Over the weekend video surfaced from a 2018 forum that showed Iowa Sen. Mariannette Miller-Meeks saying she is “pro-choice” and then launching into her beliefs about abortion.
“If it’s challenged in the court system, I think that offers resolution to people on both sides of the issue,” she said. “When Roe v. Wade was decided, and even since that time, we have not done a favor to women.”
She sounded pro-life for a bit of the answer but then drifted.
“Ultimately, as a doctor and a healthcare provider, I think these are decisions that are best left to providers, to doctors and to patients. I don’t want the government in my healthcare decisions.”
Her campaign claims that when she said she is pro-choice she “misspoke.”
That makes sense for a portion of the answer, but as stated above, when you use the line it is a decision best left to doctors and patients, you are using a line straight out of Planned Parenthood’s playbook.
I mean, take a look…
“This victory ensures that women in Wisconsin can make their own private health care decisions without interference from politicians,” says Planned Parenthood.
“This case is about whether women in South Dakota should be able to make private health care decisions with their doctors — free from political interference,” said Mimi Liu, Planned Parenthood Federation of America staff attorney.
“This bill substitutes a government mandate for a doctor’s judgment about how to counsel and interact with a patient,” said Jamie Burch Elliott, a lobbyist for Planned Parenthood.
The conclusion that ultimately it’s a decision best left to a provider and a patient is a patently pro-abortion argument. It is not something a pro-life person says. Period.
So while it is possible to accept the explanation that Miller-Meeks misspoke when she called herself pro-choice, her final destination, that conclusion that it is best left between a provider and a patient, is a pro-choice position. Heck, it is THE pro-choice position.
Let’s be clear about one thing, this is a huge issue. Abortion is literally a life and death issue. So it is imperative that Republicans get their primary picks right because we know Democrats aren’t going to send someone to Congress interested in saving the lives of millions of unborn babies.
I’m going to start with the good. Miller-Meeks has a limited legislative record. However, the limited legislative record she has is good. She has voted the right way on life bills when presented the opportunity.
However, it is important we dig beneath the surface and really examine things.
In addition to the video from the 2018 forum, we know that in 2008 she was called a “great pretender” by Iowa Right to Life. Consider that a second strike.
The Iowa Standard went through records available online to find as much as possible on Miller-Meeks and her abortion stance.
We found plenty of articles from her past campaigns. Including one with this line:
“One of Miller-Meeks’ themes is that she isn’t going to represent the Republican Party in Congress, she’s representing all the people of the Second Congressional District.”
This line is irritating because on an issue like abortion, you can’t represent “all the people.” You have to pick. You’re either representing people who believe in the sanctity of human life or you’re representing people who believe it’s OK to kill an unborn baby before he or she is born.
The Republican Party’s position is to protect the unborn baby. But we don’t have clarity from this claim on this issue here, just concern.
During the 2008 Republican primary, one of her opponents said Miller-Meeks is liberal in her views on abortion. Miller-Meeks responded by saying it comes down to an issue of education.
“I feel that people should have access to information, which includes abstinence and other means of birth control. Not every person is blessed to have a mom and a dad who are trying to help them to problem solve and resist peer pressure.”
Then, the article states that Miller-Meeks believes it is a judicial issue and there is nothing she can do as a lawmaker to stop abortion.
She is giving up significant ground in governance to the judicial branch. And for pro-life Iowans, she is giving up far too much.
Another article from the same campaign says that Peter Teahen, one of her Republican opponents, said Miller-Meeks is using “fancy footwork” to avoid Republican “moral themes.”
Perhaps most damning of all is an article in which Miller-Meeks broke from the other two Republicans and argued that abortion should not be reduced through laws, but by social mechanisms to support families.
“Am I pro-life? Yes I am, but I’m not for hate-mongering or denigrating or criminalizing that choice,” she said.
A ton of ground is given up there. I have never once heard a hateful pro-life argument. Never. Not saying it doesn’t exist and some people may not be hateful when they make a pro-life argument, but nearly every pro-life argument I’ve heard has been full of grace, compassion, understanding and love. Because at the end of the pro-life argument, both the mom and the baby live.
At the end of a pro-choice/pro-abortion argument, the baby dies.
How much more hateful can it get?
Miller-Meeks had been registered as a “no-party” voter prior to that 2008 election. She was not involved in politics.
This is all very troubling and extremely telling.
Now, in a quest to find information, sometimes what you don’t find is just as important as what you do find.
I couldn’t find any articles in which Miller-Meeks gave a passionate defense of the unborn. I couldn’t find any videos where she really portrayed a strong, pro-life message. I never saw anything about her ever championing the right to life.
In fact, in one article I found where she discussed her top three issues, abortion and life were not mentioned at all.
To be fair, she does have this video up on her congressional website.
Here is the deal. Miller-Meeks is a doctor. She could make the scientific arguments all day on behalf of life beginning at conception if she wanted to. She could make the scientific arguments against the killing of unborn babies. She could refuse to buy into the judicial supremacy logic that has unfortunately seemed to hoodwink far too many legislators into believing there’s nothing that can be done.
I mean, aren’t we glad that legislators didn’t take that same approach after the Supreme Court ruled black people were three-fifths a person?
There’s more than 12 years of history to examine when it comes to Miller-Meeks and her position on abortion. And there is one glaring piece of evidence missing — a passionate, powerful, convincing pro-life message.
It could be out there, but if it is, I failed to find it.
Again, while her voting record has been good so far, it really hasn’t been tested. The abortion neutrality amendment really isn’t even a pro-life amendment, if we’re being honest.
Don’t get me wrong, I’m grateful for her vote on that amendment, but by no means is that a strong, controversial vote to take — I mean, she’s in the Iowa Senate, not the Iowa House.
At the end of the day, life should be one of the few issues whereas a voter, you know that you know that you know that your candidate is where he or she needs to be.
And with Miller-Meeks, there is far more concern than comfort.
While The Iowa Standard does not believe we’ve reached a verdict beyond a reasonable doubt, we do believe there’s a preponderance of the evidence to settle a civil dispute.
And the ruling isn’t good for the unborn.
***Miller-Meeks did not participate over the phone in our congressional candidate life survey. She emailed her responses. If she would like, The Iowa Standard would be more than happy to interview her and give her a chance to respond to the above article.***