This Week's Giuliani Abortion Position

In tonight's Republican presidential debate, the candidates were asked about the potential for the Supreme Court to overturn Roe v. Wade. America's Mayor spoke thusly:

"It would be OK to repeal it. It would be OK also if a strict constructionist viewed it as precedent."

He also said that with regard to federal funding for abortion, he supports the Hyde Amendment, which currently bands federal funding except in cases of rape, incest, or the mother's "physical disorder, illness, or injury."

But as recently as April 4th, in a televised interview Rudy said he supported funding, apparently without these restrictions. According to CNN.com:

When asked directly Wednesday if he still supported the use of public funding for abortions, Giuliani said "Yes. If it would deprive someone of a constitutional right," he explained, "If that's the status of the law, yes."

That sounds like funding for women who are poor, regardless of other conditions. Note also that his formulation of the question -- that if the government won't fund the exercise of my "right," it is then depriving me of that "right" -- is identical to standard pro-abortion rhetoric on funding.

At least that position appears consistent with a 1989 statement he made while running for mayor:

"There must be public funding for abortions for poor women," Giuliani says in the speech that is posted on the video sharing site YouTube. "We cannot deny any woman the right to make her own decisions about abortion."

Some pro-lifers are open to supporting Giuliani for president because they think that despite his own preferred policies, he will appoint good judges. I would ask them: does this sound like a man who can be trusted with judicial appointments? Why would a pro-abortion, pro-funding president put judges on the Court who could quite possibly overturn Roe during his term? Would he want that huge upheaval on his watch? What would he say at his presidential press conference the day after Roe is overturned, partially due to the justice(s) he put on the bench?

Getting good judges out of Reagan and Bush I was a crap shoot at best, even when both were firmly committed on the issue as a matter of legislation as well as judicial appointments . George W's appointments seem likely to vote the right way, when presented with the issue in the right way. Giuliani's ambivalence is a serious break with this traditional expectation of our GOP nominees.