By Tom Quiner
Is Condoleezza Rice pro-life or pro-choice?
She’s in the limelight today because of the buzz that she may become Mitt Romney’s running mate.
Pro lifer’s are concerned. Marjorie Dannenfelser, president of pro-life advocacy group Susan B. Anthony List, said it this way:
“Former Secretary Rice’s position on the sanctity of human life makes her an unqualified candidate for Governor Romney to choose as a running mate. Throughout the campaign, including at the Palmetto Freedom Forum last September, he has pledged to us in no uncertain terms that he would choose a pro-life running mate. We have taken Governor Romney at his word and therefore believe Secretary Rice will be ruled out of consideration. Secretary Rice’s position violates criteria that Governor Romney himself has laid out.”
Here’s what Ms. Rice has said about her position on abortion:
“If you go back to 2000 when I helped the president in the campaign. I said that I was, in effect, kind of libertarian on this issue. And meaning by that, that I have been concerned about a government role in this issue. I am a strong proponent of parental choice—of parental notification. I am a strong proponent of a ban on late-term abortion. These are all things that I think unite people and I think that that’s where we should be. I’ve called myself at times mildly pro-choice.”
Ms. Rice made it clear, though, that she was comfortable with President Bush’s views on abortion:
” … which is we have to respect the culture of life and we have to try and bring people to have respect for it and make this as rare a circumstance as possible.”
She is “concerned about a government role” in abortion, but has “tended to agree with those who do not favor federal funding for abortion, because I believe that those who hold a strong moral view on the other side should not be forced to fund” abortion.
Former Vice Presidential candidate, Sarah Palin, weighed in on a Rice Vice Presidency this way:
“I think that Condoleezza Rice would be a wonderful vice-president. She certainly has much more experience than our sitting president does today.”
Ms. Palin suggested that since the Vice President doesn’t “legislate” abortion, her positions on the subject aren’t relevant:
“I would certainly prefer a Presidential and Vice-Presidential candidate who had that respect for all innocent precious purposeful human life. We need to remember, though, that it’s not the Vice-President that would legislate abortion and that would be Congress’s role and we’ll keep that in mind.”
On the other hand, the Vice President has the tie-breaking vote in the Senate. That vote could loom large in light of the narrow divide in the Senate. Would a Vice President Rice come through for pro-lifers based on her comments above?
It’s hard to tell.
Here’s another concern about Condoleezza Rice. If a Romney/Rice ticket wins, it is not beyond the realm of possibility that she would be the heir-apparent to Mitt Romney. Do we want to take that risk with a “mildly pro choice” candidate?
Mr. Romney promised us a pro life VP. In light of his past shift on Life issues, he would deal a blow to his candidacy if he reneged on this critical promise.
Condoleezza Rice has impeccable character. She is smart, experienced, and charming.
She has much going for her, and I like her. Frankly, I wish I could play the piano as well as she does (watch the brief video clip above). She is a woman of amazing talents.
But … you knew it was coming … BUT her view on Life concerns me.
Republicans need a solidly pro-life ticket.