"There is always a philosophy for lack of courage."—Albert Camus

Wednesday, October 24, 2007

Pro Life, Pro Choice?

According to Michael Medved, the majority of Americans are just this, as is a certain candidate running for the Republican nomination for president. In a USA Today Op-ed, Medved is seeking to highlight a distinction between Rudy and all the Democrats, who are not only pro-choice but pro-abortion as well. I think he makes an important distinction. Giuliani is pro-choice, but anti-abortion, but there are conservatives who claim he is pro-abortion. As Medved rightly states, that distorts his record. Look at the differences between Giuliani’s positions and any of the Democrats:
Consider, for instance, the key differences between Giuliani's platform and those of the leading Democratic candidates. Giuliani has committed to preserve the Hyde Amendment, banning taxpayer money for abortions; the top Democrats urge repeal and favor federal funding. Giuliani applauded the recent Supreme Court decision upholding a ban on partial-birth abortion; all leading Democrats condemned it in harsh terms. The former mayor supports tougher rules requiring parental notification (with a judicial bypass) for underage girls who seek abortions; Clinton and Barack Obama oppose such legislation. Most significant of all, Giuliani has specifically cited strict-constructionists Antonin Scalia, Samuel Alito and John Roberts as his models for future justices of the Supreme Court — and all three of those jurists have signaled their support for allowing states more leeway in limiting abortions. The top Democrats regularly express contempt for the conservative jurists whom Giuliani admires, and worked against the Alito and Roberts nominations.
If he does happen to get the nomination, social conservatives need to understand this and not get suckered into sitting on the sidelines or throwing away their vote on some minor party candidate. And if we think about this clearly, what more could a pro-life/anti-abortion president do? What more did Reagan, Bush the elder and Bush the younger do?

The depressing truth is that Medved is right; a majority of Americans are distinctly squeamish about abortion and know it is more than discarding worthless tissue, but would not vote to outlaw it. Americans have come a long way toward the anti-abortion position since 1972, because the truth is just too obvious. I trust in time they will come all the way. So social conservatives could do a lot worse then Rudy as president. The name Clinton should scare them all enough to do the right thing if it comes down to that choice.

Update: Interesting that I should find an article in the LA Times that I think proves my point. A new poll that distorts Giuliani's position is the mainstream media template that many social conservatives are buying into:
But danger looms for Republicans should they nominate the politically moderate Giuliani: About one-third of GOP voters said they would consider supporting a third-party candidate in the general election if the party nominee supported abortion and gay rights.
If a candidate or politician "supports" abortion then it is assumed they are "pro-abortion," and as I stated above, that simply is not the case with Giuliani. Too many social conservatives have fallen for the MSM line, because guess who they would prefer were president. And notice how they brand the Mayor as "politically moderate." I bet that's news to the ACLU and other New York City liberals who fought him every step of the way when he was mayor.

3 comments:

John H. Watson said...

What more could he do? He has made strides lately but he could say that Roe v. Wade was wrongly decided.

And while there is a distinction perhaps between being pro-choice and being pro-abortion, pro-choice means that one thinks abortion should be legal, i.e. that the choice should remain avaiable.

I grant that someone who is pro-choice but doesn't care for abortion is better than someone who cheers them on at the local clinic, but to say that Rudy is not pro-choice is rewriting the political dictionary.

And the polling data on Americans and abortion isn't quite what Medved claims. Most Americans favor increased restrictions on abortions and do not favor an unrestricted license for any and all reasons and up until the day before birth (the result of Doe v. Bolton).

Mike D'Virgilio said...

John, he could say that, but he may not believe it, so he wouldn't say it. If you read the post and Medved again, you will see that pro-choice doesn't mean pro-abortion. I happen to believe that there is some merit in this contention.

And the simple point I was making is that Rudy is better than any Democrat. To distort that fact, to not admit to the distinctions between the "pro-choice" Hillary Clinton and the "pro-choice" Rudy Giuliani is to obfuscate the truth.

Social conservatives who choose to ignore this and not support Rudy should he be nominated are simply being stupid. The time to make their case and make their vote count is in the primary. After that, there is no debate.

Tom Van Dyke said...

I loved that poll in the LA Times In it, Obama gets over 20% of the GOP vote vs. Giuliani.

The mind, she reeleth.