Abortion Position of Condoleezza Rice – US Secretary of State (Pro-Choice)

WASHINGTON, March 14, 2005 (LifeSiteNews.com) - US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice in a candid interview with The Washington Times Friday expressed her position on abortion as “mildly pro-choice.”

Asked, “Are you pro-life? Are you pro-choice? What is your thought on abortion?”, Rice responded: “I believe 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'm a strong proponent of parental choice, of parental notification. I'm 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.

With little prompting Rice continued, “Yeah, mildly pro-choice. That's what that means. I think that there are a lot of things that we can unite around, and that's where I would tend to be. I'm very comfortable with the president's view that we have to respect and need to have a culture that respects life. This should be an issue pretty infrequently because we ought to have a culture that says that, ‘Who wants to have an abortion? Who wants to see a daughter or a friend or, you know, a sibling go through something like that?’ And so I believe the president has been in exactly the right place about this, 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.”

When told of the belief that in order to be elected a Republican president, a contender must be firmly pro-life, Rice responded, “I'm not trying to be elected.”

Rice was then pushed on abortion, with Washington Times White House correspondent Bill Sammon saying, “But it sounds like you do not wish to change the laws that now allow (abortion)...”

Rice responded, “Well, I don't spend my entire life thinking about these issues. You know, I spend my time really thinking about the foreign policy issues. But you know that I'm a deeply religious person and so, from my point of view, these extremely difficult moral issues where we have -- where we're facing issues with technology and the prolongation of life and the fact that very, very young babies are able to survive now -- very small babies are able to survive -- these are great moral issues.

What I do think is that we should not have the federal government in a position where it is forcing its views on one side or the other. So, for instance, I've 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 it.”

Well said, your post #70.

The war is my bottom line. If any Dem were remotely trustworthy on the war, I’d happily sit this one out, as I threaten to do almost every day.

But they aren’t. I’ll vote for the candidate least likely to abandon what we’ve accomplished in Iraq and Afghanistan. If his VP choice can be trusted to do the same, I’ll be fine with it.

I disagree with Rice on some issues. She represents a continuation of Bush’s foreign policy, for good and for bad, she has been in part the architect of those policies both good and bad. I detest McCain, and if I could in conscience sit it out, I would. But the Bush/Rice foreign policy, weak as it is in some areas, is light-years ahead of the DNC’s stated positions. Its light-years more grown-up than anything Clinton or Obama have put forward.

I haven’t seen any evidence that McCain will be significantly stronger than Bush (though I hope he will be), but I see evidence that he will be far stronger than anyone from the DNC. And I can hope, at least, that he will be stronger.

So, I’ll vote for him (well, thats my mood today, he hasn’t said anything in the last 24 hours to really wind me up) and that won’t change whoever his VP is, as long as that VP can also be trusted to prosecute the war.

Condi Rice has said repeatedly she supports the status quo on abortion and laws on the books except she’d end late-term abortion and federal funding of it.

Here, let me spell it out for you. In their exact worlds:

BUSH’S views on abortion:

MAN IN AUDIENCE: “Governor Bush, could you please tell us exactly how you stand on the abortion issue.”
GOV. GEORGE W. BUSH: “Yes, I’m pro-life. I’m pro-life.” (Applause)
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/politics/jan-june00/gop_snapshot_2-11.html

President Bush Tells Pelosi: “I will veto any” pro-abortion legislation
“I will veto any legislation that weakens current Federal policies and laws on abortion, or that encourages the destruction of human life at any stage.” “Our Nation was founded on the belief that every human being has rights, dignity, and matchless value,” wrote Bush. “Every child should be welcomed into life and protected in law.”
http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2007/may/07050401.html

Bush tells abortion foes, ‘We will prevail’ He spoke by telephone from Manhattan, Kansas, where he was to give a speech.
“This is a cause that appeals to the conscience of our citizens and is rooted in America’s deepest principle,” the president said. “And history tells us that with such a cause we will prevail.”
http://www.cnn.com/2006/LAW/01/23/abortion.anniversary.ap/

Roe v. Wade, the 1973 Supreme Court decision legalizing abortion, was wrong because it ‘’usurped the power of the legislatures,’’ Bush said. ‘’I felt like it was a case where the court took the place of what the legislatures should do in America”, said Bush
http://graphics.boston.com/news/politics/campaign2000/news/Bush_tells_addicts_he_can_identify+.shtml

vs.

RICE’s views on abortion:

“Well, I’m against late term abortion, which I think is very cruel. [Otherwise], I would NOT want to see the current law changed”
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=65r_eKaeWl0

She described herself as “mildly pro-choice” With little prompting Rice continued, “Yeah, mildly pro-choice. That’s what that means. I think that there are a lot of things that we can unite around, and that’s where I would tend to be. When told of the belief that in order to be elected a Republican president, a contender must be firmly pro-life, Rice responded, “I’m not trying to be elected.”
http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2005/mar/05031401.html

In an interview with editors and reporters in the office of the editor in chief at The Washington Times, she said she would not want the government “forcing its views” on abortion. “I believe that those who hold a strong moral view on the other side should not be forced to fund it.” Describing pro-lifers as “the other side” is one of the ways Miss Rice articulates her position as a “mildly pro-choice” Republican.
http://www.deanesmay.com/posts/1110650678.shtml

Only on some other planet would a person who admits to being pro-choice and supporting Roe v. Wade have the “exact same views” as someone who admits to being pro-life and is committed to overturning Roe v. Wade.

If you’re okay with electing someone with a “mildly pro-choice” outlook who will only end late-term abortions, then fine, but at least be honest and admit it. There’s no point in lying and claiming she has “the exact same views” as Bush when I can simply post the truth showing she has the opposite outlook regarding the status quo on abortion.

She and Bush agreed that partial-birth shouldn’t be legal, true. The fact they hold some common ground on that ONE aspect on abortion doesn’t mean they have “the exact same view” anymore than it means Kerry has “the exact same view on Iraq” because he voted to invade in 2003.

Oh, and please feel free to ping when you can post your “sources” showing Bush calls himself pro-choice and advocates “the exact same position” as Rice that the government shouldn’t stop abortions.

>> Libertarian in that she wants the states to decide whether they should ban it or not and the federal government should not be involved in that decision. <<

Since WHEN has Libertarianism called for states to decide whether or not to ban abortion? I was not aware any libertarian think tank has stated such a position on abortion. I can site hard-core liberatarians who favor abortion on demand and hard-core libertarians who wouldn't ever allow abortion and yet they're all libertarians. I suppose all the hard-core Libertarians who are for banning abortion nationwide, like Ron Paul, are not "real" libertarians in your mind, eh?

>> They are the same and no one has found any statement of hers indicating anything else. <<

I have. Rice says she's "pro-choice" and would NOT change the current laws on abortion. Bush says he's "pro-life" and would do so. Those are their EXACT words, and those are the FACTS, whether you like them or not. I'm sorry their exact words don't match your agenda here, but that's not my problem.

>> "The president has been in exactly the right place about [abortion]." <<

And...

Senate Minority Leader Tom Daschle, D-S.D., said Bush deserved “great credit” for his leadership during the war and praised the work of the military.
--- Daschle Praises Bush

So following your twisted logic, I guess we should be thankful Tom Daschle has the EXACT SAME VIEWS as Bush on the war in Iraq, eh?

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.