Replies

I think the intent of the article was to show how candidate’s positions change depending upon political landscape. This applies across the board.

“In 1967, then-California Gov. Reagan signed a liberal abortion law legalizing the procedure in cases where a woman’s mental as well as physical health was at risk.

The number of abortions in California soared after the bill was passed, and Reagan came to regret singing it, the Times reported. By the time he ran for president in 1980, Reagan had declared his support for a constitutional amendment prohibiting all abortions except to save the life of a woman.

During the 1980 campaign, Reagan’s GOP primary opponent, George H.W. Bush, opposed a constitutional amendment restricting abortion. But by the time he ran for president in 1988, then-Vice President Bush said he opposed all abortions unless the mother’s life was endangered.
Dick Gephardt, elected to the House from a heavily Catholic district, said in 1977: “By ruling … that a woman may legally have an abortion during the first three months of pregnancy, the Supreme Court has sanctioned the denial of the unborn’s rights.”

But in 1986, two years before running for president, Gephardt said he opposed a constitutional amendment, the Times noted, and in 2003 he declared: “The sanctity of a woman’s right to control her own destiny is a moral force of its own.”

Massachusetts Gov. Michael Dukakis, opposing Gephardt for the Democratic presidential nomination in 1988, criticized Gephardt’s shift on abortion and other issues, and went on to win the nomination.

Similarly, Al Gore’s stance on abortion shifted to the left as he eyed the White House. In 1987, he stated: “During my 11 years in Congress, I have consistently opposed federal funding of abortions,” which he called “arguably the taking of a human life.”

By 2000, when Gore was running for president, he declared: “My position has changed. I strongly support a woman’s right to choose.”