I'm not sure how this is supposed to clarify anything:
I am pro-life, always have been, always will be.
I tried to present why I am pro life while recognizing that my
mother had a "choice" before deciding to put me up for
adoption. I thank her every day for supporting life. The
strength of the pro life movement lies in choosing life and
sharing the wisdom of that choice with those who face difficult
circumstances. They did that for my mother and I am here today
because they did. In my view Roe vs. Wade was wrongly decided
and should be repealed. I realize that there are good people in
our party who disagree with me on this issue.
But the Republican Party is and will continue to be the party
of life. I support our platform and its call for a Human Life
Amendment. It is important that we stand up for the defenseless
and that we continue to work to change the hearts and minds of
our fellow countrymen so that we can welcome all children and
protect them under the law.
Yes, Steele's mother chose life, but the whole question is
whether or not she should have been legally allowed to choose to
terminate her pregnancy instead.
And as Matt Lewis
notes:
Ironically, his statement -- meant to clarify -- actually
raises more questions. The only reasonable
conservative defense of Steele's GQ comments were that
he is a Federalist (meaning that he opposed Roe, but supported
state's rights). Even that defense is a weak one based on his
previous statement, but I digress. But the above statement,
Steele reaffirms that Steele supports the GOP platform and a
Human Life Amendment, which, of course, undermines the
argument that he believes states should decide...
What a mess.
