Horner has offered a clear position. He opposes abortion and would reduce abortions through more effective sex education with an emphasis on abstinence, access to health services including contraception and dealing with the underlying issues such as poverty.So he "opposes abortion," but presumably would oppose any kind of limitation on the practice -- even common-sense legislation like Woman's Right to Know, which provides basic informed consent information prior to an abortion procedure. He wants to "reduce abortions," but plans to maintain taxpayer funding of them, which studies show leads to significantly more abortions.
In what possible sense does Horner "oppose" abortion? Most people who oppose abortion do so because they believe it unjustly takes the life of an innocent human being. Does Horner agree? (A "clear position" would be nice here.) If so, it seems to follow (given our common understanding that government should protect its people from being killed) that abortion should not be allowed -- that unborn human beings, like the rest of us, deserve the protection of the law as a matter of basic justice.
But clearly Horner doesn't agree with that. So it seems fair to conclude that Horner doesn't "oppose" abortion in any meaningful sense at all -- on the contrary, he wants to fund it with public dollars, as if abortion is a societal "good."
