By Tom Quiner

[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ieQ9aOw2HxU]

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.

No Comments

  1. abcinsc on July 13, 2012 at 5:16 pm

    Absolutely agree

  2. illero on July 13, 2012 at 9:04 pm

    Once again — when Palin says, “I would certainly prefer a Presidential and Vice-Presidential candidate who had that respect for all innocent precious purposeful human life”, she is effectively saying that Rice, and others like her, do NOT have “respect for all innocent precious purposeful human life”. I’ll just bet that Rice (and millions of other pro-choicers) would vehemently disagree with that charge.

    I’m trying to emphasize that conservatives do exactly what liberals do — they assume that their own position is 100% right, that everyone knows it (including the opposition), and that those who speak or act against that position know they are in the wrong and are simply being difficult — or “partisan” — or even immoral.

    But I’m sure that there are a lot of people out there on both sides of the abortion issue who struggle with the question of when a fertilized egg or a fetus attains “humanhood”.

    I’ve already said enough on this issue in previous comments. Do not feel the need to post this one, if you’d rather not.

    • J on July 13, 2012 at 11:54 pm

      “I’ll just bet that Rice (and millions of other pro-choicers) would vehemently disagree with that charge.”

      And they’d be wrong.

      “they assume that their own position is 100% right, that everyone knows it (including the opposition), and that those who speak or act against that position know they are in the wrong and are simply being difficult”

      I don’t think that’s the mindset at all. It’s simple. Many conservatives (not all, but the majority) believe in an absolute morality that’s binding on all people equally. We don’t buy into the nonsense of moral relativism, which is no morality at all. So it’s not about “the opposition knows they’re in the wrong.” We know they think they’re right. But we are speaking the truth as we see it — in this case, being pro-abort means you don’t have proper respect for life — and the opposition’s opinion about their position is irrelevant.

      This only applies to issues on which we have firm moral teachings. In more of a gray area — for example, immigration policy — an honest conservative will admit that their position is not binding and that there is room for legitimate disagreement.

      In short, I challenge your understanding of how pro-lifers think about this issue. It seems pretty shaky.

      “But I’m sure that there are a lot of people out there on both sides of the abortion issue who struggle with the question of when a fertilized egg or a fetus attains “humanhood”.”

      I’m not sure of this at all. In fact, it seems to me it’s only pro-aborts who have this problem. We pro-lifers have no trouble with it all: Human life begins at conception. Why the heck else would we be pro-life, inviting the wrath and vitriol of radical pro-aborts down on our heads? Because we’re desperate to protect an inhuman “fetus”? I don’t think so.

  3. juwannadoright on July 13, 2012 at 10:58 pm

    Tom,

    You know I have tremendous respect for you and for the work you are doing – and I have a sense that you reciprocate those feelings.

    I agree with your position on abortion both from a religious and from a Constitutional standpoint. But we need to understand that winning skirmishes do not win wars.

    “Condoleezza Rice has impeccable character.”

    I couldn’t agree more with that statement – and of the three known contenders in this election I am not certain I could make that statement about any of them – certainly not those who will appear on the Democratic ticket this November.

    When the liberals and the conservatives cast their votes, they will in essence cancel themselves out. The battleground this fall will be for those who are indepents – and adding a person of “impeccable character,” a woman who has demonstrated great ability could be the start to electing a winning ticket.

    Despite the fact that I might not agree with all the positions that Ms. Rice has espoused, I would find myself super-charged to work on behalf of a ticket that included her.

    The alternative is too dreadful to contemplate.

  4. illero on July 14, 2012 at 4:37 pm

    Sorry, but I don’t buy it. I am as afraid of moral relativism as the next guy, but let’s face it — our morality is always the “absolute”, and it’s the other guy’s morality that seems “relative”. Since the dawn of civilization, mankind has had to deal with moral relativism.

    I’m not talking about the “anything goes” kind of moral relativism, because civilization truly cannot survive in that kind of environment. But in the end, our “absolute” morality,, and even the issues that we think need to be considered a part of that absolute morality (abortion vs immigration policy, as you pointed out), are all relative.

    We used to hang horse thieves. We still kill murderers — but some think this is tantamount to murder (who is right?), We allow abortions. Some cultures stone adulterers. We used to say, “Spare the rod, spoil the child” — now we say, “Use the rod, face felony child abuse charges”. Lying and deceiving used to be abominable acts — now conservatives and liberals, up to and including our president, practice the art of lying and deceiving regularly. It seems to me that it’s ALL relative.

    It’s fine to internalize and commit to our beliefs — what are we without doing this?. But much harm is done by separating us into good guys and bad guys (within reason) because of honestly held beliefs. Such awful horrors have been wrought under the banner of moral absolutism that such an ideology scares me almost as much as the phrase “moral relativism”. And many of these horrors have been brought on people by the moral absolutism of so-called Christians.

    I believe you indicated that you didn’t think that a lot of people are unsure of when “humanhood” begins. I would love to see random survey results, where the question was “When does a fertilized egg qualify as a human being?” Have you seen such a survey? I would bet that it would reveal millions of honest “I don’t know” answers.

    Finally, you indicate that “the opposition’s opinion . . . is irrelevant. But if we are trying to create a society that is molded more in the image of OUR beliefs, the opposition’s opinion (belief) is tremendously relevant. This goes back to the root of the issue. If you can’t respect the honesty of the beliefs of people who believe differently than you, where is the ground for real, logical, reasoned, persuasive argument?

    Back to one of the first comments I made on this subject: How many pro-choicers do we think have become pro-lifers because someone screamed “MURDERER” in their faces?

Leave a Comment