Cain tries to justify his pro-choice position to Iowa conservatives. (Jim Young/Reuters)
A refresher on pizza mogul Herman Cain's
pro-choice stance:
it ultimately gets down to a choice that that family or that mother has to make. Not me as president, not some politician, not a bureaucrat. It gets down to that family, and whatever they decide, they decide. I shouldn't try to tell them what decision to make for such a sensitive decision. [...]
Iowa Conservative radio wingnut Steve Deace, actual tagline: "Fear God. Tell the truth. Make money" (two out of three ain't bad...), lays into Cain:
Months ago, a member of my staff attended a Cain event intended to rally Iowa social conservatives, and she said his answers on life were so flawed and inconsistent the campaign reached out to her immediately for a “make-good” interview in order to minimize the damage. Several of those that were at that meeting ended up supporting other candidates. Cain recently said in a CNN interview that he believes in life-at-conception, but that he would also favor baby-murder in cases of rape and incest.
Cain’s rationale for this obvious contradiction seems ripped right from Planned Parenthood’s talking points, and sounds like every other liberal abortionist who claims they’re “personally pro-life” but can’t impose their morality on others:
Another Iowa wingnut:
Basically, Cain’s position as a candidate is that of pro-abortion activists. The government has no right to tell a woman what she can or cannot do with her body. The difference is that a pro-life individual believes that child inside the womb is a life with inherent rights and that the mother should not be allowed to infringe it’s right to life.
At the wingnut Washington Times:
Cain's biggest mistake was using an liberal argument to defend his pro-life views against seemingly harsh government restrictions on abortion [...]
Going into the presidential race, [Fred] Thompson [in 2007] had a record of being pro-life, but after voicing a liberal argument against federal abortion laws, social conservatives quickly realized that he didn't speak their language and dumped him immediately.
Weekly Standard:
Herman Cain's confusing remarks on abortion during an appearance last night on CNN are getting a lot of attention today in the media and conservative blogosphere. Republican presidential candidate Rick Santorum blasted Cain for taking a "pro-choice position" that is "similar to those held by John Kerry, Barack Obama and many others on the liberal left."
So how has Cain tried to minimize the damage? He put out this statement on his website:
Yesterday in an interview with Piers Morgan on CNN, I was asked questions about abortion policy and the role of the President.
I understood the thrust of the question to ask whether that I, as president, would simply "order" people to not seek an abortion.
My answer was focused on the role of the President. The President has no constitutional authority to order any such action by anyone. That was the point I was trying to convey.
He was just talking about "the role of the president"? No, he wasn't. Let's go back to this original quote:
it ultimately gets down to a choice that that family or that mother has to make. Not me as president, not some politician, not a bureaucrat.
His original answer talked about government not having that authority. And he's right! "The President has no constitutional authority" to prohibit women from having abortions. In other words, he's still pro-choice.
Thanks, Herman!
Update: Now he's trying to say that abortion should be illegal, but families can still decide for themselves whether to have one.
