I’ve cagey about their actual views opposing abortion?To review, the Republican platform calls for a ban on abortion, in all cases. Period. It also calls for overturning Roe v. Wade. Speaking before a Christian audience at Saddleback Church, McCain forcefully said he was pro-life and would run a pro-life administration.Yet he and Palin then shifted emphasis dramatically, making it sound like it’s a matter best left to the states. Then, in her interview with Katie Couric, Sarah Palin against showed an unwillingness to forthrightly express her actual conservative views.At the bottom of this post is the video of the interview. Here is the transcript with my comments in italics:
Couric: Let me get your take, if I could Gov. Palin, on a number of social issues. Because that’s, they’ve gotten some attention, your position. If a 15-year-old is raped by her father,you believe it should be illegal for her to get an abortion. Why? Palin: I am pro-life. And I’m unapologetic about my position there on pro-life. And I understand good people on both sides of the abortion debate. In fact, good people in my own family have differing views on abortion and when it should be allowed. So … I respect people’s opinion on this. Now, I would counsel to choose life.Counseling to choose life.” That is NOT the position of the Republican Party, the pro-life movement or, in earlier weeks, the McCain-Palin ticket. Actually, that’s a pro-choice position! It’s up to the woman to decide, but I’d urge her to choose life/sw I would like to see a culture of life in this country. But I would also like to see taking it one step further. Not just saying I am pro-life, and I want fewer and fewer abortions in this country. But I want, then, those women who find themselves in circumstances that are absolutely less than ideal, for them to be supported for adoptions to be made easier. For more support given to foster parents and adoptive families. That is my personal opinion on this. Couric: But, ideally, you think it should be illegal … Palin: If you … Couric: …for a girl who was raped or the victim of incest to get an abortion? Palin: I’m saying that, personally, I would counsel the person to choose life, despite horrific, horrific circumstances that this person would find themselves in. Again she’s reiterating a pro-choice position./swAnd, um, if you’re asking, though, kind of foundationally here, should anyone end up in jail for having an … abortion, absolutely not. That’s nothing I would ever support. This is an artful dodge. Yes, a few people say those who have an abortion should go to jail. But most in the pro-life movement say it’s the doctors who should go to jail. Does Palin think abortion docs should go to jail?/swThen, now, some may characterize my position as being extreme, because I am pro-life … and I want women empowered to know that, you know, we can help them. They can be strong enough, and they can have the resources provided them to give that child life. The extremism, to me, is those who would support partial-birth abortion. Those who would disallow parental consent when it comes to a minor child who would seek an abortion. I think parents should have a say in that. They should be a part of their child’s health care there. And those who, like Barack Obama, would support measures that would actually allow in a botched abortion, late-term abortion, that child being born alive, to allow it to not receive medical help to save that child’s life. That’s extremism to me. That is so far on the left side of the political spectrum and public sentiment in this country. That’s the extremism to me. That srikes me as a basically fair (though exaggerated) attack on Obama. But that positioning only works if they disown their own views on abortion, as she did in the first part of the interview./swCouric: So you want more support so women have more options, or girls have more options. But you also think it should be illegal, that there should be no punishment if a woman does break the law… Palin: I would like to see more women given more support so that those of us who say, “You know, a culture of life is what we believe.” Is best … for human kind, you know, to respect the sanctity of every human life. And to understand … that we live in a pretty messed up world sometimes. When you consider what’s going on in this world. The most promising and good ingredients in this world … is a child. The hope that a child brings. And just understanding that. Being near and dear to my heart. I want to do all that I can to reduce the number abortions. And to usher in that culture of life. And in my respect for the other side of this issue, I have not spoken with one woman who do, may disagree with me on, when abortions could or should be allowed, not one woman has disagreed, as we sit down and rationally talk about … the common goal we have, and that is to see fewer and fewer abortions. And to provide more and more women support in this world. Again, she refuses to state the Republican position that abortion should be illegal. She just re-states that she wants to change the culture so people have fewer abortions./sw Couric: Some people have credited the morning-after pill as for decreasing the number of abortions. How do you feel about the morning after pill? Palin: Well …I’m all for contraception. And I’m all for any preventative measures that are legal and safe and should be taken. But, Katie, again and we can go round and round about the abortion issue, but I am one to seek a culture of life. I am one to believe that life starts at the moment of conception. And I would like to see … Couric: And so you don’t believe in the morning-after pill. Palin: I would like to see fewer and fewer abortions in this world. And, again, I haven’t spoken with anyone who disagrees with my position on that. Couric: I’m sorry. I just want to ask you again. Do you not support or do you condone or condemn the morning after pill? Palin: Personally, and this is isn’t McCain-Palin policy … Couric: That’s OK. I’m just asking you. Palin: But, personally, I would not choose to participate in that kind of contraception. It … Couric: Do you think it should be illegal? Palin: I don’t think that it should necessarily be illegal.This is probably a direct contradiction to the Republican platform. The Catholic Church and many pro-life groups believe that the morning after pill works by causing the expulsion of a fertilized embryo. Pro-choice groups say that’s not how it works. But we can go, again, round and round. And what the foundation I believe of this debate, of this discussion, even of your questions, is do you believe in the sanctity of life? Are you are you gonna side on the pro-life position or not when decisions are in front of you and you have to make them?Right, but Couric has just asked about some specific legal issues and you’ve indicated that you actually take the pro-choice position, i.e. of ‘counseling’ against abortion./swNow, as a vice president, what positions would a vice-president have to take on the abortion issue? They’re not legislating. A vice president does not make law. Couric: But if you have a moral problem with abortion, it seems to me you would do everything in your power to make it illegal and overturn Roe v. Wade and … Palin: Of course, it’s the legislature, the law-making branch of our third, of our three branches of government … Couric: But they … Palin: …makes the laws. Couric: …your vision or the administration’s vision. Palin: Well, let’s be practical about it and let’s be realistic about a vice-president’s role in this debate. I can personally share my views, which I don’t apologize when I share my views of being pro-life. And, you know, I’ll do that all day long if you want me to. But a vice-president does not make law. And a vice-president does not interpret the law either. True that a vice president doesn’t make law but the President does propose and sign laws so they’re not irrelevant to the process. Is she saying that McCain-Palin administration will be neutral on what legislation Congress considers on abortion? This is just a dodge./swCouric: So you’re saying this won’t be a top issue for you if you’re elected? Palin: I will do all that I can personally to encourage that culture of life, to remind women that I believe with more empowerment, they – more and more women will realize that they are strong enough … and they are able to carry a child and still continue a career, still continue education opportunities, all with the goal being fewer and fewer abortions in this world. That’s fine, but I re-state, if she wants to change the culture of life why won’t she speak up in favor of laws that make abortion illegal?/sw
posted October 1, 2008 at 11:42 am
The Republican Platform does not call for a ban on all abortions. Go back and read it. A “human life amendment” doesn’t even call for banning all abortions. There are many different versions of such an amendment floating around. Heck, look at wikipedia’s definition if you don’t have independent knowledge.
posted October 1, 2008 at 11:48 am
Waldman, we have been down this road before. McCain and Palin did NOT shift on abortion or change position in any way. They have both repeatedly stated that Roe v. Wade — the case that allowed virtually unlimited abortions throughout pregnancy for any reason — should be overturned.
Next, the platform calls for a human life amendment that protects the right to life of unborn children and doesn’t atually say whether exceptions should or shouldn’t be a part of that amendment — so you’re technically wrong on that point.
You’re also wrong saying that encouraging women who have been victimized by sexual abuse to keep their baby is not a pro-life position. The opposite is encouraging them to have an abortion. Is that what you think we support? Palin is absolutely right that we should support women who are rape victims and not shove abortion on them. The need medical support and their attackers need a long prison term — and Palin appears to understand that.
How can you claim that Palin’s urging a woman to “choose life” is pro-abortion when abortion advoctes have repeatedly opposed motorists being able to get Choose Life license plates?
I’m not sure how you can ask whether Palin supports sending women who have abortions to jail when she clearly said she didn’t in the very transcript you cite here!
Finally, if you’re worried about deviating from the platform, where is the critisim for Obama taking out the language saying abrotions should be safe and rare. Apparently he doesn’t believe either.
What Obama does believe — and what is in this current Democratic platform he constructed — is that abortions should be legal for any reason any time in pregnancy and that taxpayers should be forced to pay for them. (http://www.lifenews.com/nat4110.html)
Not only that, Obama believes every single pro-life law should be overturned — including bans on taxpayer funding of abortion, partial-birth abortions, parental involvement, informed consent, everything. And that’s in the Demcoratic Party platform as well.
Steven Ertelt
LifeNews.com
posted October 1, 2008 at 12:05 pm
Steve,
To take your last point first, I wrote extensively at the time about the Democrats removal of “safe, legal and rare” and other instances in which I think the Democrats are being inconsistent or hypocritical. However, I do not view my role as ONLY criticizing Democrats. I’m trying to point out the flaws in both parties.
“Next, the platform calls for a human life amendment that protects the right to life of unborn children and doesn’t atually say whether exceptions should or shouldn’t be a part of that amendment — so you’re technically wrong on that point.”
–As you know, McCain previously had pushed for a rape and incest exception but dropped that request before the platform commitee.
Steve, I’m curious, do you agree with poster Henry Clay that the Human Life Amendment woudln’t actually ban abortion. Do you agree?
“You’re also wrong saying that encouraging women who have been victimized by sexual abuse to keep their baby is not a pro-life position. The opposite is encouraging them to have an abortion. Is that what you think we support?”
–No. For years, Pro-life advocates have mocked those Democrats who said ‘i’d discourage abortion on a personal level but think the decision should be up to the woman.’ Pro-life folks have argued that a “pro choice/pro-life” position like that was an immoral contradiction. You’ve argued that the internally consistent pro-life position is BOTH — i.e. you encourage the woman to ‘choose life’ AND you work to make abortion illegal. Palin either doesn’t believe the latter or, more likely, just doesn’t want to remind voters of that because she’s trying to reach out to pro-choice voters. Steve, why do you think she won’t mention the second half of the formulation?
posted October 1, 2008 at 12:25 pm
I’m disappointed that Couric (and you) continue to misrepresent Barak Obama’s position on abortions that result in late-term live births. Factcheck.org has done a couple of stories on this, and while Obama has not always been consistent in explaining his voting record, he has clearly affirmed his support for medical care for infants born live as a result of an abortion, and has consistently declared his support for the existing Illinois stature that mandates medical care in such cases.
This excerpt from the first factcheck.org article is relevant:
A Matter of Definition
The documents from the NRLC support the group’s claims that Obama is misrepresenting the contents of SB 1082. But does this mean – as some, like anti-abortion crusader Jill Stanek, have claimed – that he supports infanticide?
In discussions of abortion rights, definitions are critically important. The main bills under discussion, SB 1082 and the federal BAIPA, are both definition bills. They are not about what can and should be done to babies; they are about how one defines “baby” in the first place. Those who believe that human life begins at conception or soon after can argue that even a fetus with no chance of surviving outside the womb is an “infant.” We won’t try to settle that one.
What we can say is that many other people – perhaps most – think of “infanticide” as the killing of an infant that would otherwise live. And there are already laws in Illinois, which Obama has said he supports, that protect these children even when they are born as the result of an abortion. Illinois compiled statute 720 ILCS 510/6 states that physicians performing abortions when the fetus is viable must use the procedure most likely to preserve the fetus’ life; must be attended by another physician who can care for a born-alive infant; and must “exercise the same degree of professional skill, care and diligence to preserve the life and health of the child as would be required of a physician providing immediate medical care to a child born alive in the course of a pregnancy termination which was not an abortion.” Failure to do any of the above is considered a felony. NRLC calls this law “loophole-ridden.”
posted October 1, 2008 at 1:08 pm
So sick of LifeNews.com, Righttolife, etc.
posted October 1, 2008 at 2:32 pm
If the economy continues to be an issue, this whole matter will be moot by next summer after the FOCA becomes law because right now it does not look like there will be enough Republicans left in the Senate to even mount a filibuster on the matter.
posted October 1, 2008 at 2:35 pm
Obama — and certainly not the Democratic Party platform — does NOT talk about abortion reduction. He talks about reducing unwanted pregnancies. There is a difference. An abortion reduction strategy promotes parental consent and other restrictions that make abortions harder to get. An unwanted-pregnancy reduction strategy provides the education and services that enable women not to get pregnant in the first place. Done right, the latter strategy would do more to reduce abortions than an abortion-reduction strategy. But you are right that Palin is, in her incoherent way, endorsing a pro-choice position — not pro-abortion, as ridiculously asserted by Steven Ertelt.
posted October 1, 2008 at 3:17 pm
I am waiting for textual evidence as to the FALSE claim that the Republican Platform would ban ALL abortions, as opposed to endorse “a human life amendment” — the content of which is DELIBERATELY undefined. It doesn’t say “the” human life amendment. It doesn’t say “ban abortions.” It says pass “a” human life amendment.
Please just read it: http://www.gop.com/2008Platform/Values.htm#5
John McCain didn’t need to ask for ‘exceptions’ because it wasn’t necessary. This is a canard peddled by those who want to make the Republican party position seem more extreme than it is. The question of what an amendment would look like is left to the legislative process. Again, go to wikipedia (as just one source) to see the various different meanings of “human life amendment.”
posted October 1, 2008 at 4:14 pm
As I watched the edited version of Palin’s interview yesterday, she basically stated my personal view on abortion, and I consider myself pro-choice. Reading the full text you have here confirmed it. It is idiotic to think that all or most pro-choice people are pro-abortion. There are certainly some in the pro-choice side who are strongly pro-abortion, but I believe the vast majority would be in the “I wouldn’t tell anyone to get an abortion, but I don’t think they should go to jail for it” opinion. The whole point of pro-choice is you can choose yes or you can choose no.
posted October 1, 2008 at 4:36 pm
Wow… this exchange is one of the only exchanges she had with Couric that fully made sense and is something that a lot of folks would be on board with. It’s too bad that she can’t be this articulate and knowledgeable about foreign policy and the economy.
posted October 1, 2008 at 11:58 pm
Both Palin and McCain have continually made evasive and changing statements on abortion. They are politicians trying to get elected.
Palin’s statements have been parroting McCain’s statement about letting it be a state decision. If they are really against abortion, they would take an active stance to make it illegal.
McCain/Palin are following in the footsteps of Ronald Reagan and George W Bush, make promises to end abortion, but do nothing once elected.
posted October 2, 2008 at 1:03 am
Palin erroneously said that the Vice President does not make law. She should have known, if she is truly qualified to assume the post of Vice President and possibly President, that the Vice President presides over the Senate and casts the deciding vote in the case of a tie.
posted October 2, 2008 at 2:31 am
Fortunately the deliberately vague content of a “human life” amendment doesn’t need to be dissected, nor does it matter if Sarah Palin gets nailed down on her views on abortion law.
First of all, if McCain is elected, Palin is going to spend the next four years cutting ribbons and supervising the Easter Egg Roll on the Whitehouse lawn. Her views are so antithetical to McCain’s, and she has so little to contribute, that he is going to give her no slack whatsoever. She’s there to energize the right-wing base, but they’re deluding themselves if they think she’s more than that.
Second of all, McCain isn’t getting elected. He had little chance to start with, and his campaign is self-destructing as we speak. The Whitehouse is lost. At this point the best republicans can hope for is to hold the democrats to less than 60 seats in the senate. Palin will be a footnote in history, not the warrior goddess of the culture wars her base are praying for.
Third of all, the culture wars have long been lost. Roe V Wade is 35 years old now. Creationism has been tossed out of the schools, and so has Intelligent Design. When Roe V Wade was fought gay marriage wasn’t even a concept. Today it’s the front line, and the right wing is inexorably losing ground. America significantly lags the developed world (and even Russia and China) on cultural issues, but it’s on the same path. Note only is Palin on her way into history’s dustbin, so is the evangelical right.