Is Michael Steele Pro-Life? Maybe Not.
Is Michael Steele pro-life? I fear the answer might be no.
I've long liked and respected Lt. Gov. Michael Steele and considered him a great candidate to Chair the RNC. I've seen many pro-life bloggers even endorse him but yesterday a commenter named Darcy pointed me to Steele's appearance on Meet The Press on October 29, 2006. The transcript is here.
According to his own statements, Steele is against overturning Roe V. Wade. He is also against a Constitutional Amendment banning abortion. He also rather disingenuously calls abortion an issue that should be handled by the states even though the states can't really restrict abortion in any meaningful way until Roe is overturned.
And for many in the pro-life movement, Steele's comments could disqualify him from receiving their support. Here's the disturbing transcript:
MR. RUSSERT: ...Mr. Steele, if you’re United States Senator, would you vote for a constitutional amendment to outlaw abortion?I am very very sorry to read this. If Steele is unwilling to stand up for the unborn because he feared it might damage his campaign I doubt he'll stand up for the unborn when he steers an entire party. For me, fiscal conservatism is not enough.
LT. GOV. STEELE: I don’t — vote for a constitutional amendment to outlaw abortion? I think we’d have to have that get to the Supreme Court, wouldn’t we? I haven’t seen that bill proposed. I don’t think...
MR. RUSSERT: That’s been introduced in the Senate.
LT. GOV. STEELE: I don’t think anyone’s going to propose that this day.
MR. RUSSERT: So you wouldn’t do that?
LT. GOV. STEELE: No.
MR. RUSSERT: Would, would you encourage — would you hope the U.S. Supreme Court overturns Roe vs. Wade?
LT. GOV. STEELE: I think that that’s a matter that’s going to rightly belong to the courts to decide ultimately whether or not that, that issue should be addressed. The, the Court has taken a position, which I agree, stare decisis, which means that the law is as it is and, and so this is a matter that’s ultimately going to be adjudicated at the states. We’re seeing that. The states are beginning to decide for themselves on, on this and a host of other issues. And the Supreme Court would ultimately decide that.
MR. RUSSERT: But you hope that the Court keeps Roe v. Wade in place?
LT. GOV. STEELE: I think the Court will evaluate the law as society progresses, as the Court is supposed to do.
MR. RUSSERT: But what’s your position? Do you want them to sustain it or overturn it?
LT. GOV. STEELE: Well, I think, I think, I think Roe vs. Wade, Roe vs. Wade is a, is a matter that should’ve been left to the states to decide, ultimately. But it, it is where it is today, and the courts will ultimately decide whether or not this, this gets addressed by the states, goes back to the states in some form or they overturn it outright.
MR. RUSSERT: Is is your desire to keep it in place?
LT. GOV. STEELE: My desire is that we follow what stare decisis is at this point, yes.
Fiscal conservatives speak all the time about shuttling the rabid pro-lifers away. Electing Michael Steele as head of the RNC might be one giant step in that direction.
Now, I'd like some clarification because in the same debate Steele said some things diametrically opposed to his comments on Roe. He said:
I do support stem cell research. Where I have drawn the line is federal funding for research that destroys the embryo. And, and I've been very much an advocate and supporter of advancing research that will allow us to do the - do what we need to do without destroying that, that embryo.And this:
Russert: Why are you opposed to using embryonic stem cells? Taking of a life?I would very much like to hear how Steele explains these two very different takes on this most important issue to many in the Republican Party.
Steele: Yes, I see that as a life, and I don't think that we should use federal funds to do that.
36 comments:
Reading that makes me miss Tim Russert all over again.
That's highly alarming.
Disturbing yes, and also incoherent. I mean, this makes absolutely no sense:
think that that’s a matter that’s going to rightly belong to the courts to decide ultimately whether or not that, that issue should be addressed. The, the Court has taken a position, which I agree, stare decisis, which means that the law is as it is and, and so this is a matter that’s ultimately going to be adjudicated at the states. We’re seeing that. The states are beginning to decide for themselves on, on this and a host of other issues. And the Supreme Court would ultimately decide that.
I'd have to read that about ten more times before I understood what Steele was trying to say. Is he saying this a decision that should be left to the states (it should), that it is currently in the hands of the states (umm, unfortunately no), that the Courts should decide the issue (no). And how on Earth does stare decisis and the Casey decision lead to the states deciding the issue? It means the opposite when it comes to Roe.
What a disappointment.
Incoherent, yes. Also somewhat cowardly. But I think it was his jumbled attempt at a non-answer, similar to what John Roberts said during his Senate hearings. Just not as eloquent. At the time, he was in a close race for senate in Maryland. I think he was trying to tiptoe the line, but in the end, Russert got him to cough up an answer.
While this answer is discouraging, I don't think it reflects his real views. And if you've ever lived in Maryland, you would know that if you reveal yourself as a social conservative in mainstream society, you are treading into very dangerous waters. I've spent my whole life hiding my views at work and at school. I'm not saying it's right, but if your objective is to get elected to public office, revealing those views explicitly is suicide.
Mick,
The problem with all that is that I sat and listened to Michael Steele speak to a group of Knights of Columbus about being a "sign of contradiction" and opposing the popular culture. This isn't exactly being a sign of contradiction, but rather a sign of confusion.
Yeah, saying he was pro-life sure was political suicide for George W. Bush. He was only elected to two terms.
Oh, I agree with you. And he was being deliberately confusing. And what made it all the more confusing was he was not doing it very well.
That said, I followed that entire campaign and he went to great lengths to hide his pro-life convictions. And the Dems went out of their way to point out his record on it. Obviously, he thought that keeping it hidden was the best political strategy.
So there are two questions:
1) Is he pro-life, anti-Roe, etc?
I would say yes, despite this interview. He could have flipped on the issue altogether and flaunted it, Gov. Erlich style. Instead, he tried his darndest to give a non-answer to Tim Russert.
2) Does this call into question his courage, leadership, etc. for the pro-life cause?
Possibly. But I also think he can be more outspoken on it, since the position is not in the hands of Maryland voters.
Yeah, saying he was pro-life sure was political suicide for George W. Bush. He was only elected to two terms.
Bush never came close in Maryland.
MR. RUSSERT: Is is your desire to keep it in place?
LT. GOV. STEELE: My desire is that we follow what stare decisis is at this point, yes.
I don't see how you're saying this is a non-answer. He answers clearly enough. He says his "desire" is that Roe is upheld.
Matt:
It is confusing because then he argues somehow that stare decisis means it should be decided by the states, which is a complete contradiction. Either he has no idea what stare decisis means, or he's being deliberately misleading.
Republicans are about winning elections. I've always been an independent, but was wondering if I was maybe a de facto Republican. Then a few weeks ago (before the election) I had a talk with my father-in-law who's a big party-line Republican. He'd go on about how abortion is terrible - but we need to allow it in the first 12 weeks because that's what the nation as a whole will go for. And how Arnold has to run with a pro gay "marriage" platform because it's the only way he'll get elected in California (the prop 8 vote proved that wrong). And on and on...
Republicans aren't about listening to the truth and doing what's right. They're about winning. They see no difference between moral issues (which can never be compromised) and prudential issues (which can, and usually must be in politics). I've voted for them recently because they're the lesser of two evils, but I learned that day that I'm not a Republican and I never will be.
I really didn't want to wade in this far in a defense of Steele, because in the end, when cornered, he should have given a pro-life answer. I agree with all of you there. I also agree that if he can't come out more strongly for life, he should not be RNC chair.
I am not saying he gave a non-answer. I said he tried to. And what came out was the wrong answer. When John Roberts said Roe was "settled law," (I hope) what he meant was that yes it had been settled (which it is, and 40 million are dead as a result), but that did not preclude a re-settling. My interpretation is that Michael Steele tried a similar tactic, not being as clever as Roberts bungled it badly, and contradicted his true stance on abortion.
However, I will also concede that this is the best-case scenario regarding his answer. I can also see that it's possible he does really think Roe vs. Wade should remain the law of the land. I just hope not, and given his record, I am willing to give him the benefit of the doubt for the time being.
He says that he wants the states' to be able to decide this matter. Maybe he's either confused on what Roe stands for...or was tongue tied for the moment...hopefully we'll get a clarification.
Heck, I'm not terribly impressed with his last answer:
"...I don't think that we should use federal funds to do that." The embryo isn't somehow less human if it's destroyed using non-federal dollars.
Human embryo experimentation should be banned, and any scientists who want to work on embryos can get themselves some rat embryos.
No Matthew,
Can't use rat embryos. Peta's agaisnt it. It's inhuman to destroy animal embryoes. Only OK if its humans.
I watched Michael Steele address the Catholics for McCain rally at the RNC convention this year, and he was passionate in his defense of life. In this interview, he stumbled in his attempt to tiptoe the line. That's all. Michael Steele is one of us. Absolutely--much more than Newt on this and other social issues. I like Newt, but he is not personally motivated by the life issue, and Michael Steele is, despite this interview.
Frankly, if I were advising him in that race (which was brilliantly run) I would have advised him to try as hard as possible to avoid this issue as he did in that interview. See Alan Keyes' 30% performance in Maryland if you want to know how a candidate that wears this issue on his sleeve does.
What the two have in common, if I understand him correctly, is essentially taking the "originalist" approach to the Constitution. He wants the decision left to the states, and wants the High Court to be the one to determine that accordingly. I don't imagine this reflects his personal conviction, so much as how he believes the law can best be applied here.
It might help if I understood how the principle of "stare decisis" applied here, and I even looked it up.
Stare Decisis usually means that the court doesn't overturn settled law.
Then he needs to clarify what he means by turning it over to the states, a position which he has also maintained. Really, from everything I've read about this guy, I don't think he's completely abandoned a pro-life position. Making him Chair of the RNC would make the most of his good qualities (as in other respects, he is not a neo-con), plus would make room for others to take the national stage.
I agree that clarification is needed. But what clarification would wipe away these comments, I'm not sure.
Look, I know campaigns can be tough and Maryland is not exactly friendly to pro-lifers from what I'm hearing but he was pretty specific about not overturning Roe. Without that there can be no meaningful restrictions.
Personally the only clarification that might satisfy is a complete retraction. I'm tired of cowards.
Me too. One of us should call his office.
David,
Do you have the number?
No. Maybe we can find someone who does. Anybody know any Republicans?
In all fairness, those comments were over 2 years ago. I think Lt Gov Steele should state if he's changed to a solid pro-life position, or if during the Russet interview, he was (as I read on another blog) 'trying to finesse an answer he wasn't expecting'.
Or then again, maybe he is a soft-core supporter of abortion.
But I do believe a clarification on his part is in order.
One thing I'm sure of... NARAL hates his guts. (http://www.prochoiceamerica.org/elections/2006/election-news/steele-dobson.html)
David,
I preliminary search using Google gave me contact info for Steele when he was Lt. Gov. I am not finding anything current.
I'll keep looking.
Well, I am a hard core Pro-Lifer. And To tell u the truth, so what if Steele is Pro-Choice. I think the GOP tent is becoming smaller and smaller. The DEMS have pro-life AND choice politicians. If Steele has the right credentials, even though he is Pro-Choice, why not?
I would suggest the Michael Steele is taking a similar position to Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Scalia. During his confirmation hearings, Roberts was very clear in responding affirmatively to Roe v Wade as a case in point of stare decisis. That said, he alluded to the prospect that if a case was brought before the High Court which was not bound by stare decisis, he would be more than willing to re-open the matter of Roe v Wade. This is consistent with the "originalist" philosophy of both judges, based upon what the Founding Fathers intended. This would also be consistent with earlier statements that Steele has made against abortion, even in cases of rape and incest.
Besides, does it make sense that someone who supports legal abortion, turns around and is against embryonic stem cell research when a human embryo is destroyed?
Why not? Because Republicans do best when they actually stand for something, and mean it. The inability to do so is precisely why McCain lost.
Or do you really think conservative were overly thrilled with him?
I beg to differ. McCain would have won this election if the econony did not come crumbling down. September 15th he was ahead in the polls, and moving farther. Next Day, the econocony came a crumbling down and good bye McCain.
And just how would the "big tent" philosophy have prevented McCain from being associated with the downturn in the economy?
I agree with some of what has been said...as a pro-life Catholic (which seems odd to have to actually infer some Catholics are pro-abortion)i would have a very difficult time supporting Steele if he is pro-abortion. I hope he will clarify his position.
I suggest you read the follow about steele http://www.usnews.com/articles/news/campaign-2008/2008/04/07/10-things-you-didnt-know-about-michael-steele.html
I would not judge this man on 1 interview.
I believe steele wants abortion issues to return to states. he is not pro abortion. roe-wade will not be overturned,so we look for other ways to negate r-w.when 1 door closes, another opens.
I have been vert concerned about this as well, however, Mr. Michael Steele clarified it this morning on the John and Cisco show on 560Wind.com in Chicago. If you download the podcast from the 7:00 hr. you will be able to here that he is totally prolife and wants the states to be able to decide on it. You can go to www.johnandcisco.com
Just because he does not want Roe V Wade overturned, does not mean he is not pro life. Many prolifers feel the same way. This is because overturning it will not stop legal abortion. Many are seeking personhood instead, with out overturning R V W so that it will actually do something for the pro life movement. Overturning R V W will not do that!!! Please learn about this before you assume anyone not wanting to over turn Roe V Wade is bad!
Tim is sorely missed. Steele's view is easily understandable. He sees the embroy as a life; however, he rather not have the Government invade your life and say you can't have an abortion. With that same logic, he rather not allow the Govt to kill a life. It's one thing if a single person does it. It's completely different if the Govt, that what represents our values, ourselves, to the world, to do it.
Post a Comment