Giuliani and Abortion
A Reason aricle today criticizes Giuliani's stance on abortion because he supports such a right, while at the same time believes that Roe is unconstitutional and would appoint strict constitutionalist judges who would overturn Roe. The article points out that this is a contradiction because overturning Roe would mean that the states would get to decide the rights to abortion and some states would make it illegal.
I think Giuliani's position is refreshingly honest and is not a contradiction. Essentially he is saying that he thinks Roe is wrong, but that he as mayor of NYC would vote to keep abortion legal.
The president has little to do with abortion law other than the appointment of judges. Most conservatives, while supporting restrictions on abortion, would also oppose the federal government passing laws that should be left to the states (the essence of Roe). Therefore Giuliani's position is in reality little different than a pro-life candidate who also thinks abortion law should be left to the states. Both would appoint anti-Roe judges.
Giuliani could be dissappointing to some on the right who would prefer the federal government use its National Power to ban abortion and enforce social conservative views. However, this position is held by only a small minority. As such, it is probable that the abortion issue will not hurt Giuliani as long as he continues to promise and maintain that he will appoint judges like Alito/Scalia/Roberts (and as long as the base understands that and believes it).
I think Giuliani's position is refreshingly honest and is not a contradiction. Essentially he is saying that he thinks Roe is wrong, but that he as mayor of NYC would vote to keep abortion legal.
The president has little to do with abortion law other than the appointment of judges. Most conservatives, while supporting restrictions on abortion, would also oppose the federal government passing laws that should be left to the states (the essence of Roe). Therefore Giuliani's position is in reality little different than a pro-life candidate who also thinks abortion law should be left to the states. Both would appoint anti-Roe judges.
Giuliani could be dissappointing to some on the right who would prefer the federal government use its National Power to ban abortion and enforce social conservative views. However, this position is held by only a small minority. As such, it is probable that the abortion issue will not hurt Giuliani as long as he continues to promise and maintain that he will appoint judges like Alito/Scalia/Roberts (and as long as the base understands that and believes it).
posted by Sloanasaurus | 2/14/2007 08:37:00 AM
I tend to agree with Saurus' view on this. Roe IS bad law, and it ought to be a goal of every good federalist to get this overturned. My opposition to abortion notwithstanding, I'd much prefer that the states decide this matter.
Guiliani has the Roe part right, and I suspect that if he were President, he wouldn't sign on to any law mandating a federal policy on abortion - pro or con, and that's the right constitutional decision. At this point, he doesn't scare me as much as perhaps he should.
Guiliani promised the City of New York, when running for mayor, that he would continue to fund abortions in the city's hospitals. That's FUND, not merely permit.
Do a search on The Smoking Gun for his mayoral campaign internal research paper. There are some very interesting facts there. Heck, I'll find it and link to it momentarily.
Rudolph W Giuliani Vulnerability Study circa 1993. "He will continue city funding for abortions at city hospitals. Nothing more, nothing less."
Last time I checked, Rudy wasn't running for mayor of NYC.
So he can entirely change who he is, his positions, just because he's running for a different office and maintain any remote shadow of credibility? Never known it to happen in politics.
Good Point Scribbler. However, I don't think he would be changing positions to say he opposes federal funding of abortion (unless he stated he supported it before). Again it would fit in with his current position which is to keep the federal gov out of the abortion issue all together... which is what conservatives have wanted from the very beginning.
According to the Reason article cited, "He says he still supports abortion rights, although he now favors parental notification laws and the federal ban on 'partial birth' abortion." That's not exactly staying out of abortion on a federal level. This guy doesn't know what he thinks. Anyone who believes him now is more gullible than those who believed in Compassionate Conservatism, or simply full of wishful thinking.
Alas, Scribbler, you have a point. I'm still not voting for Ron Paul.
Oh, go on, give it a test run for Ron Paul, S'aurus.
You do not like it, so you say
Try it, try it, and you may
Try it and you may I say
Post a Comment