There we are. Read my posts before offering your gems, sir.
I can read in #7 your rationale for claiming that Simon has "reversed his stance", namely the fact that he has shockingly insisted that abortion is a settled issue over which the governor of a state has no say. The problem with this, aside from the fact that it doesn't make Simon pro-choice at all, is the fact that it's the truth. The governor of a state cannot outlaw abortions.
In #16 you elaborate some: No, you realize the governor of a state cannot outlaw abortion, but there are things he can do. Parental notification, and the like. That sounds great; send a parental notification bill to a Governor Simon's desk and I reckon he'd sign it. (Leaving aside for the moment that with the current and foreseeable makeup of the state legislature this won't happen...) Presumably you think he would veto it (what else can you mean by accusing him of having "reversed his stance"?). This, I deny.
Either he does not care about the issue, or he is a coward who does not wish to take the political risk.
There is a third option: perhaps as the governor of a state with a Democratic legislature there's very little realistic chance of even getting such bills placed on his desk in the first place. You think?
And there are plenty of non-restrictive policies that could be put in place right now, by either the state or federal governments, that would break the back of the abortion culture. That's all I ever ask for.
"Plenty", huh? Wow, that sure sounds like a lot. Can you name some other things on this long list besides a strengthened parental notification law (which stands no chance of being written, currently)?
Here's one example:
But abortion is popular in California, you say? Well, partial-birth abortion is not
Perhaps not. Are you implying that Simon is in favor of partial-birth abortion and would not ban it given the opportunity? Then just what exactly is your complaint? (Remember, you started this by claiming he had "reversed his stance"...)
Why doesn't Simon respond by attacking Gray Death on this issue?
This is a different question, related to election strategy, and has no bearing on Simon's "stance" on abortion, per se.
Perhaps he simply decided that doing this would not be a good way to get elected. You think? Now, in so deciding he could be wrong. But it still wouldn't mean he had "reversed his stance" on abortion. Not Using Abortion As An Election Issue is not the same thing as Reversing One's Beliefs About Abortion.
but politicians like Bill Simon won't talk about it at all because he is afraid.
Oh, that's why he isn't talking about it. Not because of a conscious decision to say and do things likely to help him get elected, but because he is "afraid". You sure are a mind-reader!
So, I say, if a pro-life politician won't stand by his position and defend it
In what sense is Simon "not standing by his position"? I still haven't seen cited the press conference in which Simon came out and said "I'm pro-choice after all".
Again, all that happened is he acknowledged the reality that the governor of a freakin' state can't outlaw abortion. Does acknowledging reality make him less pro-life? That would not bode well for the pro-life movement....