Pataki Stumbles

After what I thought was an excellent speech last week to announce that he wasn't running for governor again, I began to wonder if maybe, just maybe there was a chance that George Pataki's presidential ambitions weren't as completely far-fetched as I'd always thought them.

But then he went and pulled a maneuver that seems more like something Bill Frist would do, these days. After the Democratic-controlled state assembly and the Republican-controlled state senate passed a bill that would make emergency contraceptives (aka the morning-after pill) available without a prescription, Pataki announced that he'll veto the bill "because it did not include any provisions that would prevent minors from having access to the drug."

Fair point, I thought at first. But ah, there's a little wrinkle in the logic. Senate Majority Leader Joe Bruno (a Republican) said of Pataki's decision "The bill would have given women more options to prevent pregnancies and, as a result, would have prevented abortions. I was surprised by the governor's reason for a veto, given that under existing law, minors already have access to a far worse alternative [abortion itself] than taking a pill to prevent an unwanted pregnancy." The Times calls this a "veiled reference to the fact that the state currently covers the cost of abortions and an abortion-inducing drug for low-income minors."

Apparently minors in the state can already get abortions without restriction, but Pataki's veto would not allow the use of emergency contraceptive to prevent pregnancies.

The needle-threading attempt here seems very ill-advised. It looks like political posturing to cozy up to the pro-life crowd, whose positions Mr. Pataki has generally opposed during his tenure as governor. And the pro-life crowd knows it. They're annoyed at Pataki's saying he would sign a bill which included an exemption for minors (someone at the Family Research Council said they're opposed to the morning-after pill in general "because of what it does, and what is does is abort. If [Pataki] is a pro-lifer, he would recognize that."

This is a tough issue, no doubt about it. If there were already restrictions on minors' access to abortions, I could certainly see Pataki's point. As things stand, however, it makes no sense.

[TYL's Alan has expanded very well on this post here. As he writes, "Would we as a society prefer that people not take immediate action to rectify a mistake or accident? Is it better for these women to wait and then later have an abortion? Truly solving the problem of abortion requires promoting responsibility both before and after pregnancy. The morning-after-pill is a very responsible response and should be part of the solution to the abortion problem. Treating it as equally repugnant as abortion itself clouds the debate and actually hinders efforts to reduce abortion. -- 11:24 a.m.]