Redstate

By bluegrassredstate Posted in 2008 | Abortion | Barack Obama | Hillary Clinton | Rudy Giuliani — Comments (7) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »

Rudy Giuliani is not pro-choice, not as traditional Republican voters think of "pro-choice" anyway. You can call him pro-choice if you want, but at your own peril.

The problem with calling him pro-choice in the traditional sense is that he is not pro-abortion like most "pro-choice" abortion supporters. The vast majority of the "pro-choice" crowd is actually just pro-abortion, because they reflexively oppose any and every attempt to make the various abortion laws more just and conform more to common sense.

I say this not because I am determined that Rudy is the best choice Republicans can make for a Presidential nominee. I tell you this because if Rudy does end up being the nominee, all Republicans need to understand the vast differences between Rudy Giuliani and actual pro-choice people such as Hillary Clinton and most of the other Democrats.

A while back, Fairness & Accuracy In Reporting released a media advisory on this topic. FAIR describes itself as a "progressive group," while most agree that it is a liberal media watchdog. Nevertheless, their opinion on this topic is accurate. Believe me, liberals know who is for abortion and who is against it. They know that Rudy Giuliani is not pro-abortion from his rhetoric, his stances on specific abortion issues, and his record as Mayor of New York. The pro-abortion crowd has absolutely no desire to see Rudy Giuliani elected President. That is undoubtedly why they are trying to prepare the liberal media with information to use against Rudy should he be nominated by Republicans.

• Giuliani supports the partial-birth abortion ban. Pro-abortion candidates do not.
• Giuliani supports parental notification laws. Pro-abortion candidates do not. This is one of the most common sense abortion reforms out there. Teenagers can't get tattoos before they're 18 without parental notification, but they can have an abortion. That is insane and it is wrong.
• Giuliani has made it abundantly clear that he would appoint strict-constructionist judges to the Supreme Court. Those are the good judges like Antonin Scalia, John Roberts, Samuel Alito, and Clarence Thomas.
• Giuliani opposes taxpayer financing of abortions. Pro-abortion candidates support taxpayer financing of abortions. Now, if there are already programs in place that force the government to pay for abortions, I think Giuliani would continue to fund those programs until he had them legally shut down, but that does not mean he supports taxpayer financed abortions.

Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, and the other Democrats are the exact opposite of Rudy Giuliani on these specific abortion issues. I think Pat Robertson understands that, which would explain his endorsement of Giuliani.

There is something else to this. I believe that Rudy's approach to abortion, if he were elected President, would create an environment in which Roe v. Wade could be more easily overturned and other abortion reforms could be more easily passed than if other approaches favored by other Presidential candidates were to be used. He is a little bit more hands off, although he is right on every single specific issue related to abortion. Loud rhetoric from a vocal leader the scope of the President creates vehement opposition from pro-abortion people. The lack of that loud rhetoric leaves many of them in bed at home watching television, while Giuliani would appoint the right judges to the Supreme Court and wait for the right cases to get there.

The abortion battle was won by the liberals in the court room more than thirty years ago. If we are going to win it now, it will have to be in the court room. There will be little or no action taken by Congress on the issue until another Supreme Court decision. The partial-birth ban was passed, but that is where positive action from Congress will stop. The Democrat-led Congress currently lacks the votes to pass serious pro-choice measures.

After a Court decision, jurisdiction over abortion laws will be wholly returned to the states, where it was before Roe v. Wade. Then, we will have fertile ground to grow the common sense reforms such as parental notification at the state level.

All of this begins with getting a President who is pro-life. You can call Giuliani pro-choice if you want, but I think that is wrong. If he turns out to be the Republican nominee, the pro-life crowd needs to understand that Giuliani may be not only their only hope, but possibly their best hope.