Las Vegas Sun columnist/blogger Jon Ralston wrote a long piece yesterday, “Lowden’s Evolving Views on Abortion.” He’s referring of course to Sue Lowden, the former state senator and local broadcaster who polls show is the frontrunner in the 2010 race against Harry Reid (a December 4 survey puts her up 51–41 in a head-to-head with the Senate Majority Leader). In a nutshell, Ralston says there are reports that Lowden, who is running as a pro-lifer, wasn’t in the early ’90s when she was a state senator, allegedly doing things such as working to remove an anti-abortion plank from the state GOP platform. Throw into the mix this: Another GOP candidate, Danny Tarkanian (the son of famous former UNLV basketball coach Jerry Tarkanian) also beats Reid head-to-head, and says he is the more pro-life of the two. So now we’ve got a primary campaign issue.

Got all that? Exclusive to NRO, here is Lowden’s just-out statement on her stand on abortion, where she used to be on the issue, and how the issue used to rate for her.

I am personally pro-life and should I be fortunate enough to defeat Harry Reid and be elected, I will legislate as a pro-life U.S. Senator. Unlike Harry Reid, I would never write or support federal legislation that includes taxpayer-subsidized abortion.
As a life long practicing Catholic, I respect and support my church’s doctrine of protecting innocent life. However, I admit that earlier in my life it wasn’t an issue that I had truly internalized and I did not give it the importance in my life that it deserved. I knew that protecting innocent life mattered but my opinions on life were mixed.
As a state senator, I helped lead the effort on parental notification legislation. When a resolution was brought to the Senate floor to support the Roe v. Wade decision, I decided not to rise in support. However, I acknowledge that nearly twenty years ago, as a private citizen, before entering public office, I supported a measure on the Nevada ballot that said if the Roe decision was overturned, Nevada would remain a pro-choice state. My views on abortion have clearly changed over the decades and I have become pro-life – which I believe is consistent with the path of many other individuals. It has recently come to my attention that Ronald Reagan even signed a pro-abortion law as governor of California in 1967.
I support the pro-life plank of the Republican Party platform. In 1996, I did not try to remove it from the Nevada Republican Party platform nor from the platform of the National Republican Convention.
But that was a long time ago and since then, Paul and I have raised our children. And for a long time, I was out of the public arena. In that time, life has become even more precious to me. My personal life and dramatic advancements in technology have furthered my resolve that life begins at conception. Abortion is wrong and we must get away from abortion. As a United States Senator, I will consistently work to defend life and fight against taxpayer funding of abortion.
As a conservative and a strict-constructionist, I am a supporter of our 10th Amendment guarantee of states rights. The issue of Roe, I have come to believe, contradicts this important Amendment to our U.S. Constitution.
Today, some individuals and groups are inaccurately calling me pro-choice because I do believe that there should be exceptions on the abortion issue – such as protection of the life of the mother, and in cases of rape and incest
I believe the position I have come to on this issue is right, and it is one that is shared by many others in our state – despite the fact that my exceptions can be used as a political opportunity by my opponents. As stated, should I be fortunate enough to be elected, I will proudly and consistently work to defend life and prevent taxpayer dollars from being used to fund abortion.

Once upon a time I was the managing editor of The Human Life Review. Take that for what it is worth, but Lowden came by NR’s offices earlier this month to discuss her campaign, and the issue of abortion came up (she raised it): I found her to be pro-life and comfortable with the issue. The old Spider Sense wasn’t tingling. If she has evolved, then great — we admit all converts, and there’s no cover charge.

I don’t agree with Lowden’s exception position, but when considering abortion as a political issue, I find the perfect can be the enemy of the good. I also find that Harry Reid, once a strong pro-lifer, has evolved. Albeit in the other direction, as his recent vote against the Nelson Amendment to ban Obamacare abortion-funding makes clear.