New at Reason

February 14, 2007

Jacob Sullum grabs his tongs and fiddles around in Rudy Giuliani's head to figure out his abortion stance.

Comments

|2.14.07 @ 8:14AM|#

I take his nuance to mean he is saying to conservatives, "Hey, I'm for the women's right to choose guys. Sorry. But check this out.....there is not much a President can do about abortion anyway. About the only thing a President can do is choose Supreme Court justices, and the type I would choose are more inclined to overturn Roe anyway. So, don't not vote for me due to abortion...it will all work out in the wash."

Actually, I think his position is solid, and sellable.

Then again, I'm slow.

|2.14.07 @ 8:33AM|#

"Tongs"?

Shouldn't he be using a speculum?

Rhywun|2.14.07 @ 9:03AM|#

Well, at least his position is more "honest" -- and probably more consistent with America as a whole -- than the blanket support or condemnation you'll get from every other politician. The Republican Party probably won't see it that way, though.

|2.14.07 @ 9:12AM|#

Abortion is a black-and-white issue only in Washington, D.C. I think Giuliani realizes something that the GOP leadership (and most people in the press) don't-- it is entirely possible for a pro-abortion Republican to get the GOP nomination. Both Republican and Democratic voters rarely have the one-sided views of their party leaders. Although statistics show that a Republican is likely to have deeper reservations about abortion than a Democrat, consider: Many people who support abortion rights are opposed to some late-term procedures and letting minors do it without parental consent, and many opposed to abortion support keeping it legal in cases such as rape or possible physical harm to the mother (proobably a reason why the South Dakota law failed in the November election).

My point is, many people in D.C. and the press are acting like it's just impossible for Giuliani to get the nomination. They're wrong. GOP voters are starting to realize that the religious right has been having a seriously damaging effect on their party, especially among the younger generation of voters. Of course, this doesn't mean that all voters opposed to abortion are members of the religious right, or that GOP voters will change their views on controversial issues. But abortion isn't the only issue GOP voters will be thinking about when they go to the polls; if they see Giuliani as a strong leader with vision (pardon the cliche), they could still support him. The all-or-nothing rhetoric used by some prominent social conservatives on the abortion issue could come back to haunt them among ordinary, everyday voters who take a more pragmatic view of the issue.

Dan T.|2.14.07 @ 9:16AM|#

It sucks, in my opinion, that a candidate can't just proclaim that abortion is a)not really an important issue and b)is not going away no matter what he thinks, allowing him to concentrate on things that are important and that he might be able to influence.

|2.14.07 @ 10:01AM|#

Holy Shit!!!!

I just agreed with Dan T. Let it stand: My world has officially been Rocked. :)

Rhywun|2.14.07 @ 10:15AM|#

abortion is a)not really an important issue

Roe v Wade *made* abortion an important issue; for all time, I suspect, even if it's overturned. I wonder if it were overturned, which would be the first state to prohibit travel to another state for the purpose of an abortion. I can't wait to see that fight!

|2.14.07 @ 10:16AM|#

I just agreed with Dan T. Let it stand: My world has officially been Rocked. :)

Yeah, he's grown past the pointless snark. It's the lifecycle of the troll; they come with what they think is clever, one line stale pabulum. They're mocked relentlessly (and here, literally). And if they stay, they usually cut the always-contrary crap and start up with something substantial. Nice to see it.

|2.14.07 @ 10:25AM|#

I may have to add a Weekly Agreement with Dan T. to my Weekly Agreement with Joe.

Well, maybe a Monthly Agreement with Dan T.

Dan T.|2.14.07 @ 10:37AM|#

I need to work on my game, it appears.

Seriously, though, thanks for the kind words.

|2.14.07 @ 11:02AM|#

Like others have said, good point, Dan T.!

|2.14.07 @ 11:39AM|#

Dan T is still a moron!!!

(Kidding!!!....but the love-fest was making me feel sick to my stomach)

Alice Pitney|2.14.07 @ 11:48AM|#

Dan T.,

I am horribly disappointed in you.

|2.14.07 @ 11:53AM|#

Yayyyyy!

The caseworker is back.

Alice Pitney|2.14.07 @ 11:55AM|#

Feel the love.

|2.14.07 @ 11:56AM|#

I'd like to see a politician say "yeah, abortion is icky and I realize that a lot of people might want to see it outlawed, but that's not going to help matters. We'll just be getting a lot of ILLEGAL abortions and a lot of dead women due to it. So why don't we put as much effort as possible in making abortions not necessary?"

Rhywun|2.14.07 @ 2:14PM|#

So why don't we put as much effort as possible in making abortions not necessary?

You're talking about, hm, contraception?? Sex education??? Nope, can't have those, either. That just encourages sex. What part of "be fruitful and multiply" don't you get?

|2.14.07 @ 3:13PM|#

Really tasteless partial-birth abortion imagery, [whoever posted this thread insert your name here].

Larry A|2.14.07 @ 9:01PM|#

it does not seem like a rational basis for public policy.

You're using "rational" and "public policy" in the same sentence again.