The point in the article was that before it was an issue for him, he hadn’t really thought about it and was “pro-choice”. Some of the strongest people I know in the pro-life movement were the same way. They opposed abortion, knew it was “wrong”, but weren’t involved in the movement, and considered themselves “pro-choice”, in not wanting to impose their views on others.
But when they were confronted with the issue, and had to think about it, they realized that this was not a tenable position, and became outspokenly pro-life.
What I DID like about the article is how even when trying to smear Rick, they had to admit that Rick came out as pro-life even though he was running in a district that was pro-abortion, where there was only a minority of republicans who were pro-life. The article even derides him for being too conservative for his district, and for not “representing” his constituents well enough.
Mostly, the article simply asserts things, or quotes 3rd-hand sources (like they provide a “quote” from his wife, but it turns out the “quote” was given to them by the abortion-doctor who had once delivered her and then shacked up with her when she was barely old enough to do so.
It’s sad to see so many supposed “Gingrich supporters” so happy about this article, and so willing to say they agree with the liberals who are quoted. It certainly is against the supposed “Gingrich strategy” of pairing up to beat ROmney, but the Missouri caucus may show that wasn’t much of a strategy anyway.
This article was published one year after he was first elected to the Senate. Attack articles usually come before elections - I think this was just trying to show exactly who was the junior senator from PA. Remember, this was Philadelphia Magazine and while Specter was from Philadelphia, Santorum was from the western part of the state and virtually unknown in the eastern part (it is the way PA is).