The Democrats’ National Platform has long supported “a woman’s right to choose,” and so does General Colin Powell. Powell’s pro-abortion position is well known. An AP story by Rita Beamish that appeared in the Detroit News on September 12, 1995, described his position: He [Gen. Powell] said he would prefer that women give birth and then put an unwanted child up for adoption. “If, however, it is her choice to abort,” he said, “it’s a matter between her, her doctors, her family and her conscience and her God . . . so that’s pro-choice.” [Correction: It’s pro-abortion.]

Yet, after all the hue and cry from pro-lifers about Pennsylvania Governor Tom Ridge being unacceptable as George W. Bush’s vice presidential running mate because of his pro-abortion-choice views, rumors continue to grow in the media that Bush may be considering naming Colin Powell to a high Cabinet position, possibly Secretary of State, a position Gen. Powell has already indicated he would accept. The State Department is currently the wellspring of hideous world-wide population control and abortion policies through the U.S. delegation to the United Nations and through our Ambassadors to foreign countries. Pro-life Americans are looking to George W. Bush to reverse that trend and establish pro-life policies throughout the Department.

While General Powell’s military expertise goes unquestioned, pro-life voters should be aware that, like Gov. Ridge, his justification of abortion should eliminate him from consideration for a high position in a Bush administration. As a matter of practical politics, George W. Bush has carefully crafted a pro-life image that has gained for him a strong advantage, among women in particular. In general, because Bush has stated publicly many times that the pro-life plank in the Republican Platform should be readopted, and because of his oft-repeated mantra, “Children and unborn children should be protected by law and welcomed into life,” many pro-life voters are trusting that he means it. Awarding the position of Secretary of State or any other high administration position to an advocate of “a woman’s right to choose” would violate that trust and have almost the same negative effect on George Bush’s chance to win in November as a pro-abortion-choice running mate.

Alan Keyes, in a WorldNetDaily column on July 8, 2000, pointed out that, if Bush nominated a pro-abortion advocate such as Tom Ridge as his running mate, “Such a ticket could never win, especially in an era when the greatest question overhanging the country is the question of moral integrity. In nominating a pro-abortion running mate Bush would cast great doubt over his own sense of principle, whatever pro forma conversion Governor Ridge enacted on the public stage.” [Ridge has said he would defer to Bush’s stance on the issue as a matter of policy.] Mr. Keyes further points out that choosing such a running mate would be seen as abandoning his support of abortion for the sake of power. “It would be a ticket with evidently no principle in either candidate. And it would be a recipe for political suicide ...”

The same analysis applies to Colin Powell.