By Krista Kafer (firstname.lastname@example.org) Since putting his hat in the ring for president, Mayor Rudy Giuliani has attempted to appease pro-lifers by saying 1) he does not support taxpayer funding of abortion, 2) he is committed to appointing conservative judges, and 3) he personally opposes abortion. In a CNN interview this week, Giuliani’s true convictions came to light and they are rather the opposite of earlier placations.
Giuliani plainly admitted he supports taxpayer funding of abortion. Moreover he sees abortion as an entitlement. Giuliani told the reporter “If it would deprive someone of a constitutional right. If that's the status of the law, yes,” he supports taxpayer funding. In other words, the Constitution entitles women to abortion and if they cannot afford it, we, the taxpayers must pay for it.
This reading of the Constitution is diametrically opposed to that of conservative judges, the kind that Giuliani promises to appoint. Conservative judges believe in inaliable or natural rights not entitlements. They believe as did the writers of the Constitution, that individual rights – namely life, liberty, and property come from God. The purpose of government is to protect natural rights - not to confer additional rights or entitlements. Entitlements are opposed to natural rights. In order to entitle one individual to a good or service, the government must deprive another of their property rights to pay for it.
Given his support for entitlements, Giuliani is likely to appoint activist judges who share his view of the Constitution and will work to secure additional entitlements rather than uphold natural rights.
The CNN interview exposed another attitude at odds with conservative jurisprudence – legal positivism. Giuliani said he supports taxpayer funding of abortion “If that's the status of the law...” In other words, as long as abortion is deemed constitutional, he’ll support taxpayer funding for it. In the positivist view, law is divorced from its moral underpinnings. A positivist never questions whether the law is just, he merely enforces it, however unjust or arbitrary.
Senator Stephen Douglas, for example, though he personally disliked slavery, supported the Dred Scott Decision, because the court had ruled it so. In the positivist view, human rights are not inalienable, they are given by the state which can take them away just as easily. The positivist judges Giuliani will likely appoint will not only uphold Roe v Wade denying the God-given right to life, but may deny other constitutionally-protected rights as well.
It does not matter that Giuliani says he “hates abortion” – a hollow sentiment indeed. If abortion is not the taking of a human life, what’s to hate? If not a child, than the procedure is no more hate-worthy than bunion surgery. If, however, it is a human life, then there is a moral and legal obligation to protect it. Like Douglas, Giuliani lacks a commitment to alienable human rights, a deficiency no amount of personal discomfort can allay.
The millions Giuliani will spend of our money to fund abortion while he is in office will be the least of his legacy. His judges, who like him deny natural rights in favor of entitlements and positivism, will do damage to the nation long after Giuliani has left office.