Michael Steele is not pro-life. And he must be replaced as the Chairman of the GOP as quickly as possible.

Steele just did an interview with GQ which is quoted in The Politico.

The key part of the conversation is this. It’s shocking and I trust you’ll agree that Michael Steele’s days as GOP Chairman are numbered:

Steele: The choice issue cuts two ways. You can choose life, or you can choose abortion. You know, my mother chose life. So, you know, I think the power of the argument of choice boils down to stating a case for one or the other.

GQ: Are you saying you think women have the right to choose abortion?

Steele: Yeah. I mean, again, I think that’s an individual choice.

GQ: You do?

Steele: Yeah. Absolutely.

Now, you can rant and rave how poor Michael has been taken out of context once again and how the media has manipulated him again. I don’t want to hear it anymore. I don’t want a GOP Chairman who makes headlines weekly with his flubs.

And if he meant what he said then I want him out as well.

This is not the first time Steele has referred to his pro-choice credentials. CMR raised this issue months ago and we were told by many that we didn’t understand, it was a nuanced position, the media took him out of context and even that Steele was a good Catholic.

Remember this little conversation with Tim Russert on Meet The Press when Steele was running for Senate.

MR. RUSSERT: …Mr. Steele, if you’re United States Senator, would you vote for a constitutional amendment to outlaw abortion?

LT. GOV. STEELE: I don’t — vote for a constitutional amendment to outlaw abortion? I think we’d have to have that get to the Supreme Court, wouldn’t we? I haven’t seen that bill proposed. I don’t think…

MR. RUSSERT: That’s been introduced in the Senate.

LT. GOV. STEELE: I don’t think anyone’s going to propose that this day.

MR. RUSSERT: So you wouldn’t do that?


MR. RUSSERT: Would, would you encourage — would you hope the U.S. Supreme Court overturns Roe vs. Wade?

LT. GOV. STEELE: I think that that’s a matter that’s going to rightly belong to the courts to decide ultimately whether or not that, that issue should be addressed. The, the Court has taken a position, which I agree, stare decisis, which means that the law is as it is and, and so this is a matter that’s ultimately going to be adjudicated at the states. We’re seeing that. The states are beginning to decide for themselves on, on this and a host of other issues. And the Supreme Court would ultimately decide that.

MR. RUSSERT: But you hope that the Court keeps Roe v. Wade in place?

LT. GOV. STEELE: I think the Court will evaluate the law as society progresses, as the Court is supposed to do.

MR. RUSSERT: But what’s your position? Do you want them to sustain it or overturn it?

LT. GOV. STEELE: Well, I think, I think, I think Roe vs. Wade, Roe vs. Wade is a, is a matter that should’ve been left to the states to decide, ultimately. But it, it is where it is today, and the courts will ultimately decide whether or not this, this gets addressed by the states, goes back to the states in some form or they overturn it outright.

MR. RUSSERT: Is is your desire to keep it in place?

LT. GOV. STEELE: My desire is that we follow what stare decisis is at this point, yes.

I’m done. Michael Steele cannot lead the Republican Party. I don’t want a leader who attacks conservative leaders. I don’t want a leader who smiles and agrees when Republicans are called Nazis. I don’t want a leader who waffles on abortion every time he’s asked about it. That’s not good enough. If this party wants the support of pro-lifers then Michael Steele must go.

UPDATE: Steele clarifies his statment. Ed Morrissey of HotAir has it but adds he still doesn’t know what Steele believes. “The two statements cannot be reconciled with each other. They are mutually exclusive. And Steele has offered both as his views in two successive days.” More at Hot Air.

UpdateII: Fallout is already occuring from some heavy hitters among social conservatives. Family Research Council President Tony Perkins released a statement on this issue:
“I read the article last night so I am familiar not only with his comments about the life issue but also about theefforts to redefine marriage and ‘mucking’ up the constitution. I expressed my concerns to the chairman earlier this week about previous statements that were very similar in nature. He assured me as chairman his views didnot matter and that he would be upholding and promoting theParty platform, which is very clear on these issues. It is very difficult to reconcile the GQ interview with the chairman’s pledge.”