“When I needed an abortion I was for it. Now that I don’t need one, I’m against it.”
This is a verbatim grab from Delaware politics. I don’t know who is making this statement, Anderson or Valenzuela, but I think it switches from Anderson speaking to Valenzuela after the first sentence.
Sher clarifies that she is pro-life.
Sep 8th, 2012 by David AndersonLife is precious. It should be protected at all stages, said Lt. Governor candidate Sher Valenzuela.
In a recent interview, I said that at the time of my abortion I did not have a lot of information, and I wouldn’t make the same decision today.
As the law currently stands, I’m for women having a true choice. To me, that means an informed choice. And as I said in the interview – it is “in that frame, I am pro-choice.” Women should have a real and informed choice today with full and accurate information about this procedure, including, and most importantly, about the pro-life alternatives. If they do not fully know about these alternatives, then they are not able to exercise real choice.
Because I have walked this road myself, I fully empathize with and understand what women in these situations are facing. And it’s because of my own life experiences that I am today fully pro-life.
I support changes in the law that reflect this position, such as requiring parental notification for minors who seek to terminate their pregnancies.
As I have said, I understand the intense emotions women face dealing with these issues. And it is important that we deal with them in a caring and respectful way. That is the heart with which I made my comments, and it is the spirit in which I will continue to conduct my campaign.
I am talking only about the law as it is written today. If I ever had a chance to vote on it, I would vote against abortion.
So, as far as I can make out, she is “pro-choice” in so far as women should only have the ability to “choose” going to term. That is a “choice” she wasn’t forced to make.