Michael Steele Takes Questions on CNS News

The interview is here.

The big deal is Steele’s position on life so I’ve reposted his response below.

Steele: Again, I am a pro-life Roman Catholic. And I have always been that way. I have always viewed that issue from that perspective. What you saw in the exchange with me and the late, great host of “Meet the Press” was two Catholic boys doing a little jockeying, because I knew exactly where Tim was trying to go. I remember saying to him when we were on commercial break, ‘You know exactly what the deal is. Why are you trying to trick out something here? You’re a good Catholic boy. Behave yourself. So we were joking about it. The long and short of it is what I was trying to say, and I admit, probably inarticulately in doing so at the time, that the court would not necessarily just willy nilly change Roe vs. Wade. The court believes in the concept of the law having grown its own legs … the court would need a case to come before it that would move it to change. So I was trying that point. The court is not going to just up and change Roe vs. Wade no matter the number of justices who support its overturn, because those justices – if they are true Republican picks who honor tradition of the court and who are strict constructionists – they are not going to willy nilly do that to fulfill some political agenda. So that’s what I was trying to say. My personal view is Roe vs. Wade was wrongly decided, which is why I made the point that it should have been left to the individual states to have that battle and to have the communities decide for themselves what they would pay for, what they wouldn’t pay for, what they would accept and what they won’t accept, very much like what is being played on with the gay marriage bill. And so, my point was that from a judicial standpoint – and this is what I get for being a lawyer I guess – but from a judicial standpoint, nothing presented to the court so far to move it to act to strike Roe vs. Wade.
The case has not come before it yet. You have to fight for a decision like that. The votes are there. So why hasn’t it happened? Because these judges, the five-justice majority, are strict constructionists, and they are not going to willy nilly decide on a political whim. So that was the point with Tim. With respect to the (Republican Party) platform, again, I go back to my basic point. I don’t need to be chairman of the party to support that plank.
That is something that is paramount for me, because you are talking about the sanctity of all life, born and the unborn. And I think it’s important for this country to move itself away from this culture of death that we’ve sort of fallen into, as noted by (Pope) John Paul II. And I think it is important that our political leadership – that has the opportunity to use the bully pulpit – to speak to that sanctity of life, and it should do so. As we move to the beginnings of a new administration where the president of the country has a very, very clear view on matters related to abortion, very, very pro-abortion, that it is going to be incumbent upon Republicans, incumbent upon those who are pro-life, who hold the sanctity of life dear to be able to rise and speak to that and to challenge what I think are going to be some really dark legislation that’s going to come out of (the 111th) Congress under this administration.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s