Lawyer-Wearing-Yarmulka
Thursday, April 05, 2007
As A Lawyer, You Would Think He Would Know Better
Giuliani on publicly-funded abortions:
"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.
"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.
posted by LWY, 8:45 PM
4 Comments:
I agree from the strict legal standpoint. The only way this makes sense is, if someone is going to have an abortion, and it is legal to get an abortion, from the public health standpoint, it's important to make sure the person has access to a safe place to get an abortion. Of course, I can probably think of multiple cases where all of the above is true except no one is talking about public funding.
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.
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.
I used to think there was no way Rudy could win a Republican primary because of the abortion issue. But I think that many evangelicals and other social conservatives (like myself) see the war (on terror, in Iraq, in Iran?) as a priority overriding pretty much all others, and I don't think any other candidate can match Rudy's appeal on that front. Its not just that he says the right things about fighting the war, its that given his track record in taking unpopular steps to deal with tough thorny problems, and his antipathy towards the Islamists generally (NYC crime cleanup, throwing out Arafat, returning that Saudi prince's gift) I believe that he would act aggressively where the current administration has faltered somewhat(Iran, playing footsie with Abbas to some extent, etc.). As long as he makes the right noises about appointing Scalia-like justices, his abortion stance doesn't really matter for me anymore.
sa, the trouble is that you're a Jewish and not an evangelical Christian social conservative. There might be 2 states were Jewish social conservatives can swing the vote and many for Christians.
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.
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.
Sounds like BOTW's take. :) Did you send that one in to him? If so, nice.
