Guess which presidential candidate wrote the following: “I have consistently opposed federal funding of abortions. In my opinion, it is wrong to spend federal funds for what is arguably the taking of a human life. It is my deep personal conviction that abortion is wrong. I hope that some day we will see a drop in the outrageously large numbers of abortions which currently take place. . . . I share your belief that innocent human life must be protected, and I am committed to furthering this goal.”
This might sound like Gary Bauer, but it’s not. Nor is it George W. Bush, Steve Forbes, or any other Republican. Al Gore wrote those words in July 1987, on the eve of his first bid for the White House. Given that Gore has been zinging Bill Bradley recently for reversing himself on a few minor issues, Gore’s own reversal and public equivocations on abortion issues are all the more notable. The record shows that he began his political career in the 1970s as a consistent pro-lifer; his conversion to pro-choice began with his 1984 Senate bid, and his enthusiasm for abortion rights has only intensified. The simplest explanation for the switch: Ambition trumped principle.
When Gore entered the House in 1977, abortion loomed large as a policy issue. Roe v. Wade had been decided four years earlier, and pro-lifers were intent on chipping away at liberal abortion laws. Most House votes on the subject at the time involved whether federal funds could be spent on abortions, and Gore consistently voted against doing so (even in cases where continuation of the pregnancy could result in death or “serious health damage” to the mother or the unborn child). By the end of Gore’s first House term, he’d voted on 17 abortion measures and taken the pro-life position 13 times.
Opposing abortion was popular in Gore’s culturally conservative central Tennessee district. But even after he’d established himself there, his voting record remained pretty consistently pro-life. In 1979, for example, he voted against a Henry Waxman amendment authorizing federal funding for abortions in cases of rape and incest. And in 1980, 1983, and 1984, he opposed including coverage for abortions in the health plans available to federal employees.
The most revealing of Gore’s abortion votes came in July 1984. That’s when he supported an amendment offered by representative Mark Siljander, a Republican, defining “unborn children from the moment of conception” as “persons” who were entitled to the full protection of federal civil rights laws. The amendment was sufficiently controversial that even some of the House’s staunchest pro-lifers, such as Harold Volkmer of Missouri, opposed it.
Gore voted against abortion 84 percent of the time during his eight years in the House, according to Douglas Johnson of the National Right to Life Committee, a strong pro-life record for a Democrat. There were other Democrats, like Richard Gephardt, who were more consistent and adopted a higher profile on the issue (Gephardt too is now reliably pro-choice). But Gore was still viewed as an ally by anti-abortion leaders like representative Chris Smith, a New Jersey Republican. “We counted him as a staunch pro-lifer,” recalls Smith, “particularly on funding issues.”
After his election to the Senate in 1984, Gore began being touted as one of the Democratic party’s rising stars. But he and his supporters knew he wouldn’t stand a chance as a national Democratic candidate if he maintained a pro-life voting record in a pro-choice party, so he did what any ambitious politician does: He changed his position. During his eight years in the Senate, Gore voted on 32 abortion-related measures, and on 30 he voted pro-choice.
The most striking manifestation of Gore’s flip-flop came on a series of Senate votes concerning the funding of abortions by the government of the District of Columbia. As a House member, Gore had voted to bar the District government from using any of its federal funds for abortions. But as a senator he voted five times the other way — and he did so as early as November 1985, even while continuing to espouse his old view in public. In 1986, for example, he told the Washington Monthly that even though the denial of federal funding for abortions resulted in unequal access for poor women, he nonetheless favored withholding such funds. Said Gore, “I feel the principle of the government not participating in the taking of what is arguably human life is more important.”
When Gore launched his presidential campaign in 1987, he posed as a moderate Democrat. On abortion, that meant opposing federal funding, but otherwise staking out a pro-choice stance. He even had the nerve to paste Gephardt for liberalizing his position on abortion, saying, “The next president has to be someone who the people believe will stay with his convictions.” Yet he himself hedged on the issue in a way that would have done Bill Clinton proud. “My personal view is that the federal government should not be involved [in funding abortions],” he told reporters in March 1988. “But if the overwhelming majority changed their view and wished to see that measure enacted, I would not veto it.”
Queasiness over Gore’s record was nicely captured by one of his advisers, who told Michael Kramer, then a columnist for U.S. News and World Report, how the campaign was going to respond to Democratic criticism of the “yes” vote on the Siljander amendment. “Since there’s a record of that vote,” said the adviser, “we have only one choice . . . deny, deny, deny.” Indeed, when Gore was asked about the Siljander amendment on Meet the Press in February 1988, he said, “I have never supported restrictions on the ability of the woman to make a choice in having an abortion.”
And he’s been denying ever since. After he was selected to be Bill Clinton’s running mate, Gore’s history as an abortion foe provoked questions from the media, since Clinton favored federal funding and opposed just about any federal restriction. That left Gore with two options. One was to say he’d changed his mind, as George Bush did upon being selected as Ronald Reagan’s running mate in 1980. The other was to adopt something approximating the Mario Cuomo position: I’m personally opposed to abortion, but I’m not going to impose my views on others.
Gore chose a third way that nicely dovetailed with his running mate’s penchant for fibbing. If asked about his past, he denied he’d ever voted against abortion and then quickly changed the subject. Here’s what happened in July 1992 when Paula Zahn, then of CBS News, asked him about his earlier opposition to federal funding for abortion: “Well, first of all my position has never changed, I’ve always held the same position, and hold the same position now. Secondly, there should be no doubt, in anyone’s mind, as to which ticket is the pro-choice ticket in this campaign.”
When Zahn pressed him on the apparent contradiction between his past and present positions — he’d just endorsed a national health insurance proposal that would provide coverage for abortions — Gore replied, “But again, the issue is which ticket is pro-choice . . . and there ought to be no doubt whatsoever about this. Ask the people who follow this whole debate most closely which is the pro-choice ticket — they will tell you very quickly. I believe very strongly that a woman must have the right to choose, and I believe that that right is very much at risk during this whole campaign.” Zahn tried one final time: “In all deference to what you’re saying, though, you have changed your position.” Gore: “No, not at all. I’ve had the same position from the very first days in Congress.”
One of the only other times Gore was grilled about abortion came on Meet the Press in September 1992. Responding to questions from Tim Russert about his reversal, Gore gave a series of evasive, highly technical responses in which he refused to concede he’d changed his position. Russert was followed by Lisa Myers, who asked him how he squared his past abortion votes with his support for the Freedom of Choice Act, which proposed prohibiting states from placing any restrictions on abortion and would have opened the door to federal funding. Gore once again gave an extremely convoluted response in which he never answered the question, but did advertise that he was pro-choice. “I believe that the woman ought to have the right to choose, and I believe that where the mother’s life or health is endangered, I believe that alters the circumstances. Now, in saying that there are arguably aspects of life is consistent with the response I gave earlier. I believe, however, there is a qualitative difference in the early stages of pregnancy. And I believe that a woman ought to have the right to choose.”
Gore hasn’t had to concoct such evasive answers as vice president, since he’s rarely, if ever, asked about his record. Indeed, he’s dropped any pretense of supporting even the most modest restriction on abortion rights, and has emerged as one of the administration’s leading spokesmen on the issue.
On January 22, 1997, just two days after Clinton’s second inauguration, Gore gave one of his most animated speeches before the annual conference of the National Abortion and Reproductive Rights Action League. He began by applauding the group’s president, Kate Michelman, for her “extraordinary leadership,” but saved his real passion for a ringing defense of abortion rights. “America’s women have the right to choose,” he roared, “and no one will ever steal that right away! The right to choose is fundamental, lodged in our Constitution, affirmed by the Supreme Court. And on behalf of President Clinton, I vow to you here . . . that we will never ever let anyone take that right away!”
Later in the speech Gore described his unsuccessful attempt to join forces with pro-life leaders on reducing the number of unintended pregnancies. It turned out the pro-lifers wouldn’t get involved. Why? “Here’s my interpretation,” said Gore. “I know I’m on thin ice here. There is no way to discuss these issues without venturing out onto thin ice. The truth is that a minority within the minority also believes that family planning in the form of birth control, and even the giving of information about birth control, is morally wrong. I of course don’t agree with that. I disagree strongly, as I assume everyone here does.” The crowd burst into laughter at this point, undeterred by the fact that the vice president had just mocked a teaching of the Catholic Church. (The archbishop of Los Angeles, Cardinal Roger Mahony, subsequently wrote Gore to say he was “offended” and “appalled” by this “shocking” speech.)
Gore hasn’t stopped pandering to pro-choice activists. When he spoke to an abortion rights group in January 1998, for example, he modified Bill Clinton’s catch phrase of keeping abortion “safe, legal, and rare,” saying instead that it should be “safe, legal, and accessible.” A few months earlier, at a White House environmental conference, he suggested that one way of curbing global warming would be “women’s empowerment . . . to participate in decisions about childbearing.” By this logic, more abortions mean fewer people, which means less consumption, which means less global warming. Even Jay Leno ridiculed this thinking on the Tonight Show.
Since launching his presidential campaign, Gore has had his aides cling to the fiction that he never changed his position on abortion. In a May interview with Danielle Decker of WomenConnect Politics Daily, deputy campaign manager Marla Romash replied to a question about whether Gore’s stand on abortion had changed by saying, “No, he has always supported a woman’s right to choose.” And while Bill Bradley has said little about Gore’s past votes, he did pounce in August when the Gore campaign told the Des Moines Register that the vice president opposed federal funding of abortions. Once confronted, Gore spokesman Roger Salazar quickly recanted: “I gave the wrong answer. I didn’t do my research. . . . The vice president opposes any attempt to restrict Medicaid funding for abortions.” (Even this clarification was slippery, leaving the impression that Gore is defending unlimited Medicaid funding against those who would end it. In fact, Medicaid now spends federal dollars only on abortions after rape or incest or to save the mother’s life, despite the best efforts of Gore and others.)
With both contenders for the Democratic presidential nomination now espousing identical positions — the maximum availability and taxpayer funding of abortion — Gore’s strategy is to talk about the issue as little as possible. He rarely mentions it in speeches, and there’s almost nothing about it on his Web site. Gore has acknowledged privately that his position has evolved, and I called the campaign office, as well as the vice president’s office, seeking enlightenment. The Gore operation is legendary for returning calls, even to THE WEEKLY STANDARD, and aides assured me someone would get back to me with a comment. No one ever did. Given the falsehoods about Gore’s record that campaign workers are being ordered to peddle, it’s hard to blame them.
Matthew Rees is a staff writer at THE WEEKLY STANDARD.
