In the Herschel Walker scandal, echoes of the hypocrisy of some antiabortion candidates | Editorial
In recent years, a string of candidates has populated political races who would seemingly say or do anything to win when it comes to abortion.
The scandal enveloping Herschel Walker’s U.S. Senate candidacy underscores the hypocrisy that seems to emerge frequently during election season from politicians who profess to oppose abortion rights.
In recent years, a string of candidates has populated political races who would seemingly say or do anything to win when it comes to abortion.
Before entering politics, Donald Trump said he was “very pro-choice” and would not impose a ban on so-called “partial-birth” abortions. As he prepared to run for president, the Washington Post documented how Trump took five different positions on abortion in three days.
Mehmet Oz, the Republican Senate nominee in Pennsylvania, likewise flip-flopped his position on abortion as he moved closer to running for office. In a 2019 interview, Oz said he was “really worried” about the antiabortion movement. But now on his campaign website, Oz said he is “100% pro-life.”
» READ MORE: Herschel Walker mess proves Christian right cares only about power, not abortion | Will Bunch
In the 2019 interview, Oz voiced concern for the health effects on women if abortion was banned, adding that when he was in medical school he “saw women who had coat-hanger events.” Oz went on to question why restricting abortion was such an important political issue. “There’s so much we gotta do already to take care of each other … there are these moral issues that almost on purpose are inflamed.”
In quite a turnaround, one week before the Republican primary in May, Oz called abortion “murder,” regardless of whether the “heart’s beating or not.”
Not surprisingly, after the U.S. Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade, ending the right to abortion that had existed for nearly 50 years, Oz backed the ruling. “The Court is right,” he wrote on Twitter.
Despite all the above, Walker, the Republican Senate nominee in Georgia, appears to be setting a new low for abortion hypocrisy.
Walker, a former football star who had a stint with the Eagles, opposes abortion in all cases, including rape and incest. Yet, a former girlfriend alleged Walker paid for her abortion in 2009 and encouraged her to get a second abortion two years later. Walker denied the claim, but the girlfriend has a “get well” card signed by Walker, a deposit slip showing a copy of a $700 check she said he gave her to pay for the procedure, and text messages with Walker’s wife, where the girlfriend wrote: “Did you know Herschel paid for my abortion the first time?”
“It is no surprise that Walker’s Senate candidacy has become such a travesty.”
It is no surprise that Walker’s Senate candidacy has become such a travesty. Much of his résumé is embellished: Walker claimed he graduated in the top 1% of his class at the University of Georgia, when in fact he dropped out.
Walker’s success as a businessman includes a string of lawsuits and defaults. He claimed his company employed 600 people, but when it applied for loans totaling $180,000 through the Paycheck Protection Program during the pandemic, the number of employees listed was eight.
During the pandemic, Walker promoted a “mist” he said would “kill any COVID on your body.” Walker also lied about the number of children he has had with four different women.
Even worse, Walker’s mendacity and prevarication are enabled by those who help underwrite his campaign. “Republicans stand with him,” said U.S. Sen. Rick Scott, the chairman of the Republican National Senatorial Committee, who accused Democrats of smearing Walker.
The same goes for Christian conservatives, who rallied around Trump even after learning he paid off a porn star and was caught on tape bragging about sexually assaulting women.
Ralph Reed, the former head of the Christian Coalition, said Walker’s abortion scandal could actually increase turnout among Republicans. If that does, indeed, prove to be the case, the hypocrisy here would not be confined to the candidates and their enablers alone.