Today Scott Walker delivered his nomination papers to the Government Accountability Board. A reporter asked about his endorsement by Pro-Life Wisconsin (who also endorsed Walker challenger Mark Neumann), a group whose anti-choice position extends so far right as to oppose all forms of contraception.
Walker refused to comment on Pro-Life Wisconsin’s platform, referring to his legislative record as “pro-life” but when the reporter asked him if he opposed condoms (as PLW does) Walker said, “To me that’s not a position of the government.”
Bravo to Walker for actually taking a limited government position after all his rhetoric, but how will this bode for Pro-Life Wisconsin’s endorsement of Walker? Among the group’s extreme positions;
“We urge our elected officials to ban surgical abortion without exceptions for rape, incest, or the life and health of the mother.”
Walker’s statement that the government has no business intervening in condom use seems completely sane to most people, but when your policy is against terminating a pregnancy when the life of the mother is on the line?
Hypocrisy has always been rampant among the conservative base — limited government, except when the government should legislate morality — so I’m not holding my breath for the endorsement to be rescinded, but there is the chance Walker could “clarify” (retract) his statement.
Curiously, Wisconsin Right to Life’s Google ad calls its group “The most effective pro-life organization in Wisconsin,” perhaps an acknowledgement that Pro-Life Wisconsin’s extreme policy positions are counter-productive within the anti-choice movement.