In other words, because he had spent nearly his entire adult life in a country where abortion was legal, and because he is the father of two daughters and husband to a woman who is pro-choice, he would understand why abortion needs to be available to women, even if he is personally opposed to it.

I believed him when he said his top priorities were education and tax cuts.

Today, I feel as stupid and gullible as the California Legislature's deregulation advocates.

Yesterday, on Bush's very first workday as president, he announced he would block U.S. financial aid to international family-planning organizations that provide abortion and/or abortion counseling. Let's be clear. These organizations do not use the U.S. money to pay for abortions. Even under Clinton that was illegal and has been since 1973. What Bush is doing is yanking all aid to all organizations that have the temerity to spend their own money on providing abortions.

This ban comes from a man whose scope of international travel begins and ends in Mexico. Bush has no clue about life in an African village or an overcrowded slum in India. Do you think he knows that 585,000 women in Third World countries die each year of pregnancy-related complications, according to the World Health Organization? Do you think he knows how many women die drinking pesticides or bleach attempting to end their pregnancies? Does he know how many lives are saved by the wide range of work these organizations do,

aside from abortions?

He can't know or he couldn't have said, with a straight face, that he made this decision because life is precious.

"Funding for reproductive health and rights is an issue of life and death for women," said Kavita N. Ramdas, president and CEO of the Global Fund for Women. "Instead of being a champion of women's rights, Bush shows the United States will set them back tremendously."

But wait! There's more!

It wasn't enough that Bush nominated two diehard abortion opponents to his Cabinet in John Ashcroft and Tommy Thompson, or that he is imposing this ban on international funding. Bush also said yesterday he was ordering a review of the government's approval four months ago of the RU-486 abortion pill.

"I'm not surprised," said Belle Taylor-McGhee, the executive director of California Abortion and Reproductive Rights Action League. "But this is a sobering reminder that Bush is going to push his anti-abortion agenda, despite what Americans feel about the issue. Look, women are dying around the world. It's not compassionate conservatism to say to women in undeveloped countries that we're going to make your decisions about what's best for you."

If people are surprised by Bush's actions, Taylor-McGhee said, it's because the media didn't press him enough about abortion during the campaign. I agree, and I plead guilty. I remember interviewing Bush last year and asking him why he was pro-life. He stammered a bit before answering, "My pro-life position is I believe there's life. It's not necessarily based in religion. I think there's a life there, therefore the notion of life, liberty and pursuit of happiness."

His fuzzy answer suggested to me at the time that abortion wasn't a burning issue for him. Now, I know that he wasn't being lukewarm but simply inarticulate.

I underestimated Bush. I didn't pay close enough attention. I still believe he's in over his head as president. But now I know better than to think he won't do much damage. One day in office and he already has.

©2001 San Francisco Chronicle

###