Herman Cain: Still Not Pro-Choice

GOP Presidential Candidate Herman Cain<a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/gageskidmore/6183942539/sizes/l/in/photostream/">Gage Skidmore</a>/Flickr

Nia-Malika Henderson reports that in an interview with Piers Morgan last night, Herman Cain seemed to waiver on what he’d do about abortion if elected president:

What it comes down to. It’s not the government’s role or anybody else’s role to make that decision. Secondly, if you look at the statistical incidents, you’re not talking about that big a number. So what I’m saying is, it ultimately gets down to a choice that that family or that mother has to make. Not me as president. Not some politician, not a bureaucrat. It gets down to that family, and whatever they decide, they decide. I shouldn’t have to tell them what decision to make for such a sensitive issue.

Is Herman Cain—gasp!—secretly pro-choice? Was he merely practicing Taqiyya when he cut those radio ads back in 2006 suggesting there was a racial motive to Democrats’ support for abortion, and back in 2004, when he ran for US Senate in Georgia on a platform that abortion was wrong even in cases of rape and incest?

No. Just look at the full context here. On Sunday, Cain told David Gregory he was opposed to exceptions for rape and incest, but when the life of the mother was at risk, “that family is going to have to make that decision.” Morgan asked Cain about those remarks specifically, and so that seemingly sympathetic comment from Cain is referring specifically to abortion when the life of the mother is at risk. Otherwise, Cain’s “you’re not talking about that big a number” wouldn’t make much sense:

A more seasoned politician might have more deftly segued the conversation back into his comfort zone and issued some platitudes about appointing pro-life judges and so forth. But it’s a matter of public record that Cain is not a particularly seasoned candidate, and so he’ll have moments like this. It’s not fair to pin it as any sort of ideological shift, though.

DOES IT FEEL LIKE POLITICS IS AT A BREAKING POINT?

Headshot of Editor in Chief of Mother Jones, Clara Jeffery

It sure feels that way to me, and here at Mother Jones, we’ve been thinking a lot about what journalism needs to do differently, and how we can have the biggest impact.

We kept coming back to one word: corruption. Democracy and the rule of law being undermined by those with wealth and power for their own gain. So we're launching an ambitious Mother Jones Corruption Project to do deep, time-intensive reporting on systemic corruption, and asking the MoJo community to help crowdfund it.

We aim to hire, build a team, and give them the time and space needed to understand how we got here and how we might get out. We want to dig into the forces and decisions that have allowed massive conflicts of interest, influence peddling, and win-at-all-costs politics to flourish.

It's unlike anything we've done, and we have seed funding to get started, but we're looking to raise $500,000 from readers by July when we'll be making key budgeting decisions—and the more resources we have by then, the deeper we can dig. If our plan sounds good to you, please help kickstart it with a tax-deductible donation today.

Thanks for reading—whether or not you can pitch in today, or ever, I'm glad you're with us.

Signed by Clara Jeffery

Clara Jeffery, Editor-in-Chief

We Recommend

Latest

Sign up for our newsletters

Subscribe and we'll send Mother Jones straight to your inbox.

Get our award-winning magazine

Save big on a full year of investigations, ideas, and insights.

Subscribe

Support our journalism

Help Mother Jones' reporters dig deep with a tax-deductible donation.

Donate

Share your feedback: We’re planning to launch a new version of the comments section. Help us test it.