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 In my view Roe vs. Wade was wrongly decided and should be repealed.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.
Notice to Readers: The American Spectator and Spectator World are marks used by independent publishing companies that are not affiliated in any way. If you are looking for The Spectator World please click on the following link: https://thespectator.com/world.