Analysis: Is Scott Walker Wimpy on the Abortion Issue?

Christian Post ^ | 03/05/2015 | Napp Nazworth

[SeekAndFind]

Pro-lifers are concerned about the commitment of Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker, a potential 2016 presidential candidate, to ending abortion.

In a "Fox News Sunday" interview, Walker said he was pro-life but sounded dipassionate about ending abortion if he were elected president.

During his reelection campaign, host Chris Wallace noted, Walker ran an ad calling abortion an "agonizing choice" and said he supported legislation that "leaves the final decision to a woman and her doctor."

"Do you believe," Wallace asked, "that a woman has a right to end a pregnancy at any point during those nine months?"

Walker answered that he's pro-life "because that's an unborn child," and talked about viewing the ultrasound of his first son.

"My point is," he continued, "we acted on the grounds that we have, legally, to be able to act under the Supreme Court's decision. We'll act that way at the federal level if we're in a position like that, as well. But ultimately, it is a life."

Wallace pressed further: "But ultimately it's her choice?"

"Well, legally, that's what it is under the guidelines that was provided from the Supreme Court," Walker answered.

After Wallace asked if he would work to change the law, Walker responded, "that's not a change you can make. The Supreme Court ultimately has made that."

"I believe in the right to life and I believe that there are other things that can be done at both the state and the federal level," he added.

At first glance, Walker's interview appears uncontroversial. He noted that he's pro-life and was correct in saying that the Supreme Court has ruled that women have a constitutional right to an abortion.

Future presidents will, however, have opportunities to change the Supreme Court through their appointments, and a future court could overturn Roe vs. Wade, the decision that legalized abortion. And while presidents do not have an official role in amending the Constitution, they can encourage Congress and the states to support an amendment to overturn Roe.

On Tuesday, Students for Life posted a photo of Walker on its Facebook wall with the message: "Gov. Walker, Just a refresher on civics: Actually there is 'a change you can make' as president to overturn Roe v. Wade —appoint pro-life justices."

To further understand why pro-lifers were dismayed with the interview, it also helps to first understand what pro-lifers are looking for in a presidential candidate.

The problem with Walker's answers were not that they were wrong, necessarily, but they were wimpy. The pro-life community doesn't just want a candidate that will take on the pro-life label; they want a candidate that will advocate for the cause.

The inside joke among pro-lifers about former President George H. W. Bush was that "he walked the walk but he didn't talk the talk." Concerns about Walker are in that same vein.

While Walker is certainly pro-life, he hasn't put much effort into convincing others of his position. Indeed, in the election ad that Wallace mentioned, Walker appeared to signal to voters that he would not do much on the abortion front if he were elected. His FNS interview was consistent with that pattern.

Shane Vander Hart, founder and editor-in-chief of Caffeinated Thoughts, put it this way: "We'd like to see [Walker] fight on these issues with the same passion he fought to reform public pensions and public union laws in Wisconsin. Compared to life and marriage, that fight pales in comparison. Governor, take your own advice when considering these issues — 'Go big and go bold.'"

In a Monday statement, Frank Cannon, president of American Principles Project, encouraged Walker to back a 20-week abortion ban, legislation that has been passed in many states and is known as the Pain Capable Unborn Child Protection Act in Congress.

After calling his FNS appearance the "very worst interview on the life issue," Cannon said, "Claiming you are impotent to act on your core principles is neither true nor wise. What about advocating for a ban on abortions after 20 weeks? That's a law that has already been passed in 12 states, which the Republican National Committee endorses, and which most of his fellow presumptive Republican presidential candidates also support, Jeb Bush included."

In response to the controversy, Walker released a statement saying he supports a 20-week ban. The fact that it took him this long, and in response to a controversy, to make such a statement is telling in itself.

Bans on late-term abortions get majority support, polls consistently show. A July 2013 HuffPost/YouGov poll, for instance, showed that 59 percent of Americans support a ban on abortions after 20 weeks. Late term abortion bans have been one of the primary fronts in the battle to end abortion for at least two years. Why did it take Walker this long to even announce his position?

Additionally, Walker continued to demonstrate a passivity on abortion in the letter announcing his position. Walker didn't even encourage the Wisconsin legislature to pass a 20-week ban. Instead, he wrote that such a ban is "likely to come to my desk" and "I will sign that bill when it gets to my desk ...."

Wimpy, indeed.

[Eric in the Ozarks]

Go ahead and withhold support, like you did for Jim Talent.

[grania]

Grasping at straws. Walker's statements, made as a governor, would serve to soften any criticism. He did say he'd support legislation against late-term abortions.

The GOP elite are going to keep pulling this stuff to separate social conservatives from supporting a constitutional conservative.

How come we never see or hear it in the media that Jeb is unelectable by social conservatives because he let Teri Schiavo be starved to death?

[gingerbread]

This is exactly what these liberals, socialists and communists want to do. Spread enough rumors about what Scott Walker will do or will not do, concerning everything that is near and dear to the conservative hearts. My advice? Don’t pay attention to anything they say or do.

[Eric in the Ozarks]

‘...liberals, socialists and communists...”

Not exactly.

[Menthops]

We KNOW that Ted Cruz is unapologetically and boldly pro-life.

Why even take a chance with Walker, especially as it appears he might not have the extemporaneous communication skills needed in today’s campaigns?

[dangus]

Walker has promoted an abortion ban after 20 weeks. The state of abortion laws in Wisconsin is a hell of a lot better than in Bush’s Florida (or in W’s Texas, prior to the last few years of the Perry administration)

[palmer]

Why even take a chance with Walker

Because a governor can win more easily than a Senator.

[RinaseaofDs]

The abortion issue doesn’t matter. Neither does the gay issue.

[SeekAndFind]

How about evolution and creation? That’s what the MSM interviewers keep harping about when it comes to GOP candidates.

[Borderline]

"The abortion issue doesn’t matter."

  Scott Walker stating he will follow established federal laws regarding abortion while being pro life is the only legal path he can and should take. Anyone who calls him out for being squishy on abortion just wants a right wing Obama breaking the law on whim.

[Drew68]

The pro-life community doesn't just want a candidate that will take on the pro-life label; they want a candidate that will advocate for the cause.

Any candidate who makes ending abortion the cornerstone of his campaign will remain on the fringe. I know that's not what people on Free Republic want to hear but it is the truth.

Have confidence that a President Walker will appoint conservatives to the bench and leave it at that.

[NaturalScience]

"The abortion issue doesn’t matter. Neither does the gay issue."

Then I guess my vote doesn't matter either?

[Drew68]

Then I guess my vote doesn't matter either?

That depends on where you live.

If you live in a solid red state Then, no, your vote doesn't really matter. These states will go (R) regardless. Same if you live in a solid blue state.

The states that will matter will be Ohio and Florida. Republicans have no path to victory without both of them. Win these states, and you have a good chance of turning a handful of purple states red as well.

But first our candidate has to survive the primaries where populous blue states like California and New York play a huge role in selecting the Republican candidate. Add in Illinois, Pennsylvania and the liberal Northeast and it is easy to understand why a serious candidate may wish to steer clear of social issues like abortion and gays. These issues may play well in the South but Republicans aren't worried about winning here. They already have.

[Menthops]

The reason Republican presidential candidates have lost in recent elections is that they have not placed values-issues at the forefront of their campaigns.

Millions of disaffected conservatives DO care about creation/evolution, morality, contraception/abortion, and homosexual issues. Not only have Republican candidates lost by not stressing these issues, but as a result, we are losing ground on these issues too.

[NaturalScience]

I’m in Texas so you’ll probably say we’re staying red, but states are flipping faster and faster.

The liberals took over California in about 20 years (finalizing with Reagan’s amnesty). Colorado only took about 10 years.

With millions of illegals being added to the electorate now, Texas is next (and probably the last one they need). In 2012, Bexar County (San Antonio), Travis County (Austin), Harris County (Houston) and Dallas County all went blue. That almost covers the majority of the state’s population.

Scary stuff...

[RinaseaofDs]

Only in so far as it makes voting for someone like Cruz a problem.

These issues are matters of legislation. Abortion can be legal. It can also be something so reprehensible that no modern teenager would even consider. Abortions are down, and clinics are closing.

Education is working.

Gay marriage is a 10th amendment issue. Restore the teeth back in the 10th amendment and let the issue sort itself out in the states. Don’t live in a state where gay marriage is legal, and gay adoption of children is legal (or tolerated).

I see gay marriage as a lever by which we get the feds out of using marriage for all kinds of federal programs. Let the states decide whether traditional marriage is a boon to that state’s society and then live in those states.

Make it moot. The problem ISN’T gay marriage - that’s cultural rot. The problem is the 10th amendment doesn’t mean anything anymore.

[Drew68]

The reason Republican presidential candidates have lost in recent elections is that they have not placed values-issues at the forefront of their campaigns.

Ignoring recent SoCon Senate losses in red states such as Missouri and Indiana, let's talk about this.

Millions of disaffected conservatives DO care about creation/evolution, morality, contraception/abortion, and homosexual issues.

The problem social conservatives face is that they are all concentrated in geographical areas that aren't competitive in a national election.

Not only have Republican candidates lost by not stressing these issues, but as a result, we are losing ground on these issues too.

Before we can even put this argument to a test, a SoCon candidate needs to survive the primaries. This is where we have problems.

Let's take a hypothetical SoCon candidate, strong on social issues like abortion, gay marriage, creationism, Biblical morality, etc. This candidate is going to do well in the South and will do good in the Midwest.

And we get a map that looks like this:

Mitt Romney was orange.

Now an argument can be made that our primary system is broken. Personally, I think it is silly that we let blue states choose our candidates. I think a system needs to be put in place that gives red states in the previous election greater weight in the upcoming primaries. But until we address this, this is the uphill battle that social conservative candidates have to face.

[nascarnation]

I agree. In a more perfect world, we would stage them in order of their % Republican margin in the last POTUS election.

[PapaBear3625]

Scott Walker says he would sign ban on abortions after 20 weeks. Published yesterday.