Regrettably, during his 2006 Senatorial campaign, he said this on Meet the Press about Roe v. Wade:
Meet The Press on October 29, 2006.
MR. RUSSERT: ...Mr. Steele, if you’re United States Senator, would you vote for a constitutional amendment to outlaw abortion?
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 [emphasis added] 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.
Doesn't strike me as a pro-lifer anymore.
It's a rather confused mess of a quote - both affirming Roe while saying that states are deciding. It's a mess. Maybe it was meant to be a mess, a straddle.
But I'm unimpressed.
I'd be happy if in the next few days, he'd clarify and reaffirm that Roe should go. I'd be willing to give him a mulligan on it.
But failing that, if he can't find his way to clarify his opposition to Roe, I'm against his chairmanship.
sitetest
You and I both know that Russert was trying to trip him up there. He is pro-life and was just clumsily dancing about here to stay out of the typical MSM snares.
that Roe v Wade interview is not stellar - it is hem and haw and try not to say what you believe for fear of losing one vote someplace.