|
NRL News
Bizarre
and Unpersuasive Over the last six to eight months, we’ve heard a ton of arguments why pro-lifers should make their peace with pro-abortion Rudy Giuliani. Most of them start with the supposed virtual certainty that the former New York City mayor will win the GOP nomination for President. As we shall see that rationalization is running out of steam. But as we shall also discuss momentarily, there are a number of variations on another theme/rationalization that continue to pop up. A recent illustration is an op-ed written by Eric Johnston, a self-described “fervent pro-lifer,” in the New York Times. “I think Mr. Giuliani will be the most effective advocate for the pro-life cause precisely because he is unreligious and a supporter of abortion rights,” Johnston writes. Well, that’s the kind of statement that’ll get your attention. We’ll evaluate Johnston’s attempts to square the circle, after a brief look at how and why the inevitability-of-Giuliani argument is beginning to fade like a mirage in a desert. It’s often said that polls are like snapshots. The 2007 opinion polls that showed Giuliani apparently steamrolling his pro-life GOP competitors were like an old Polaroid. As the race comes into focus, so, too, does the true picture of how pro-lifers and/or Republicans feel about the prospect of an enthusiastic pro-abortionist at the top of the 2008 ticket. Let me cite just a couple of polls. According to a very important and under-appreciated Gallup poll, among those Republican voters who are aware of the broader field of GOP presidential candidates, pro-life former Senator Fred Thompson leads Giuliani, 33% to 25%. And as I compose this editorial, the Rasmussen Report concludes that among the pool of people who will choose the GOP presidential nominee—likely Republican primary voters—Thompson garners 28%, Giuliani 19%, Senator John McCain 14%, and former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney 12%. All but Giuliani have taken positions against abortion in the campaign. To be sure, all this can and will change again and again. But a Giuliani win is no fait accompli. His numbers have been dropping and may be lower by the time you read this. Enter Johnston’s “Anti-Roe and Pro-Rudy,” a mind-bender of an op-ed. The now familiar “Nixon goes to China’” historical reference, I believe, helps us make sense of Johnston’s approach. Johnston doesn’t use the parallel and no doubt would reject it. But, as you remember, the idea was that only Nixon, a fervent anti-communist, could have gone to Communist China to begin the normalization of Sino-American relations. Likewise, only Giuliani, who has a long track record of support for abortion, can “shake up the nearly 35-year-old debate over Roe v. Wade,” according to Johnston. Johnston begins with an argument Giuliani supporters often make to soften the resistance of people who would otherwise not take Giuliani seriously. And that is that even though the Republican Party is against abortion, Giuliani has been ahead in the GOP presidential polls for months. Understand what Johnston is doing: combining an “is”—Giuliani is/was leading in the polls—with an “ought”—pro-lifers should get behind him because Giuliani can best shake up the “status quo” on the abortion debate. Johnston leavens this with what might be called the bogeyman argument. Any candidate who sounds too serious about reversing Roe will spook the voters, especially if he is “deeply religious.” Giuliani is just the man, according to Johnston, for this assignment. Giuliani is (in Johnston’s overly generous assessment) personally “ambivalent” about abortion but says he will appoint “strict constructionist judges” (judges who will not use the courts “to achieve political ends”)—and “ducks questions about his personal faith.” And because he is a “constitutionalist who supports abortion rights,” Johnston writes, Giuliani “can create an anti-Roe majority by explaining that the end of Roe means letting the people decide, state by state, about abortion.” But precisely why is Giuliani “more persuasive” about this federalism argument than the other GOP presidential candidates? “[B]ecause he will not be perceived as trying to advance his own religious preferences,” Johnston argues. “By taking the side of pro-lifers for democratic, but not devout, motives, a President Giuliani could shake up the nearly 35-year-old debate over Roe v. Wade.” It is insulting and flat-out wrong to suggest that the candidates running for the GOP presidential nomination who oppose abortion are raising (or will eventually raise) the hackles of mainstream America. Whatever their personal faith, they convey their opposition to abortion in language accessible to people of all faiths or no faith. They have made it clear in a variety of forums that the reversal of Roe is their ultimate objective; that this much-to-be-desired turn of events is not around the corner; that in the interim they are working to hedge in the “right” to abortion; and that when Roe is in ruins, the debate over abortion will return primarily to the legislative bodies. The “strict constructionist” label is intended by his defenders to convince skeptics that all the expressly and exuberantly pro-abortion statements Giuliani has made in the past are to count for nothing. That list goes on and on. To cite just two examples, speaking at the NARAL’s “Champions of Choice” luncheon in Manhattan in 2001, Giuliani said, “As a Republican who supports a woman’s right to choose, it is particularly an honor to be here.” He added, “The government shouldn’t dictate that choice by making it a crime or making it illegal.” Going back further, there are his answers to the 1997 NARAL/NY PAC Candidate Questionnaire: •Support for Medicaid funding of abortions without any restrictions? “Yes.” •Oppose legislation requiring parental notification or consent for minors to obtain an abortion? “Yes.” •Support OB/Gyn graduate training hospitals to require abortion training? “Yes.” But, equally important, every time Giuliani talks about appointing “strict constructionists,” inquiring minds think back to his judicial appointments while mayor. A few months ago, the newspaper, Politico, for example, did a review of “the 75 judges Giuliani appointed to three of New York state’s lower courts.” The newspaper first quoted what Giuliani told South Carolina Republicans in February: “I would want judges who are strict constructionists because I am,” adding, “Those are the kinds of justices I would appoint—Scalia, Alito and Roberts.” But Politico’s analysis found that “[M]ost of Giuliani’s judicial appointments during his eight years as mayor of New York were hardly in the model of Chief Justice John Roberts or Samuel Alito—much less aggressive conservatives in the mold of Antonin Scalia.” For our purposes, no less a source than Kelli Conlin, the head of NARAL Pro-Choice New York, said of Giuliani’s appointments, “They were decent, moderate people.” Johnston also argues that “Mr. Giuliani pledges his support for the Hyde Amendment,” which may be true this minute, but hasn’t been the case in the past, as we just saw, and may well not be in the future. The bandwagon argument—the picture of an unstoppable Giuliani coronation—is wearing thin. Eric Johnston’s complementary argument—that Giuliani would actually advance the cause quicker and more effectively—is both bizarre and unpersuasive. I’m sure you won’t be fooled, even for a second. |