I am actually in total agreement with you. I am not saying that the pro-life movement's shift to an incremental strategy was a bad thing - I have in fact written in support of it. My only point was that Kucinich is using the fact that a good deal of recent pro-life legislation could be supported by people who favor keeping abortion legal - but subject to some restrictions and without public funding - to claim that he has not changed his position on the issue.
My argument in the piece is that he had an opportunity in 1998 to highlight his differences with pro-lifers on abortion and he failed to do so. Instead, he competed for pro-life votes and amassed a record adequate to prevent the state's biggest pro-life group from endorsing the right-to-life activist who was challenging him. His current pro-choice stance does in fact amount to a change of position. I was not trying to make the case that the Patrick Henry Men represent the only valid way to advance the right to life. I
I hope that this explanation clarifies things.
Best,
W. James Antle III
Many thanks for an excellent clarification. I saw your main point but misinterpreted your stance on the background situations surrounding the main issue. I understand that if Dennis Kucinich ever wins the nomination, we must inform pro-life voters of the fact that he has flipped on this issue. The information you've presented helps to solidify that argument with background data, and the article would be a good reference for that point.
Abortion - Not About Sex
Bill