Perhaps it is inevitable that a man who became a national icon
also ended up politically tone deaf. He began to believe his press
clipplings, sycophants surrounded him, drowning out any criticism,
and the rush of White House staff wannabees left him convinced that
the bandwagon could not run off-course. Rudy Giuliani obviously
doesn’t get it, but his support for taxpayer-paid abortions could
—and certainly should—prove to be the deal- breaker for pro-life
conservatives.
Until now, at least, Giuliani had posed the most serious
political challenge yet for social conservatives. He possessed the
aura of competence and seemed to say the “right” things when it
came to most economic, regulatory, and foreign policy issues. Which
meant that many on the right felt he could be trusted, at least as
far as any politician could be trusted, to deliver on the most
important issues. (I’m less sanguine, but that’s another
matter.)
Of course, the unsavory private life — the tacky public
announcement of his planned divorce, unseemly court fight over
bringing his mistress into the city-provided mayoral residence, and
estrangement from his kids — left a nasty taste. Good policy
should still be trump, but then there was Giuliani’s support for
abortion. It’s a difficult and complex issue, but supporting
abortion is different from, say, backing higher dairy
subsidies.
Giuliani attempted to deal with the issue by criticizing partial
birth abortion and promising to appoint “strict- constructionist”
judges, understood by conservatives as being likely to overturn
Roe v. Wade. Moreover, Giuliani adviser William E. Simon,
Jr. told National Review Online that “I have an assurance
that he is in favor of the Hyde Amendment,” which bans federal
funding of abortion, other than in cases of rape, incest, and life
threat to the mother.
The man-who-would-be-president couldn’t help wiggling a bit: He
said he had no “litmus test” for judicial appointees and that his
form of “strict-construction” would allow them to decide “to
respect the precedent,” which would mean upholding Roe.
Nevertheless, this package might have sufficed for most pro-lifers.
Frankly, no president is going to do a lot more. About all that
Presidents Ronald Reagan, George H.W. Bush, and George W. Bush did
was undermine the legal foundations of Roe and fight
public subsidies for abortion.
Then Giuliani told CNN: “Ultimately, it’s a constitutional
right, and therefore if it’s a constitutional right, ultimately,
even if you do it on a state by state basis, you have to make sure
people are protected.” Back in 1989 he was even more explicit:
“There must be public funding for abortions for poor women. We
cannot deny any woman the right to make her own decisions about
abortion.” To not do so “would deprive someone of a constitutional
right.”
First, former U.S. Attorney Giuliani has the law wrong. The
constitutionality of the Hyde Amendment was litigated up to the
Supreme Court. Government has no duty to provide people with the
means to exercise their constitutional rights. If it did, I would
own a multi-billion dollar media conglomerate ensuring my right to
free speech. Anyone of limited means would be eligible for a
government-provided firearm. Even purveyors of soft porn, protected
under the current interpretation of the First Amendment, could
expect a federal boost. And we all could start our own churches at
Uncle Sam’s expense. It’s a nutty, and thoroughly discredited,
argument. Giuliani should know better.
Second, forcing taxpayers to fund abortion makes them complicit
in what many citizens view as the equivalent of murder. Never mind
whether they are right or the majority of people agree with them.
Washington has created a massive system of coerced subsidies that
is expensive, stupid, and counterproductive. But most of the
transfers raise no particular moral issues — other than stealing
taxpayers’ money for the benefit of politically power fulinterest
groups.
Abortion is different. For that reason policymakers should
require a much higher standard before conscripting people’s money.
Even assuming Roe was correctly decided, and that it is
philosophically unfair for poor women to lack access to the
procedure, abortion advocates can raise money privately. There is
no good public argument, no serious national need, to justify
taxpayer subsidies.
Thus, to back public funding is to do far more than waste public
monies. It is to override people’s most deeply held philosophical
and theological beliefs for cheap political advantage. Complained
Lou Sheldon of the Traditional Values Coalition: “Supporting
federally funded abortions is an anathema to all of us who believe
abortion is murder.” Even many who wouldn’t put the case quite so
starkly would be deeply offended at having their pockets picked to
finance people’s abortions.
Giuliani attempted to sidestep the implications of his position
by promising not to change existing law. Fine, but would he stop
Congress from changing existing law? The Senate in 2009 almost
certainly will be Democratic; at present, at least, the House could
easily remain in Democratic hands. In that case only a presidential
veto is likely to preserve the law unchanged. Will Giuliani block a
measure lifting the Hyde Amendment?
Should social conservatives be single issue voters? There’s no
easy answer, since even many people on the same side are more or
less passionate and often feel more certain of their positions than
do others.
Moreover, one can never compare political candidates thinking
“all other things being equal.” All other things never are equal,
so one has to weigh widely varying packages of personal and policy
factors against one another.
Thus, it’s fair for social conservatives to consider voting for
a pro-abortion candidate like Giuliani. But the leap is further,
much further, when the pro-abortion candidate believes in forcing
all taxpayers to underwrite the process.
Public funding for abortion creates an official imprimatur of
respectability and makes us all complicit in a great moral wrong.
If Mayor Giuliani can’t understand such a fundamental issue, or
worse, understands it but doesn’t care, he’s likely to disappoint
conservative voters in other important areas as well.
There are some deal-breakers in politics. Public financing of
abortion should be one for social conservatives.
