This position goes even further than the Roe v. Wade precedent Clark cites as his benchmark. In that infamous case, a majority of Supreme Court justices cobbled together a legal theory that allowed them to legalize abortion. That awkwardly-constructed theory divided the pregnancy into three trimesters--asserting that the government has no right to interfere in the first trimester, a limited right to interfere in the second trimester, and a much more expansive right to limit abortion in the third trimester. Clark reverses the very precedent he claimed to be determinative. His new requirement for appointment to the federal bench transcends any abortion decision handed down by the U. S. Supreme Court.

Clark's comments on abortion came in the midst of his statements about judicial nominations. In a contradictory argument, Clark denied that he would apply a "litmus test," but asserted repeatedly that he would not name a pro-life judge to the bench. "I don't believe people whose ideological agenda is to burn the law or to remake the law or reshape it should be appointed whether they are from either side." He went on to say, "I just want good, solid people with judicial temperament who respect the process of law that we have in America." Repeating his point again, Clark simply asserted: "I don't have litmus tests. I want a guy who will do judicial precedent." Just exactly what Clark means by "doing" judicial precedent is not completely clear, but Clark at least believes that he is grounding his position in the Roe v. Wade decision. The retired army general now ventures into legal terrain and raises judicial precedent to a level of importance and immutability that would allow for no change whatsoever in the Supreme Court's application of the law. African-American's should be thankful that Abraham Lincoln, not Wesley Clark, was president during the 1860's. The prevailing Supreme Court precedent on slavery, known infamously as the "Dred Scott" decision, established that black Americans could be denied basic human rights and were not to be considered full citizens of the United States. Had that notorious decision been allowed to remain as settled law, slavery would still be the law of the land.

Clearly, Clark is either politically disingenuous or historically confused. His test for judicial nomination would have meant no civil rights movement, a fact that seems completely to have missed his notice.

The most likely reality is that Wesley Clark is simply pandering his way into the mainstream of the Democratic Party. With all of the Democratic candidates echoing the prevailing orthodoxy of that party on abortion, the only way for Clark to break out of the pack is to articulate a policy even more radical than the pro-choice and pro-abortion orthodoxy required for any Democratic candidate to be taken seriously by the liberal establishment.

Furthermore, Clark's position obviously lacks any kind of serious thought. On the issue of fetal viability, all Clark could say was: "I'm not going to get into a discussion of when life begins. I'm in favor of choice, period. Pure and simple." He concluded his statements by arguing, "I don't think you should get the law involved in abortion. It's between a woman, her doctor, her faith and her family and her conscience. You don't put the law in there."