John Guardiano writes
of Rudy Giuliani: “Practically and operationally
speaking, Rudy is pro-life.”
This is simply an exercise in self-projection. Giuliani’s
description of
his views on abortion is that he is “pro-choice,” with the added
comment that he doesn’t actually favor abortions over births. There
is abundant
evidence that Giuliani is practically and operationally
pro-choice — i.e., his past endorsement of partial-birth abortion,
his own donations to Planned Parenthood, and his support for public
funding for abortions, including in New York City:
There is no evidence that Giuliani is pro-life in practical
terms. The only fact that Guardiano points to is some
evidence that abortions went down during Giuliani’s tenure as mayor
of NYC. Two points come to mind: first, that’s pretty thin gruel
when one considers that
41 percent of New York City pregnancies end in abortion.
Second, which Giuliani policy led to the decrease in abortions?
Guardiano doesn’t suggest a possibility. If Giuliani did implement
any policy designed to reduce abortions in the city, it wasn’t
particularly successful, because,
according to Ramesh Ponnuru, the rate of abortions in the city
fell more slowly than the state average.
Lastly, Guardiano claims that Giuliani’s pledge to nominate
pro-life judges makes him effectively pro-life. Granted, appointing
judges is the most important aspect of the presidency relative to
pro-life politics. Yet is worth considering how trustworthy that
pledge in light of Giuliani’s apparent misunderstanding of the
importance of the pro-life cause to many conservatives.
This and Guardiano’s other pro-Giuliani arguments are exactly in
line with the kinds of justifications of Giuliani’s stance on
abortion that some Republicans advanced in 2007 and 2008. Ramesh
Ponnuru
effectively countered all of them in 2008, and there’s nothing
new since then to undermine Ponnuru’s analysis. I would strongly
recommend
his piece to anyone confused about Giuliani’s record or
platform.
There are many reasons to think that Giuliani would make an
effective president and that he has a basically right-wing outlook.
That doesn’t mean, though, that he is in any meaningful sense
pro-life or that he would advance the pro-life political cause —
he’s not and he wouldn’t.
But, lets be fair. Many Republicans are "Pro-Life" in name only.
But, when crunch time comes, the Pro-Choice agenda always seems to
survive. Here are a list of SOCTUS jurists appointed by Republicans
who either upheld Roe or attempted to expand it:
Harry Blackmun (Nixon)
Lewis Powell (Nixon)
Warren Burger (Nixon)
John Paul Stevens (Ford)
Sandra Day O'Conner (Reagan)
Anthony Kennedy (Reagan)
David Souter (
G
Robert Bork's nomination failed in large part due to the
machinations of Snarlin' Alren Specter and Bob Packwood. IF Bork
was sitting on the high court, Casey would have ended differently
(ie it would have over-turned Roe).
If for some reason the next President is Republican, the Senate
goes to the GOP 60-40, and the next President could nominate 3
justices that would result in a 6-3 GOP majority, Roe would still
survive. The GOP will never allow Roe to be over-turned. Ruddy is
just one of many Pro Choice Republicans. The Senate is filled with
them.
A candidate with no respect for the sanctity of God's gift of
life will govern with no respect for anything else that requires a
sense of right & wrong. Anyone who believes a pro-abortion RINO
with no respect for life (the "pro-choice" label is a lie &
simple sugar coating of the truth) will stop out of control
spending or anything else that requires restraint, responsibility,
honesty, & a strong moral compass is fooling themself. Fiscal
issues are moral issues as well.
The debacle of this president’s administration is both a cause
and a symptom of the decline of American values. Unless Congress
impeaches him, that decline will go on unchecked. An eminent jurist
surveys the damage and assesses the chances for the recovery of our
culture.
The American Christmas, like the songs that celebrate it,
makes room for everybody under the rainbow. Is that why so
many people seem to be hostile to it?
JP| 6.13.11 @ 12:16PM
But, lets be fair. Many Republicans are "Pro-Life" in name only. But, when crunch time comes, the Pro-Choice agenda always seems to survive. Here are a list of SOCTUS jurists appointed by Republicans who either upheld Roe or attempted to expand it:
Harry Blackmun (Nixon)
Lewis Powell (Nixon)
Warren Burger (Nixon)
John Paul Stevens (Ford)
Sandra Day O'Conner (Reagan)
Anthony Kennedy (Reagan)
David Souter (
G
JP| 6.13.11 @ 12:18PM
Souter was appointed By Bush41
Robert Bork's nomination failed in large part due to the machinations of Snarlin' Alren Specter and Bob Packwood. IF Bork was sitting on the high court, Casey would have ended differently (ie it would have over-turned Roe).
JP| 6.13.11 @ 12:23PM
If for some reason the next President is Republican, the Senate goes to the GOP 60-40, and the next President could nominate 3 justices that would result in a 6-3 GOP majority, Roe would still survive. The GOP will never allow Roe to be over-turned. Ruddy is just one of many Pro Choice Republicans. The Senate is filled with them.
I Survived Arlen Specter| 6.13.11 @ 7:05PM
A candidate with no respect for the sanctity of God's gift of life will govern with no respect for anything else that requires a sense of right & wrong. Anyone who believes a pro-abortion RINO with no respect for life (the "pro-choice" label is a lie & simple sugar coating of the truth) will stop out of control spending or anything else that requires restraint, responsibility, honesty, & a strong moral compass is fooling themself. Fiscal issues are moral issues as well.