Anti-choice legal expert Teresa Collett is taking time out of her high profile abortion regulation cases to run for Congress against Democrat Betty McCollum.  Although Collett hasn’t made reproductive rights a large part of her campaign, she’s secured endorsements from numerous anti-choice groups ranging from Minnesota Citizens Concerned for Life to National Right to Life and the Susan B. Anthony List.

But one person seems to think she’s actually pro-choice — Steve Carlson, her Independence Party opponent.  Carlson seems to believe that Collett is somehow advocating for a woman’s right to choose.

From Carlson’s website:

My opponent, the Republican challenger Teresa Collett took the abortion-on-demand position on June 7, 2010: “That being said, the primary concern that many thoughtful Americans have is whether or not preserving embryonic life will in fact be consistent with women’s liberty. I would argue that it is entirely consistent with women’s liberty, because until our ability to conceive and bear a child is respected in the marketplace and in civil society, we will continue to be discouraged from pursuing our careers if we can become pregnant, we will continue to experience pregnancy discrimination, and so I’m both pro-woman and pro-life.”

If you have listened to the clip above, you have heard that Teresa Collett says she’s pro-life [and has argued abortion cases before the U.S. Supreme Court]. But she says, on the other hand, she’s pro-choice (she calls it “women’s liberty” instead of “women’s choice”.) She thinks she is pro-life and pro-choice. But instead of openly defending abortion because it interferes in lifestyle choices like outgoing Senator Arlen Specter, she defends women’s choice in the matter, for life-style reasons.

On our KSTP-TV debate, Collett argued that “Jobs is a pro-life issue, because many women who choose abortion do so because they don’t feel like they can find the economic support for an additional child.” So if society provides economic support, then women will not choose abortion. What gives Collett the right to make this deadly bargain?

I believe human life is sacred, and that if two people conceive a child, a fetus, they have a responsibility to follow through to birth that child regardless of the economic consequences. That responsibility is of both the mother and the father, there is no choice for the woman or the man. The exceptions would be rape, incest or a threat to the life of the mother, or long-term physical health of the mother. I don’t think this responsibility is at all tied to any pregnancy discrimination issues that might arise for a conceiving woman. I think I have a difference with Candidate Collett on this, with all due respect to her important work in the courts on pro-life legislation, and as eloquent as she obviously is. There is no part of “women’s economic liberty” in the life decision. How would you feel if we allowed end-of-life decisions by a wife or a husband because they thought it was too much of an economic burden to allow their spouse to live? This is a violation of medical ethics, and Teresa Collett is NOT pro-life, with all due respect. Her position is HARDLY “thoughtful”–it is thoughtless. Teresa is more knowledgeable about abortion than any lawyer I’ve ever met. But human life CANNOT hang in the balance with women’s, or men’s, liberty. Obviously, Rep. McCollum is also not pro-life, she stands for abortion as liberation, a kind of anti-life. When I am elected will fight, successfully to overturn Roe v. Wade, which stands for the proposition that life is no longer sacred. It is an evil and shameful decision and must be reversed. It’s so-called “penumbra of constitutional rights of privacy” is a ridiculous judicial artifice which stands as a symbol of judicial tyranny over the most defenseless humans. I weep for this decision.

Obviously, the first problem with Carlson is his poor reading comprehension.  “Women’s Liberty” is in no way a code phrase for pro-choice in Collett’s discussion.  Instead, she is explaining that the key to eliminating the need for abortion is for businesses and the economic climate to be more friendly to pregnant women, making the idea that one might consider abortion in order to keep a job, gain a promotion, or not earn less due to maternity leave, sick days or other issues that arise if you choose your children over your work. 

In other words, Collett is basically arguing that if all economic reasons for considering abortion were off the table, it would be that much more of a moral argument to force women to carry all fetuses to term, regardless of if they want to or not.  Does that mean that she believes women should be able to choose if they want to carry a child in the meantime?  Of course not.  But eliminating economic obstacles then provides what she sees as one more cover that women use to justify the necessity of choice.

With a campaign cycle where at least 78 candidates believe abortion is wrong in all cases, even that of rape and incest, the idea that one anti-choice candidate effectively opposed to abortion in all circumstances is accusing another anti-choice candidate opposed to abortion in all circumstances of not being anti-choice enough is nearly laughable.  Especially when the one being accused is defending a state that is forcing rape victims to undergo a mandatory vaginal ultrasound before they can go through with an abortion.

The three candidates will participate in their one and only debate this evening, sponsored by the St. Paul League of Women Voters.  Rep. McCollum is projected to handily win reelection to her seat.