|
The
Morning After
Jerry
Kilgore is suffering repercussions from his fling
with pro-abortion forces. His ruling on the
"morning after" pill may jeopardize his
standing among pro-life Republicans.
The
legal advice on distribution of the “morning
after” pill provided to Virginia’s public
colleges and universities on May 9 by a member of
Attorney General Jerry Kilgore’s staff raised more
questions than it answered and left Kilgore with a
tough political decision. It also provoked a strong,
negative response from many pro-life activists.
There
aren’t enough moderate Republicans in Virginia to
elect Kilgore or any other politician to statewide
office. The GOP began to make its serious push to
become the majority party in the Commonwealth only
when it convinced cultural conservatives that the
GOP would advance their agenda.
The
principal elements of this expanded base are limited
government advocates, gun owners and pro-lifers.
Despite coming to the dance with these folks, far
too many Republican elected officials don’t seem
interested in going home with them. How quickly they
forget about the fate of the first President Bush in
1992 and Mark Earley, the unsuccessful GOP candidate
for governor in 2001.
Intensity
in politics is a factor political scientists and
campaign consultants understand. Polling that
doesn’t take intensity into effect can be highly
misleading. Kilgore runs the risk of turning off key
elements of the Republican base. Political pundits
already have announced that Kilgore has an
unobstructed stroll to the GOP gubernatorial
nomination in 2005. He’d better not get too
comfortable.
Pro-lifers
in particular have been disappointed by Kilgore’s
apparent temporizing on matters of interest to them.
The “morning after” pill advice is only the most
recent example.
The
May 9 legal memorandum on that subject was seen by
many pro-lifers, especially Del. Bob Marshall,
R-Prince William, as shallow and indefensible. It
acknowledges that there are differing definitions of
“pregnancy,” but without citing any cases,
chooses a definition devised by abortionists on the
grounds it would likely be adopted by a court
reviewing the issue. What Kilgore’s team failed to
note is that the Virginia Department of Health has
adopted a quite different definition in written
materials to be distributed to women under the
informed consent statute.
According
to the Health Department, pregnancy begins at
fertilization of the ovum, not as Kilgore says at
implantation of the “fertilized ovum” in the
uterine wall. The Department followed the prevailing
definition among scientists in human embryology.
To
compound his problems, Kilgore’s team concluded
that the informed consent statute does not apply to
the “morning after” pill because the most
conclusive test for pregnancy can be administered
only after a fertilized ovum is implanted in the
uterus. This requirement of verification, which is
not mentioned in the statute, sent shock waves
through the pro-life community.
If
the informed consent statute (or the parental
consent statute, for that matter) applies only after
a physician verifies that a woman is pregnant, the
obvious intent of the General Assembly would be
frustrated. This “don’t ask, don’t tell”
rule will eviscerate the consent statutes.
The
consequences of the “morning after” pill
memorandum apparently weren’t considered by the
Kilgore team. Even if his legal analysis were
unassailable, it puts Kilgore in a situation where
he must either support legislation to close the gap
his memorandum identifies (or creates) or do
nothing. The latter course will convince
pro-lifers that he is not, and perhaps never has
been, a principled opponent of abortion.
The
political fallout will not be confined to the
pro-life element of his base. Others who came to the
GOP because of principle will wonder if Kilgore’s
word can be trusted.
May 26, 2003
|
