Repealing Roe v. Wade would be "OK" says Giuliani

Ouch. Is this the most Giuliani could muster?

To Sam Brownback, it would be "a glorious day," and to Tom Tancredo the "greatest day in this country's history." For Rudolph Giuliani, repeal of the Supreme Court decision legalizing abortion "would be OK."

Republican presidential hopefuls, at their first debate on Thursday, were asked if repeal of the Roe v. Wade decision would be a good day for America.

"It would be OK to repeal," said Giuliani, New York's former mayor, contending with his record of support for abortion rights as he courts conservative Republicans.

"I think the court has to make that decision and then the country can deal with it. We're a federalist system of government and states can make their own decisions," said Giuliani, who leads Republicans in the polls.

[More from Reuters.]

Reducing the morality of abortion to whether or not it is legal is simply to avoid the question. Ethics and prudence should guide legislation, not be led by it.

MSNBC added a bit more of his response:

It would be OK to repeal it [Roe]. It would be OK also if a strict constructionist judge viewed it as precedent and I think a judge has to make that decision…. The court has to make that decision and then the country can deal with it,”

Giuliani also emphasized the character of these sorts of decisions as primarily legal and not moral when asked his opinion about the ban on Partial Birth Abortion being upheld. His response, which LifeSiteNews posted (along with the responses of many other candidates and figures), was the shortest:

The Supreme Court reached the correct conclusion in upholding the congressional ban on partial birth abortion. I agree with it.

However, the Democrats have pointed out that this is a 180 for Rudy:

Throughout his career, Rudy Giuliani has been caught making a series of conflicting statements and flip-flops about the federal abortion ban. Ironically, when he was asked whether he supports a ban, Giuliani said "no, I have not supported that, and I don't see my position on that changing." [CNN Inside Politics, 12/2/99]

Well, it did. And of course, I'm not faulting him for coming to the right decision. What I'm worried about is his tendency to make such decisions based on political expediency.

Back in '89 Guiliani called for the public funding of abortion:


Even though he now supports the "Hyde Amendment which bars federal funding of abortion under the Medicaid program." [source.] Admittedly, on both these issues he has become more Pro-Life in his stance, but is this conviction or convenience?

Guiliani's history of association with the Pro-Life cause is evidently murky at best, and therefore he has very much to "prove" to the conscientious Catholic voter in this election.

Saying that it would be "OK" if abortion ended in America is a woefully inadequate response.