John James Revealed: James Refused to Support Exception for Saving Mother’s Life Three Times in a Row

James on Exception for the Life of the Mother: “You’re Creating a False Dilemma”

James Called Abortion “Genocide,” Said SCOTUS Overturning Roe v. Wade “Would Be Okay With Me”

In an interview with WILS last year, failed Senate candidate John James touted his agenda  to outlaw abortion and — despite being repeatedly pressed — refused to say whether he would support exceptions for cases where the life of the mother is at risk. James has already said he opposes exceptions even for cases of rape and incest, but he ducked the question about the life of the mother three separate times in the interview. James even refused to say whether he would support that exception when asked directly to oppose “mak[ing] it criminal if a woman’s life was in jeopardy” in the tragic and devastating event that a doctor said she will not survive giving birth because of her health.

James has embraced a rigid and uncompromising approach to reproductive rights, calling abortion “genocide” and saying the possiblity of the Supreme Court overtunring Roe v. Wade “would be okay with me.” James is endorsed by the Susan B. Anthony List, a fringe anti-choice group which has also funneled $4,800 to his campaign. 

Listen to James duck the question multiple times HERE

AKERLY: But they say amongst the GOP that there is a group, the majority would say there should be some exceptions for the life of a mother, for a case of rape or incest. Would you make any exception whatsoever?

JAMES: I believe the focus should be given to maintaining and protecting life. And exhausting every remedy to wrap our arms around both the mother and the baby. Making sure that we eliminate situations that put our women in these terrible situations that no one wants to be in. I believe that my core values, faith and family, God and country, and service before self, puts love first. And we do everything that we can to separate taxpayers from funding abortions —

AKERLY: So no exception? Would there never be an exception?

JAMES: Again, the priority is making sure that we wrap our arms around the mother and the baby. And I will always make sure that we do things that are both compassionate and make sense for all parties. But I truly believe that the reason that I have the endorsements of Right to Life Michigan, National Right to Life, and Susan B. Anthony List, is because of my willingness to understand people in their situations, both mother and the baby. Both lives must be protected. And we have an obligation to do everything that we can, not looking at what separates us, but taking a look at the honest situation where people live and seeing what we can do to preserve life. I think everybody can agree that we want to protect and preserve life. And so how do we do that? How do we take these terrible situations and how do we come to a solution and when you take a look at the more extreme, Senator Stabenow would advocate for abortion on demand, anywhere, any time and place. That’s not correct either.

AKERLY: John, I do understand that. But from the flip side, would you make it criminal if a woman’s life was in jeopardy and the doctor said that she will not survive giving birth to this child, we need to terminate the pregnancy because of her health. That’s a very rare thing, but if it did happen, would you criminalize that?

JAMES: Well I’ll tell you what, if somebody’s life is in danger, you’re going to the hospital. You’re not going to Planned Parenthood. And so I think that putting that in there– 

AKERLY: That’s a given. 

JAMES: You’re creating a false dilemma.

AKERLY: Oh I didn’t mention anything about Planned Parenthood.