Redstate

By Siberian Comments (3) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »

I got some heat yesterday for commenting on DeVos's confusing statement on abortion in last nights debate and now that I've had time to go back and find text of his comments and re-listen to his statement I'm more concerned about his supposedly Pro-Life stance.

In the first debate he sounded fine:

Skubick: Exceptions for rape and incest on abortion?

DeVos: I’m on the pro-life side of that debate, Tim, I think that’s been very clear from the start.

Skubick: So you do not favor the exceptions for rape and incest.

DeVos: My position on the life question, on the abortion question… well…it’s… you know different people have different views, of course. My position is consistent with, with many individuals across the aisle. I mean, even the Governor’s own, the Governor’s own self proclaimed mentor, the great former attorney General Frank Kelley, shares the same position as well as a couple congressmen from your side of the aisle, Governor. So my position is consistent with theirs as well, that has an exception for the life of the mother, but where life has been created we have great concern about losing it.

Granholm: I just… I think that’s just far out of the mainstream. I think that in the case of rape? … or incest?… there’s no exception? I think that government should not be in the doctor’s office, or in the confession, confessional, or in your bedroom. And…ah…. I just think that is… um… a pretty astonishing position, frankly.

DeVos: Well, but the consistent, but it is consistent, I mean, it is consistent position, with people of conscience, people of conscience in both sides of the aisle, inclusive of some very good friends of the Governor whom I think the Governor would also respect as being in the mainstream, and the Governor's veto of, on the same issue of course, as we deal with abortion and the very difficult issue of abortion. The Governor’s veto of partial birth abortion, which many in Michigan I think the overwhelming majority find to be just a tragic and unacceptable procedure, the Governor’s veto of a partial birth abortion bill would suggest that it is quite possible the Governor is way out of the mainstream. Granholm: I have said repeatedly that I don’t think partial birth abortion is a good thing, but the bill that was sent to me did not have an exception for the life or the health of the mother, and those exceptions have to be in it in order for it to be constitutional.

He sounds Pro-life there, but he's not very specific but well it's good enough for me.

However, last night he clarified this statement somewhat I guess you could say... to the point I'm confused if he really understands what being Pro-Life is all about.

Last Night's Debate:

Devin Scillian: Mr DeVos, abortion law isn't always germane to a gubernatorial race, you've talked before about living under the law of the land, and you told me several months ago that abortion law wasn't the reason why you were running for governor. But we have seen renewed momentum to overturn Roe. vs. Wade in this country, most recently under the pen of the South Dakota governor. If, a bill came to your desk that would place further limits on a woman's right to receive an abortion in Michigan, would you sign it?

DeVos: Devin, I'm comfortable with the laws that we have in Michigan and I see no change. In fact, I opposed, when there was a proposal, a petition initiative that was in this state that was going to, that was going to change the law around in this state, I actually opposed that legislation. Our current laws are quite sufficient. I’m on the pro-life side of this debate, everybody, I think, in Michigan knows that today, but there are people of conscience of both sides of this very challenging issue and our current laws, as it relates to abortion, as it relates to abortion in Michigan are sufficient. I would say that with one exception, and that exception is this, we should be, we should be banning partial birth abortion, a terrible procedure, a terrible procedure that allows for a child that could be very late term, could be very sustainable, outside the womb to be, to be terminated, to be killed. I just think that's completely unacceptable in Michigan and the Governor vetoed that legislation to change that. I would have signed that legislation. I just don't think a procedure like that is something that should exist in Michigan, in fact, the vast majority of people in Michigan agree with me on that particular problem.

Scillian: Just so we are clear, apart from that, you're telling your pro-life colleagues in Michigan that, if a bill were to come to you that would further limit abortion in Michigan, you wouldn't sign it.

DeVos: The bill, the bills, the laws, that exist in Michigan, are sufficient. Thank you.

Granholm: I find it curious because my opponent has said that he doesn't believe that there should be an exception for abortion even in the case of rape or incest. I , too, would ban partial birth abortion, if there were an exception for the life and the health of the mother, that's what the Supreme Court has said would be constitutional. The bill that came to my desk was not constitutional.

I cannot understand how someone can in the same short statement say they are happy with the current laws and on the Pro-Life side of the debate.

I know that some people would like me to "grab a cup of shut-the-heck-up and relax." but I'm already not happy about the idea of voting for the former head of Amway and this isn't helping.

So am I wrong or does DeVos need to explain his Pro-Life stance?