Jim Gilmore Opposes Roe v. Wade But Backs Abortions Up to 8 Weeks

National   |   Steven Ertelt   |   Mar 26, 2007   |   9:00AM   |   WASHINGTON, DC

Jim Gilmore Opposes Roe v. Wade But Backs Abortions Up to 8 Weeks Email this article
Printer friendly page

by Steven Ertelt
LifeNews.com Editor
March 26
, 2007

Washington, DC (LifeNews.com) — With a Republican presidential field that many pro-life advocates find uninspiring, some voters are looking to other candidates to carry the banner for them. Former governor Jim Gilmore hopes to be that candidate and said he’s strongly supported the pro-life community, but he also backs legal abortions up to eight weeks.

Gilmore, a former Virginia governor, spoke with Human Events last week about various political issues, including his views on abortion and embryonic stem cell research.

On abortion, Gilmore told the magazine that he wants to remind pro-life voters that he was a friend of the pro-life community during his tenure in office.

"I was always friendly, warm, supportive, and gave them opportunities to push their ideas forward," he said.

"The result — not of that — but of their efforts, which I think I assisted them in — during my administration [we] passed the 24-hour waiting period, we passed parental notification, we passed informed consent," he added.

Gilmore also said he signed a partial-birth abortion ban the state legislature approved.

Despite those pro-life actions, Gilmore admitted that he doesn’t fully side with the pro-life movement on making abortions illegal.

"My view is that after about a period of about eight weeks where there is time for a baby to form [abortion should be allowed]," he said. "After that period of time I think there should be no further abortions — because I think the child has emerged — except to save the life of the mother and situations of extremes."

Told about how pro-life advocates have been disappointed that he has never embraced a position prohibiting abortions, Gilmore replied that "That has never been my position."

"My position has been historically the same, and it is never deviated. And I’m not going to shift or change simply because I am now a candidate for the presidency," he explained. "But I think my track record is second to none" he added, referring to the pro-life bills he signed.

On the Supreme Court’s landmark decision, Gilmore seemed to think it should be overturned and states, once again, allowed to make their own abortion laws.

"My personal view was all the way back in law school we concluded that Roe v. Wade was wrongly decided," he said.

Gilmore talked about the kind of judges he would appoint as president.

"I’m going to appoint judges who will not make law from the bench and who will not carry out societal norms by virtue of twisting up the law and therefore undermining people’s confidence in the law," he said. "I will attempt to appoint strict constructionalists."

At the same time, he backed off of any pledge to appoint pro-life judges to the bench.

"I doubt seriously I’m going to direct them to rule in any particular way in any particular case or philosophy," he said. "I don’t think I’m going to appoint a judge and tell him he’s got to [overturn Roe]."

Gilmore told Human Events that he’s with the pro-life movement on bioethics issues like euthanasia and human cloning.

He said he got involved in the Hugh Finn case and worked to prevent his euthanasia death. Gilmore indicated he was attacked fiercely by assisted suicide advocates "and I still bear those scars here today."

"I became concerned about human cloning during my administration — it emerged as a scientific possibility — and I passed a law to ban human cloning in Virginia and it’s still on the books today as far as I know," he added.

Gilmore didn’t discuss embryonic stem cell research or funding of it specifically, but talked about his views on human cloning and his respect for life.

"As for stem cell research, if I ban human cloning its because I’m nervous about experimenting with people. I don’t like that," he explained. "I think it’s a dangerous path to go down."

"I’d like to find some ways that we can do some of that work under federal supervision that doesn’t create people for the purpose of destroying people for experimentation. I think it’s dangerous," Gilmore added.

While Gilmore comes down on the pro-life side on a number of various issues, pro-life advocates will have to decide if he’s better than some other leading GOP contenders who have come under criticism for their own views.