Abortion activists challenge candidate, Simon says he'll avoid divisive topic if asked

SF Chronicle ^ | 3-16-02 | Carla Marinucci

[helmsman]

I have a hard time figuring out where to begin. Oh wait, no I don't: this isn't THE issue for most of the state, or even the GOP and it certainly isn't for me. I can back that up with polls on what Californians say the issues are in the governor's race. Abortion ranked 26 out of 28.

If California is so freaking pro-abortion, then Republican politicians should simply run as moderate pro-choicers who support abortion control. No big deal. I'm very understanding of the difficulty pro-life candidates encounter when seeking office in liberal states. As I've advocated before, the candidate should simply say he supports legal abortion in the first trimester for now, but that he also supports controls on it for the purpose of discouraging it. In fact, the major pro-life groups in California should announce that, while they will prefer solid pro-life candidates, they will support these abortion moderates in the general election against a pro-abortion opponent.

A violation of principle? Screw principle. What does principle do for the unborn? It's simply a sophisticated strategy that will advance the pro-life agenda and save lives immediately. It's certainly a lot better than electing these fake pro-lifers who do nothing while in office because they are trembling in fear of the political consequences if they act. I've supported these strategies for quite some time, yet I still need to be lectured, apparently, on the value of incrementalism.