Another interesting item in the NYT highlights the difficulty the pro-lifers have this cycle. They can't afford to lose this election, but the leading GOP candidate is not their friend:
The stakes are historically high, which explains why Republican candidates including Mr. Giuliani have been promising to appoint to the court "strict constructionists," widely considered political code for judges with a conservative agenda.
Mr. Giuliani's allies argue that their candidate is sensitive to the need to reduce abortions, increase adoptions and empower the states to regulate abortion. And the Democrats will inevitably nominate a candidate "who will not be a moderate on those issues, but intensely hostile," said Representative Pete Sessions, Republican of Texas, who describes himself as both "pro-life" and a Giuliani supporter. Moreover, Mr. Sessions and others argued, Mr. Giuliani can beat the Democrats.
It all comes down to whether they can trust Rudy Giuliani to nominate pro-life, er, "strict constructionist" judges. That strategy was all going fine until sometime in a debate last spring, Rudy admitted that the judges he appoints could go "either way" on Roe. And it all fell apart from there.
Now Rudy has to repair the damage. The best way to do this would be to state that Roe vs. Wade was a terrible decision (which it was) and that his judges would not respect it (which they shouldn't) but after his gaffe I'm not sure that's going to be believable.
Rudy's other problem is Fred Thompson. The pro-lifers will more easily trust Fred on abortion, and all he needs is electability to win the rest of the base is over. Fred's almost there, and leaves Rudy with only one card: Electability. That's a lot, but it won't be enough if there's another candidate who has that card too.
Reader Comments ( Page 1 of 2)
1. >
Rudy is right, look at the current court.
Stevens was nominated by Ford.
Kennedy was nominated by Reagan.
Souter was nominated by Bush 41.
and O'Connor was nominated by Reagan.
All went the other way from what the appointing President would have prefered.
Joe at 1:53PM on Jul 30th 2007
2. Pro-lifers need only answer one question -
If abortion is criminalized, then how much time in jail shall a woman have to spend for having an abortion nonetheless?
vegastracon at 6:14PM on Jul 30th 2007
3. The republicans may find that they can't get all of everything everybody wants in a president.
Steve Bonomo at 9:15PM on Jul 30th 2007
4. The Republicans should be able to find at least one candidate for the Presidency that would be willing to specify the amount of time that a woman should spend in jail for having an abortion.
vegastracon at 10:09PM on Jul 30th 2007
5. Rudy is NOT pro abortion. He is for applying the laws we have. If we don't like them, we need to change them. I am a pro-life advocacte. As long as the Mayor appoints conservative judges, there is nothing more to talk about. I know what Hillary will appoint, and we won't like it 100% at all.
It's GOP Me! at 8:59AM on Jul 31st 2007
6. If the Republicans nominate a person who is proved to be unfaithful to his wife, then talking about family values have no more teeth. Good luck Republicans, may be they need power at all cost, even if it means supporting a nominee whose records about family is at best ridiculous.
Kennedy Mokwunye at 9:37AM on Jul 31st 2007
7. So let me get this straight - Rudy would support a woman being sent to prison for twenty five years for having an abortion, yes?
Rudy will make a fine representative of the GOP.
vegastracon at 12:38PM on Jul 31st 2007
8. #2 Vegastacon - Fear not, Republicans no more want abortion criminalized than Democrats. I am speaking of elected Republicans, of course.
If abortion were to be criminalized, Republicans know they would be finished as a party for some time to come. Most Americans would not tolerate a complete abortion ban.
How come not one elected Republican is calling for criminalization of abortion? Not one..they much prefer staying in office than catering to a minority of voters.
David S. at 5:11PM on Jul 31st 2007
9. How much time? The question's phrasing betrays the asker's own view.
Let's get one thing clear. That will depend on the individual states. If Roe v. Wade and Doe v. Bolton are overruled--or if Roe is upheld on limited grounds and only Doe is overruled, another possible scenario, because the Texas law in Roe was very draconian--that will not make abortion illegal nationwide. There has been no serious proposal for a nationwide ban on abortion--only for returning the power to regulate and prohibit abortion to the states, which is to say, a return to the state of the law before Roe and Doe (the plaintiffs of both cases having, since that time, changed their view and become pro-life).
Presumably in such a situation, states like Massachusetts, New York and California will leave abortion legal; states like the Dakotas, Indiana or South Carolina will probably ban it again. Overall, I would guess that the states would pretty much track public opinion, meaning that it would probably remain legal and unrestricted in about half the states, but would be banned or restricted in about half. In other words, the situation will be different from before Roe, because there are states that banned abortion then that would probably keep it legal now.
Some examples of restrictions that might pass in some states--no abortion after the third month except to save the life of the mother; permission from a minor's parents for an abortion; no transporting a minor out of the state to procure an abortion except by the parents; in the case of a married couple, no abortion without the father's consent except to save the life of the mother.
In those states that ban it, the chances are pretty good that they would provide that there would be no jail time on a first offense, but some time on a second offense. Even most pro-choicers agree that abortion should not be used as a contraceptive. There's no excuse for a second abortion except to save the mother's life.
How much time? There's no way to speculate on how much a state would impose. If you ask me, it would be no jail time on a first abortion, two to five years on a second, five to ten on a third; suspension of the sentence would be possible on the second, but not on the third. Can all agree that by the third time there's something really, really wrong with the picture?
These penalties would in any event wind up being essentially fiction, symbolic acts of states that will never be enforced because they are so readily evaded. A woman in Indiana who wants an abortion and can't get one legally in her state will drive five miles over the state line and get one in Illinois. In that scenario, the only ones affected by Indiana's prohibition of abortion would be Indiana abortionists, who would surely have to close their doors and go to work for Illinois clinics. Abortion clinics would no doubt pop up on the Illinois side of the border with the frequency of fireworks stands on the Indiana side of that same border.
Ken Howes at 1:49PM on Aug 1st 2007
10. [[If abortion is criminalized, then how much time in jail shall a woman have to spend for having an abortion nonetheless?]]
Hello, abortion WAS illegal in many states prior to 1973. The woman was almost never imprisoned. The policy was to go after the people who provided abortions. The woman's testimony was needed in order to get convictions.
OomYaaqub at 3:29PM on Aug 1st 2007
11. [[A woman in Indiana who wants an abortion and can't get one legally in her state will drive five miles over the state line and get one in Illinois]]
So what? That's called federalism--each state is allowed to make its own laws. Yes, you can "evade" a law by simply going to another state, but that's true of ALL state laws. There is no good reason I can think of why the law should be the same in Utah as in New York or Virginia. The people of Virginia legalized abortion years before Roe. The people of Utah might have other ideas. All Roe accomplished is to make about 47 state laws invalid in an instant by sheer judicial bullying. And do I really have to remind people that the Court was all male at the time. The main beneficiaries of abortion are MEN, who get out of paying child support.
OomYaaqub at 3:34PM on Aug 1st 2007
12. [[Most Americans would not tolerate a complete abortion ban.]]
Since practically nobody wants a "complete abortion ban" (not even to save the life of the mother?) you are setting up a straw man here. Several polls show that MOST Americans do support tighter restrictions, especially on second trimester abortions which are currently legal on demand in every state, for any reason or no reason.
OomYaaqub at 3:37PM on Aug 1st 2007
13. Fine, OOm, but my issue is with Republicans who use the abortion issue as a political football. If some GOP really think abortion is murder, say so. All they have to do is say "pro life" and do not have to define it. But when asked if abortion should be criminalized, all they do is say they do not have a "litmus test." Hypocrites!
Second trimester abortions are NOT legal in every state. All Roe states is legal abortion in the first trimester and then STATES can set their own rules after that. I would say you would be hard pressed to find a provider who performs abortion after the frsit trimester in most states.
David S. at 12:24PM on Aug 4th 2007
14. Untill MEN GET PREGNANT - men have no right to tell
women what they can and can not do with their bodies.
Forget about making LAWS to control them.
Lc at 1:52PM on Aug 7th 2007
15. Until a man is faced with the possibility of an unwanted pregnancy, with the effects that are both emotional and physical - they should never decide for a woman. NEVER! Back in the 70s, I had a discussion with my Dad, who was a prolife speaker. My mother, who was listening to our discussion, finally said "Bill, you're not a woman." He immediately changed his view. My dad became prochoice. He totally respected my mother, as he did his daughters. My Dad loved the women in his life. He understood that this is a womans choice, a choice of his daughters, yet one that his beautiful wife would never have to experience - yet his beautiful wife understood the choices of women. Again, until a man can become pregnant, HE cannot involve himself into the procreation rights of woman.
Carol at 12:52AM on Aug 8th 2007