"An Interesting Fact Situation"

As noted in the other editorial that appears on this page, in selecting fellow pro-lifer former Congressman Richard Cheney, Texas Gov. George W. Bush brushed aside the national media's insistence that he choose a pro-abortion running mate. In refusing to water down his commitment to unborn children, the GOP presidential nominee illustrated yet again that the Bush campaign refuses to allow wolves-in-sheep-clothing to steer it off course. Very impressive.

Naturally, the New York Times and kindred souls would have affixed the "extremist" label regardless of whom Bush chose. With all the forethought of salmon returning to spawn, each election cycle the media elite instinctively dusts off its thesaurus looking for synonyms [fanatics, zealots, militants, etc., etc.] in order to scare voters into abandoning pro-life candidates. The hysteria reaches fever peak during presidential election years.

But a better question is, can the label "extremist" be better applied, say, to Al Gore? When it comes to abortion, you betcha. Gore will climb any mountain, swim any ocean in his quest to ingratiate himself with the Abortion Establishment. Short of promising to personally perform abortions, he will say anything, and has.

That is why it is that when we look at the most recent example of Vice President Gore's utter capitulation to the logic of "choice," it's not unfair to take him at his word. I'm referring to his utterly inept/insensitive/flailing performance on the July 16 edition of NBC's Meet the Press. He butchered almost every question, but we'll focus on his response to the issue of whether a pregnant woman ought ever to be executed.

Some background: In general, the contrast between Gore's meltdown and pro-life Texas Gov. George W. Bush's bravo performance the same day on ABC's This Week was about as stark as you can get. Bush was sharp, on point, and confident. Although Sam Donaldson and Cokie Roberts mixed fastballs high and inside with curveballs breaking away, Bush refused to bail out of the batter's box. Some of what they no doubt thought was their best stuff he hit out of the park.

By contrast, Gore, as they say in baseball, wore the collar. Swinging wildly, he struck out on virtually all the questions thrown at him by Tim Russert, host of Meet the Press. The Vice President had obviously been told to adopt a conversational tone in responding. No doubt the game plan was to establish in this very public setting an aura of just-me-and-Tim-talking-over-the-fence.

While this may have worked in another setting, Russert wasn't about to play along. His questions were fair but tough, and Gore's often near-flippant demeanor made the viewer squirm in his chair. It was like hearing a little kid giggle at a funeral.

Russert really put Gore through his paces on abortion, probing his various and sundry flipflops, retreats, and blatant misrepresentations of what he had said earlier in his career. From the beginning Gore's obviously pre-planned facial gestures and programmed casualness made him appear, well, stupid.

But then there was this incredible exchange:

MR. RUSSERT: Right now there's legislation which says that a woman on death row, if she's pregnant, she should not be executed. Do you support that? [Russert refers here to Title 18 U.S.C.A. Sec. 3596, enacted in 1994: "A (federal) sentence of death shall not be carried out upon a woman while she is pregnant."]

VICE PRES. GORE: I don't know what you're talking about.

MR. RUSSERT: It's a federal statute, on the books, that if a woman is pregnant and she's on death row, she should not be executed.

VICE PRES. GORE: Well... [chuckles]...I don't know what the circumstances would be in that situation. I would...you know, it's an interesting fact situation. I'd want to think about it.

You would think that this wouldn't be tough even for the most hard-bitten, ideologically-driven pro-abortion militant. Even they ought to subscribe to the innocent child principle, the traditional doctrine that no government may execute an unborn child.

But guess what? When Gore "clarified" his comment the next day, he said "the principle of a woman's right to choose governs in that case."

To clear up exactly what Gore meant, a reporter followed up by asking (according to the Weekly Standard) did that mean Gore would also support a pregnant prisoner's decision not to delay her execution and thereby "bury the child." Gore answered, "Yes, yes."

The Washington Post's Mary Mcgory, no friend of Bush, insists that Gore was foolish to support this "double execution." Gore is "often accused of pandering," she wrote, "but in this case, it's hard to see what the audience is. Who would be pleased at his temporizing? The most militant feminists are not clamoring for equal-gender opportunity in the death chamber."

But notice, that McGrory conveniently chose to quote no pro-abortion feminist, militant or otherwise. Their true position came out with the introduction of the "Innocent Child Protection Act (H.R. 4888)," sponsored by Congresswoman Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (R-Fl.)

Before it passed 417-0, the bill was opposed by the National Abortion and Reproductive Right Action League (NARAL) for "directly contradicting one of Roe [v. Wade]'s central tenets."

What about Gov. Bush? According to the Washington Post, when asked "Did he support a federal law that prohibits the execution of a pregnant woman on death row in federal prison?," Bush replied, "I do."

"There's a second life involved. It doesn't matter what your position is on abortion or the death penalty, you shouldn't put a pregnant woman to death." Asked his reaction to Gore's failure to answer the question directly when it was asked of him, Bush said, "Surpise, frankly."

And yet, it really isn't a surprise. Gore is joined at the hip to the Abortion Establishment, so dependent on the Kate Michelmans of this world, that the most callous, unfeeling, heartless remarks regularly roll off his tongue. It is as if he had put his heart, his mind, and his soul on automatic pilot. Just point me, he says to Planned Parenthood and NARAL, and that's the direction I'll fly.

Given that Mr. Gore is our vice president, it is very much worth noting is that the United States is one of 144 nations that have signed the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, which provides, "Sentence of death...shall not be carried out on pregnant women." The covenant does not say, "unless she says go ahead."

In her July 24 column, McGrory nervously called Gore's response to Russert a "gaffe." No it wasn't. What he said is in perfect harmony with the core principle of the pro-abortion movement: the unborn is nothing and even if it were, what happens to that "entity" is entirely up to "its" mother.

I guess when you habitually deny the undeniable, anything can happen - - including becoming so comfortable with the killing that a mirthful chuckle escapes your lips at the prospect of this "interesting fact situation": the execution of an helpless unborn baby.

dave andrusko [dha1245@juno.com]