Townhall.com, Where Your Opinion Counts
Talk Radio:   Bill Bennett   Mike Gallagher   Dennis Prager   Michael Medved   Hugh Hewitt   
BREAKING NEWS  LeftArrow - Townhall.com : Conservative, Political, Republican   RightArrow - Townhall.com : Conservative, Political, Republican  
Columns, funnies & more in your inbox!
Login | What's Hot
  • Check the boxes and send us your email address to receveive your free newsletter
  • Your daily must-read of conservative columns, cartoons and news. Coulter, Sowell, Krauthammer and more.
  • Townhall.com’s weekly inside scoop on what’s happening behind the scenes in the world of politics. When news breaks, we report.
  • Signup to receive the latest daily Townhall cartoons
Friday, May 11, 2007
Charles Krauthammer :: Townhall.com Columnist
Giuliani and abortion
by Charles Krauthammer
Forward Print Share Single Page
Vote on It:
Average Vote:
[+] Text [-]
 
 
Poll
With unemployment at 10.2%, what will happen by the end of Obama's first term?



Legalizing abortion by judicial fiat (Roe v. Wade) instead of by democratic means has its price. One is that the issue remains socially unsettled. People take to the streets when they have been deprived of resort to legislative action.

The other effect is to render the very debate hopelessly muddled. Instead of discussing what a decent society owes women and what it owes soon-to-be-born infants, and trying to balance the two by politically hammering out regulations that a broad national consensus can support, we debate the constitutional niceties of a 35-year-old appallingly crafted Supreme Court decision.

Just how tangled the issue gets is illustrated by the current brouhaha over Rudy Giuliani's abortion response in the first Republican presidential debate. Spokesmen for the other candidates have gleefully seized upon what they deem to be Giuliani's gaffe -- not only defying Republican orthodoxy but appearing to want to have it every which way.

On repealing Roe v. Wade:

Giuliani: It would be OK to repeal. It would be also (OK) if a strict constructionist judge viewed it as precedent and I think a judge has to make that decision.

Moderator: Would it be OK if they didn't repeal it?

Giuliani: I think the court has to make that decision and then the country can deal with it. ... states can make their own decisions.

Giuliani's response has been almost universally characterized as a blundering two-way pander. I think not. I've actually heard Giuliani elaborate his position on abortion. His debate answer is an overly concise version of it, which makes it so open to ridicule.

Democrats are pro-choice and have an abortion litmus test for judges they would nominate to the Supreme Court. Giuliani is pro-choice but has no such litmus test. The key phrase in his answer is ``strict constructionist judge.'' On judicial issues in general he believes in ``strict constructionism,'' the common conservative view that we don't want judges citing penumbral emanations and other constitutional vapors to justify inventing new rights they fancy the country needs.

However, one strict constructionist might look at Roe v. Wade as the constitutional travesty it is and decide to repeal it. Another strict constructionist judge could, with equal conviction, decide that after 35 years the habits and mores shaped by Roe v. Wade are so engrained in society that it should not be overturned. Continued...
1 2
| Full Article & Comments | Next >
Share:
Forward Print Single Page
Vote on It:
Average Vote:
 
About The Author

Charles Krauthammer is a 1987 Pulitzer Prize winner, 1984 National Magazine Award winner, and a columnist for The Washington Post since 1985.

Be the first to read Charles Krauthammer's column. Sign up today and receive Townhall.com delivered each morning to your inbox.

Join The Debate!

Post Your Comment
(74 comments so Far)
View in ascending order     View in descending order
Reply # 1
Date: May 20, 2007 - 6:30 AM EST
Giuliai's claim
he would appoint strict constuctionist judges to SCOTUS is a joke. His idea of strict construction is repeal the 2nd amendment, for starters? Just another bait and switch RINO.
Flag as Offensive

Reply # 2
Date: May 20, 2007 - 5:40 AM EST
Waving the Bloody Shirt
Gee, can Charles Krauthammer be suggesting that Rudy's approach is superior to those people who are doing the modern equivalent of "waving the bloody shirt" and seeking to exploit abortion issues for political gain? Perish the thought!

The following is an excerpt from a column I wrote today (click on name above)


All too often, my fellow conservatives -- and I've also been guilty -- take positions that are emotionally satisfying but politically devastating. They tend to dismiss any candidates they disagree with -- and that turns out to be every candidate who conceivably could win against Hillary Clinton.

Roe v. Wade became the law of the land more than a generation ago. The conservative response has been irresponsible in the extreme. It turned into an "all-or-nothing" approach -- one that refused any compromise -- and it ended up not with ALL but with something resembling NOTHING.

The way to deal with abortion was -- and is -- to chip away at it. The alternative to that approach isn't the elimination of abortion but the maintenance of the satus quo. When winning a battle -- military or political -- you don't attack at the enemy's strongest fortifications. You attack at his weakest point, which happened in the case of the horrifying procedure known as partial-birth abortion.

We conservatives tend to wildly overestimate the significance of Roe v. Wade.

In fact, what would happen if, next week, the Supreme Court voted 5-4 against Roe? Would that end abortion? No, it would not. It would oveturn Roe, but it would do little else.

Abortion would continue as it is now. In fact, all 50 states would have to come up with their own laws about the matter. Some of those states, including places like New York, California, Illinois, New Jersey, and Massachusetts -- in fact, most of the highly populated Blue states -- presumably would come up with liberal abortion laws.

Others, particularly smaller states in the South and West, would have relatively restrictive laws -- we think. Thus, in states where a majority of Americans live, abortion would go on pretty much as it does now. It would be "safe" (except for embryos), legal, and frequent.

Since the Court isn't about to overturn Roe v. Wade -- and very possibly, never will in our lifetimes -- what are we to do about the situation? The answer doesn't lie in shouting more slogans and churning out ever-more-creative bumper stickers.






Flag as Offensive
Sign Up to Post Your CommentsSign Up to Post Your Comments
If you are already registered, click here to login. Otherwise, please take a few seconds to register with Townhall.com. Once you sign up, you’ll be able to post your comments immediately, use the action center, get podcasts, and more!
Note: Fields marked with a red asterisk (*) are required.
Salutation:
First Name:
*
Last Name:
*
Email:
*
Nickname:
*
Note: Nick name will be shown when you post comments.
Address 1:
*
Address 2:
City:
 *
State:
 *
Zip:
 *
Phone:
       
Your daily must-read of conservative columns, cartoons and news. Coulter, Sowell, Krauthammer and more.
(Bi-Weekly) We highlight the best opportunities from our partners for surveys, action items and more.