared to those of other countries. The Biden-Harris administration stands out among its peers, particularly concerning two contentious subjects: transgender treatments for children and late-term abortions. There is a growing concern that health care policies under a Harris administration may lean even further left, potentially alienating moderate voters and complicating the national conversation surrounding women's health.

Understanding the Biden-Harris Administration's Approach

The Health and Human Services Department under the Biden-Harris administration has shown unwavering support for controversial treatments for transgender youth, including puberty blockers and gender reassignment surgeries. In 2021, alarming statistics revealed that 1,390 children aged 6 to 17 were on puberty blockers, and 4,231 were undergoing hormone therapy. These numbers highlight a significant shift in healthcare practices that many argue could have lasting consequences for young patients.

In stark contrast, other countries, such as the United Kingdom, have taken decisive action to protect children from such treatments. In May, the UK government issued an emergency ban on prescribing puberty blockers to minors diagnosed with gender dysphoria, citing significant risks to patient safety. This decision followed a comprehensive review that revealed inadequate data on long-term effects, raising questions about the Biden-Harris administration’s approach.

Abortion Policies Under Scrutiny

Vice President Harris's stance on late-term abortion has also drawn criticism. Many progressives in the U.S. advocate for allowing abortions up until birth, raising ethical concerns about the implications of such policies. Despite advancements in medical science that enable surgeons to operate on babies as early as the 16th week of pregnancy, several states maintain laws with no restrictions on when abortions can be performed. This radical stance is seen by many as out of step with public sentiment and the standards of many liberal countries.

Research indicates that a substantial majority of Americans oppose late-term abortions. Harris's support for the Women’s Health Protection Act, which imposes no limits on abortion, raises questions about her alignment with public opinion on this sensitive issue. Furthermore, her tendency to dismiss criticism of her party's position on late-term abortion as a "mischaracterization" only adds to the perception that she is out of touch with constituents' concerns.

Conclusion: A Call for Clarity and Commitment

As Harris navigates her political future, the implications of her policies on women’s health will undoubtedly influence her campaign. To genuinely advocate for women, officials must both define and defend their interests. The ongoing ambiguity surrounding fundamental definitions, alongside the administration's progressive health policies, leaves many questioning whether American women, girls, and infants will receive the protection they deserve. A clear commitment to women's health is essential for building trust and ensuring that policies genuinely support women's interests.

Heidi Overton, M.D., Ph.D., is the Chief Policy Officer and Vice Chair of the Center for a Healthy America at the America First Policy Institute. She is board-certified in Preventive Medicine and General Public Health.

The views expressed in this article are the writer's own.