Pro-Life, Pro-Family, Pro-Rudy?

National Review Online: Giuliani Must Be Willing To Fight Abortion On The International Stage

(National Review Online)  This column was written by Douglas Sylva.

---

Rudy Giuliani fostered an important ecumenical moment last week, albeit one that he may not have welcomed, as Protestant and Catholic leaders alike questioned whether his presidential aspirations were invalidated by his pro-abortion beliefs. Archbishop Raymond Burke of St. Louis announced that Giuliani should not present himself for Communion in Burke’s see, thereby also signaling to Catholic voters that they should reconsider their support of him.

James Dobson, president of the influential evangelical group, Focus on the Family, reported that “50 pro-family leaders” agreed “almost unanimously [that]…if neither of the two major political parties nominates an individual who pledges himself or herself to the sanctity of human life, we will join others in voting for a minor-party candidate.” Since these leaders already know Hillary’s position - life begins if the mother says it begins - what they really decided was to abandon the Republican Party, if Rudy wins the nomination.

Rudy may have been a bit surprised by these events; after all, he has offered pro-life voters the by-now customary Republican presidential promise, to appoint strict-constructionist judges in the mold of Roberts, Alito, Scalia, or Thomas. Having made this pledge, he must wonder why it matters what is in his heart. But it does matter, and Rudy’s prospects may now hinge on his ability to learn why it does, and to communicate this newfound and sincere understanding.

The “Pro-life, Pro-family” voting contingent require a candidate who sees threats as they do - as the pervasive efforts of cultural and social elites - and who is vigilant, and active, and courageous in response to these threats. President George W. Bush has been that champion, and his administration has proven just how much more there is for a conservative president to do to than to select judges, even Supreme Court justices.

For years now an effort has been underway at the United Nations, for instance, to reinterpret international law in the hope of creating a universal right to abortion on demand. Various forces at the U.N. also seek to redefine the family, to establish complete sexual autonomy for adolescents, to create a worldwide right to homosexual marriage, to depress world fertility rates, and to legalize cloning in order to create human embryos for medical research.

Bush has countered this entire agenda in spite of its yielding nothing politically for his efforts; in other words, Bush has acted as an authentic “Pro-life, Pro-family” advocate. Early in his administration, he established specific orders for his diplomats at the U.N.; they were handed a text, to be recited whenever controversy arose on life issues: the U.S. does not interpret any language in the current document to establish new international rights, especially a right to abortion. With this simple act, Bush defeated so many sophisticated plans, hatched in the world’s finest law universities, think tanks, and international agencies, and the cosmopolitan world of international elites seethed.

More specifically, on his very first day in office, Bush reinstated the Reagan-era “Mexico City Policy,” which restricts federal funding from non-governmental organizations that perform or promote abortions in foreign countries. His enemies erupted in anger, naming the Mexico City Policy the “Global Gag Rule,” and claiming that Bush would be responsible for killing women who would not have recourse to legal abortions.

Bush also cut all U.S. financial support for the United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA), the U.N.’s chief population control agency, because it was complicit in forced abortion and sterilizations in China. The European commissioner for development quickly pledged that the EU would “fill the decency gap” created by the Bush administration’s decision (the EU shifted money from international education programs to pay for the abortions and sterilizations).

Amazingly, Bush successfully campaigned at the U.N. for an international declaration against all forms of human cloning. Through it all, Bush was called the worst sort of religious fundamentalist, and a simpleton whose medieval beliefs would destroy scientific progress and deny people astounding cures.

Bush also altered the international response to AIDS, by creating a $15 billion program that included abstinence training - a major philosophical shift away from the condoms/safe-sex message that had failed so miserably, but had gone unchallenged within the international AIDS establishment. At one and the same moment, Bush became the worldwide leader in fighting AIDS, and, again, a “killer,” for embracing abstinence instead of just swathing the entire world in latex.

Bush established a new type of Mexico City Policy, this time for prostitution: no longer would the United States fund relief agencies that promote the international legalization of prostitution, which, in countries such as Thailand, almost certainly amounts to the legalization of the sexual slavery of countless women and girls. Yet again, calls of censorship, a new “gag rule,” and Bush’s responsibility for “killing” women, somehow, spread throughout right-thinking circles around the world.

In all of these cases, Bush would not have acted without strong convictions. Often he persevered even in the face of the determined opposition of America’s greatest ally in the War on Terror, Great Britain. And it is doubtful if Bush gained a single additional vote in the process, for the United Nations might as well be a million miles away from places like Iowa and New Hampshire.

Would Giuliani have taken any one of these important actions? Not caring much about these issues, would Giuliani have even known about the threats? It is time for Rudy to acknowledge what pro-lifers already know only too well: that they need a president to do more than just appoint the right justices. Executive-branch neutrality is not acceptable. Rudy has to tell “Pro-life, Pro-family” voters whether or not he can be this sort of president, and he can start by promising to continue George W. Bush’s fight - his entire fight for life and family - at the United Nations.

[billpl-2009]

" we are talking about someone else''''s life which just happens to be inside her body,"

Gaye5

That''s between her and God.
...and is none of your business.

[gaye5]

PCBirdsall of course you are dead right, a woman should have the right to choose if and when she wants to have a baby and that choice is nobody''''s business but hers.....
but PCBirdsall we are not talking about her choice we are talking about someone else''s life which just happens to be inside her body, and she had every opportunity to use that god given choice to make sure that she didnt get pregnant... she is choosing to kill so now she has a problem....
Then you said....And it''''s interesting that those who claim to be pro-life are always for war and the death penalty. So, who can really claim to be pro-life?

You have made a wide statement here, how on earth do you know that all those who claim to be pro-life are always for war etc.. I have very rarely come across this myself as yet and I have talked on such subjects with many parents in school that my husband was principal of or taught in...

[quatrops]

So James Dobson and "50 pro-life" (read: "anti-abortion") leaders are threatening to go the third-party route if Giuliani doesn''t change his pro-choice stance and is the Republican candidate against Clinton.

Such an act would only suck voters away from Giuliani and make Clinton''s already-probable victory a certainty. Dobson''s threat is only political posturing.

The NRO constantly uses "social and cultural elite" when referring to the Democratic agenda. I suggest that a survey of the two parties constituencies would show that when it comes to social and cultural elitists, far more Republicans would fall into that category.

[pcbirdsall]

Just for the record, no one is pro-abortion. Pro-choice means just that, a woman should have the right to choose if and when she wants to have a baby and that choice is nobody''s business but hers. And it''s interesting that those who claim to be pro-life are always for war and the death penalty. So, who can really claim to be pro-life?

[billpl-2009]

""CONSTITUTION PARTY" (constitutionparty.com) "

...my foot.

If I want some advise about the Constitution I''ll consult the ACLU before those morons

[mbcsmith]

Rudy''s the man.

[cfin5]

It is the "CONSTITUTION PARTY" (constitutionparty.com) from here on for me and my family. If your an American first before any party creed and like where we''ve been long ago better than where we''ve been heading to as a nation, join ''em! The democratic party is controlled by the far left communists, the republican party is controlled by the ultra conservative economic traitors. The "SUM" of the public policies of them both are exactly the same, except for their name. Stick with our Constitution America!

[billpl-2009]

...and that''s why folks.

I''m voting for Rudy

"a major philosophical shift away from the condoms/safe-*** message that had failed so miserably"

Is he kidding? In Thailand, where condom use has been heavily promoted, new HIV cases dropped by 80% in only a dozen years. On the other hand, in many places in sub-Saharan Africa, where condom use is stigmatized, over 6% of the adult population is affected. Discouraging condom use is a guaranteed way to promote AIDS.

[rayuk-2009]

NRO- America''s Premier Site for Conservative Lies, Fabrications, and Wishful Thinking

Are they as bad as the Weekly Standard.......Hmmm, yes, at times.
Are they as bad as FOXNONEWS......Hmmmm, no, never. No one is a bad as FOX.

[cs4466]

For Doug Sylva (author of this article): Hate to break it to ya, but Hillary will be president for the next 8 years. Your friends have made that inevitable. Therefore this article is a large exercise in... nothing. But thanks for sharing!

[rayuk-2009]

I take great comfort in the fact that anti-Bush folks are all over the garbage put out by NRO and The Weekly Standard. I don''t believe any Republican has a chance in 2008. The GOP has shot its wad. Democrats will rule the country for the next 20 years. It will take that long to clean up the Republican mess.

[afmca]

The %u201CPro-life, Pro-family%u201D voting contingent require a candidate who sees threats as they do - as the pervasive efforts of cultural and social elites - and who is vigilant, and active, and courageous in response to these threats. President George W. Bush has been that champion,

To cut to the bottom line .. they want another village idiot who is constitutionally ignorant; morally repugnant; politically expediant; kiss-a to the Prophets for Profit. Basically the next leader of the Christian Taliban. Pretty much all the Repub candidates meet that criteria.

That they consider Bush Pro-life is hilarious. He is honest in his stupidity which allows him to easily play to their unfounded fears and bigotry. By giving them what they want, especially when he knows those moral constraints would be easily bypassed by a man of his wealth, he obtained the power to start the destruction of America''s economic leadership, military power, and moral standing in the world. Bush''s pro-family platform keeps wages low; working hours long; medical benefits unattainable, and higher education increasingly unaffordable.

Dobson may be pro-birth, but is far removed from being for either life or family. He is for playing to their ignorance and intolerance to line his pockets with their contributions. The christian evangelists are no better than con-men and snake oil salesmen. Their lemmings continue falling for their scam.

[briannorwood]

Unfortunately, I read this senseless drivel...then gagged, then puked on my carpet.

Thanks alot ***!

[taddles-2009]

Dooug-o...I thought you had to have an IQ over 45 to write for the NRO...guess not.