Thursday, April 05, 2007
As A Lawyer, You Would Think He Would Know Better
"Ultimately, it's a constitutional right, and therefore if it's a constitutional right, ultimately, even if you do it on a state by state basis, you have to make sure people are protected."
While I salute him for not flip-flopping on the issue, what he says makes no sense. Just because something is a Constitutional right, does not necessarily mean the government has to support it financially. My 1st Amendment rights are not violated if the government doesn't buy me a radio station to air my political views, nor are my 2nd Amendment rights violated if the government doesn't provide me with rifles and ammunition.
Taxpayer-financed abortions may be correct from a policy perspective, but they sure aren't constitutionally required.
I think where Guliani is getting himself in trouble is that he doesn't like abortion, but it doesn't think it's the same as the destruction of a fully formed life. Saying that will lose the fundamentalist evangelicals, but there's no way for him not to say it and still sound consistant. Then again all of the Republican candidates have been properly tarred as flip floppers this year so that alone won't lose the primary.
For Jews, abortion is bad, but a fetus is not a human life. A Christian who believes that a fetus at any stage is a life would not vote for someone who supports murder. The question is how many evangelicals fit in this category and can Gulianni win the primary without their votes. (The mass splitting of votes with more than 2 candidates might also give Gulianni a chance to win the primary with well under 50%)
Of course his chance of winning depends on convincing others that he has the skills to defend the US - something that is nowhere near proven yet.