On Thursday, New Jersey governor Chris Christie attacked Florida senator Marco Rubio from the left on the issue of abortion.
“He’s made it very clear that — on the issue of pro-life, Marco Rubio is not for an exception for rape, incest or life of the mother,” Christie said on MSNBC’s Morning Joe. “Now, you know, I think that’s the kind of position that New Hampshire voters would be really concerned about.”
“I am pro-life, but I believe that rape, incest and life of the mother, as Ronald Reagan did, should be exceptions to that rule,” Christie added.
Christie made two claims that are flatly false. First, Rubio has always said that he supports an exception when the life of the mother is endangered. Second, Christie is wrong about Ronald Reagan’s position on abortion.
“The president and I do favor a human rights amendment. I favor one that would have an exception for incest and rape, and he doesn’t,” George H.W. Bush said in his October 1984 debate with Geraldine Ferraro. Reagan went on to win 49 states that November.
“I support Planned Parenthood privately with my personal contribution,” Christie told the Newark Star Ledger in 1994. The governor now makes the dubious claim that he never made that remark, but his new attack, echoed by the super PAC that Jeb Bush established, amounts to a massive in-kind donation to Planned Parenthood and the pro-abortion lobby. The video of Christie’s dishonest remarks will surely make it into attack ads if Rubio is the Republican nominee.
It’s certainly true that not supporting an exception for abortion in the cases of rape and incest is a deeply unpopular opinion, but as we’ve noted in the past: “Although Rubio opposes these exceptions in principle, he has made it clear he’s willing to accept them in practice. And the only pro-life legislation that has a plausible chance of landing on a President Rubio’s desk–popular bills banning taxpayer-funded and late-term abortion–include those exceptions.”
One would expect pro-abortion Democrats to ignore the crucial context that Rubio is willing and always has been willing to accept legislation that includes those exceptions. It’s surprising that a pro-life Republican would attack Rubio for taking the same position on the right to life as Ronald Reagan and Paul Ryan.
“An attack on this aspect of these candidates’ pro-life positions is an attack on the pro-life movement as a whole,” writes Marjorie Dannenfelser, president of the Susan B. Anthony List–one of the largest pro-life groups in the country. “These tactical broadsides for perceived short-term advantage are incredibly damaging to the pro-life movement at a point in which momentum is on our side.”
Rubio was pressed on his position on abortion during the first Republican debate on Fox News as 23 million people watched. CNN grilled him on the issue the next day. Hillary Clinton has likened Rubio to a terrorist for his stance. He still polls better than any other Republican candidate in match-ups against Clinton.
Could a $50 million ad campaign against Rubio on this issue drag him down in a general election? That’s entirely possible. Rubio would be wise to emphasize the fact that he supports those exceptions in legislation as a matter of prudence, and that it is the Democrats who are unwilling to compromise. It’s Democrats like Hillary Clinton who defend late-term abortion of infants old enough to feel pain and survive long-term if born prematurely. It’s Democrats like Hillary Clinton who demand unlimited taxpayer-funded abortions for Medicaid recipients.
That’s an argument Rubio can win. Of course, it will be a whole lot easier to win if Rubio’s fellow pro-life Republicans spent more time making an argument against Hillary Clinton instead of making an argument against Marco Rubio.
