Are pro-lifers ready to bargain with pro-choice Republican
frontrunner Rudolph Giuliani? Noemie Emery recently made the case that they are, but last week the
editors of the National Catholic Register said no
deal.
The editorial expressed concern that “a pro-abortion Republican
president would no longer preside over a pro-life party,” leaving
millions of abortion opponents without a major party home. Whether
this and other careful
criticisms of the popular politician signal the beginning of a
pro-life backlash against Giuliani may help decide the 2008 GOP
presidential race.
So far there is little concrete evidence that Giuliani’s
pro-choice position is hurting him either among Republican primary
voters or the kind of conservative activists who attend events like
CPAC. But a Wall Street Journal poll found something that
should give America’s Mayor pause: “Fully three of four Republicans
— including a majority of those backing the former New York City
mayor — say they would have reservations if they learned Mr.
Giuliani supports abortion rights and supports civil unions for gay
and lesbian couples.” If those numbers are accurate, a deal might
be farther away than it seems.
Giuliani began his public life as an opponent of abortion. As
late as when he was competing for the Liberal Party’s ballot line
in his unsuccessful first mayoral race, press accounts described
him as pro-life and against Roe v. Wade. In August 1989,
the New York Times reported that Giuliani was now
unequivocally pro-choice, a shift that “represented the culmination
of a struggle between the candidate who has consistently said he
personally opposes abortions and his advisers who said he could not
appeal to the general electorate with anything short of the
‘choice’ stand adopted by many other Roman Catholic politicians,
like Gov. Mario M. Cuomo.”
Once Giuliani made this calculation, he never looked back. That
November, he advocated taxpayer-subsidized abortion. A YouTube
video shows Giuliani saying, “There must be
public funding for abortion for poor women.” He also criticized
then President George H.W. Bush for vetoing publicly funded
abortions for the District of Columbia.
In his 1993 rematch with David Dinkins, Giuliani again
campaigned as a pro-choice candidate. He opposed the Hyde
Amendment, which forbids Medicaid financing of abortions except in
cases of rape, incest, or when the mother’s life is in danger.
According to excerpts of an internal campaign document posted on SmokingGun.com, his advisers believed
his position on abortion was a major asset. “Simplicity is the best
response to questions about abortion,” they wrote. “Giuliani is
pro-choice. He supports public funding for abortion. He will
continue city funding of abortions at city hospitals. Nothing more,
nothing less.”
After he was elected mayor, Giuliani delivered on these campaign
promises — and more. His 1994 and 1998 tax returns show $500 in
donations to Planned Parenthood, the country’s largest abortion
provider. In 1996, the mayor issued a proclamation declaring it
“Planned Parenthood Day” in New York City and praising the group’s
eugenicist founder, Margaret Sanger.
It wasn’t the last time Giuliani had kind words for Sanger. In
April 2001, he gave a speech to the National Abortion and Reproductive
Rights Action League “Champions of Choice” luncheon, in which he
extolled the “distinguished tradition” begun by the Planned
Parenthood leader (no mention of human
weeds). He thanked NARAL “for taking the lead in establishing
freedom of choice for all of us.”
Giuliani even argued that a majority of Republicans are
pro-choice and implied that the party platform should be changed.
Being pro-choice while favoring lower taxes, he claimed, is
“actually the more consistent position.” This undermines the
argument that Giuliani is different from other pro-choice
Republicans because he respects the basic pro-life character of the
GOP.
Like Colin Powell thirteen years ago, Giuliani is a popular
figure and compelling prospective nominee. But pro-lifers should
think long and hard before they work to nominate and elect a
Republican with an abortion record virtually indistinguishable from
Hillary Clinton’s. There are many establishment Republicans — and
even some conservatives — who would like nothing better than to
ignore abortion and social issues. President Giuliani would
strengthen their hand considerably.
How could pro-lifers ever object to any pro-choice candidate
again — Republican or Democrat — if they overlook Giuliani’s
current positions and past pronouncements?
There are counterarguments, of course. If Giuliani is the
strongest GOP presidential candidate, he would help elect
Republicans — many of them pro-life — in down-ballot races.
Pro-lifers would get jobs in his administration; the fact that
Giuliani has reversed himself on partial-birth abortion and
promised to appoint originalist judges (which is necessary for any
pro-life progress) shows he respects their influence. And all the
viable alternatives to Giuliani come with their own
problems.
Yet it is hard to see how that influence can be maintained if
pro-life support can be bought with such minor concessions. There
are many otherwise conservative judges who would nevertheless
uphold Roe on stare decisis grounds; Giuliani has
given no indication that he will go out of his way to find judges
who favor its reversal. Republicans who want to end the pro-life
litmus test generally favor making abortion a lower-priority issue.
Why should pro-lifers help them?
Long before the first ballots have been cast, Giuliani is
already developing an aura of inevitability. But that could change
if more pro-lifers conclude that his candidacy is a raw deal. Make
no mistake: There are many arguments that can be made for Rudy
Giuliani. The contention that he has earned pro-life support just
isn’t one of them.
