|
|
Al Gore Flip-Flops on Abortion in "Meet the Press" Interview
Al Gore Flip-Flops on Abortion in "Meet the Press" Interview
[Source: NBC's "Meet the Press;" July 16, 2000] [Moderator's Note: The following is a transcript of an interview about abortion between NBC's Tim Russert and Vice-President Al Gore. The interview took place on "Meet the Press" on Sunday, July 16,2000.] Russert: We're back with Vice President Al Gore. Mr. Vice President, you said that the presidential election, this presidential election, will decide the future of the Supreme Court. Gore: Yes, very much so. Russert: And people immediately turn their attention to Roe vs. Wade, the Supreme Court decision ... Gore: Right. Russert: ...which allowed abortion. I want to ask you a very simple question. Do you believe that life begins at conception? Gore: No. I believe there is a difference. You know, I believe that the Roe vs. Wade decision wisely embodies the kind of common sense judgment that most Americans share. Russert: In 1987 - let me show you a letter you wrote to your constituents and put it on the board. "During my 11 years in Congress, I have consistently opposed federal funding of abortions. In my opinion, it's wrong to spend federal funds for what is arguably the taking of a human life. Let me assure you that I share your belief that innocent human life must be protected, and I am committed to further this goal." You went on with Washington Monthly and gave an interview which says, "It is quite correct that a position like mine in opposition to the federal funding of abortion results in unequal access to abortions on the part of poor women. Nevertheless, I feel the principle of government not participating in the taking of what is arguably a human life is more important." When did you change your mind on that principle? Gore: Ten, 15 years ago. I can't give you the exact day. It's been quite a while ago. And here's the reason I changed. I talked to a lot of women who taught me about the kinds of circumstances that can come up and the kinds of dilemmas that women can face. And the circumstances are so varied. I've come to the very deep conviction that a woman's right to choose must be protected regardless of the woman's income. Now, I've always supported Roe vs. Wade and I've always opposed a constitutional amendment to take away a woman's right to choose. I changed... Russert: But you did vote to define a person as including an unborn child. Gore: Well, that was a very odd procedural vote on the Sill-Jander [sic] amendment years ago. Russert: When do you think life begins? Gore : I favor the Roe vs. Wade approach, but let me just say, Tim, I did... Russert: Which is what? When does life begin? Gore: Let me just say, I did change my position on the issue of federal funding and I changed it because I came to understand more from women - women think about this differently than men. Russert: But you were calling fetuses innocent human life, and now you don't believe life begins at conception. I'm just trying to find out, when do you believe life begins? Gore: Well, look, the Roe vs. Wade decision proposes an answer to that question... Russert: Which is? Gore: ...which is, in my view, a commonsense approach that there is a developmental process during which the burden kind of shifts over time. And they say - you know, they talk about the burden being different - burden of proof different in the first trimester than the third trimester. I mean, that's the way the Supreme Court has addressed it. And incidentally, it was just reaffirmed by a narrow one-vote margin, 5-to-4. The justices chosen by the president elected this November will determine whether or not a woman's right to choose is protected or taken away. I will protect a woman's right to choose. Governor Bush has sworn to take away a woman's right to choose. He has told Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson that he will make appointments that will be very pleasing to them. That's not difficult to interpret. And, you know, the court picked by the next president will shape the Constitution's interpretation for the next 30 or 40 years. Russert: Do you believe there should be any restrictions on a woman's right to choose? Gore: Yes, the ones in Roe vs. Wade. Russert: Should there be a restriction on minors getting abortions without parental consent? Gore: Difficult question because there are all kinds of circumstances where you have some children kind of raising themselves in situations where their families are fractured and they're in trouble and they have nobody to turn to. Russert: You could have a judge order that, but you voted against it. Gore: Well, I mean - I think that you need to let that be worked out in the context of a woman's right to choose. There are all kinds of different circumstances and... Russert: But a child needs permission to have her ears pierced. Gore: I understand. Russert: You don't want parental permission for an abortion. Gore: You know, some of the provisions that have been proposed on this have been a backdoor effort to eliminate a woman's right to choose. I think that there should be discretion to recognize the unusual circumstances where it's obviously in the best interests to allow the choice to go forward. Russert: But a simple bill which said, "Parental consent is necessary. If it's an abusive situation, where she's - the child's living alone, then a judge can intervene." Gore: Well, I'd want to look at that. I think that - I think you have to have a commonsense standard. LifeNews.com is a daily compilation of pro-life news and information. To subscribe, visit LifeNews.com. News Shortcut: http://www.christianliferesources.com?816 Would a friend, relative, or acquaintance find a particular page or article useful? Fill out the form below to send it to a friend! Please fill out the small form below to leave a comment or suggestion about the page you were just visiting. Any and all feedback is appreciated! Your feedback will help make our website even better.
