There’s just one problem with the judges argument: Giuliani has already said publicly that upholding Roe can be consistent with his understanding of judicial conservatism. This is no small matter, given that Roe, Doe v. Bolton, Planned Parenthood v. Casey, and Stenberg v. Carhart — that is, all of the worst Supreme Court decisions from the pro-life point of view — were handed down by courts with Republican majorities. You don’t have to be Ruth Bader Ginsburg to decide stare decisis applies to post-Roe abortion jurisprudence.
Giuliani has said he won’t liberalize the rules governing taxpayer funding of abortion. But what if Congress acts first? A Democratic Congress is sure to try to weaken or abolish the Hyde Amendment. One house has already voted to weaken and the other has voted to abolish the Mexico City policy. And Congress passed taxpayer-funded embryonic stem-cell research even before the Democrats took control. Will Giuliani veto these bills? We don’t really know.
It may be the case that he would veto all or most of the bills described above. It is certainly the case that conservative legal networks are stronger than before, making it harder to accidentally nominate a David Souter or Harry Blackmun than in the past. Giuliani is personally close to many prominent legal conservatives. But shouldn’t pro-lifers want to find out the answers to these questions rather than make hopeful guesses, especially given his actual record on abortion?
If pro-lifers are willing to accept things from Giuliani that they’d never accept from a Democrat, even before the general election when they still have other options, they may well set their cause back. A possible result is a Democratic Party that is opposed to pro-lifers and a Republican Party that is indifferent to them.
Giuliani’s undeniable political talent — and equally undeniable conservatism on other issues — doesn’t guarantee that all portions of the GOP coalition will benefit equally, if at all.