The Occasional Observer

Eric Johnston writes an op-ed in today's NY Times that raises some interesting questions about the abortion debate in American, and more specifically, in the Republican party.

His conclusion is as follows:

Mr. Giuliani makes the same arguments that we pro-lifers make. But he can be more persuasive because he will not be perceived as trying to advance his own religious preferences. By taking the side of pro-lifers for democratic, but not devout, motives, a President Giuliani could shake up the nearly 35-year-old debate over Roe v. Wade.

Let us, for a moment, presume that Mr. Johnston has correctly peered into the soul of Mayor G, and knows that Rudy will appoint Thomas/Roberts/Alito types to the bench despite his myriad of pro-legal-abortion statements. I understand Mr. Johston's logic for believing such, and am willing to roll with it.

The question becomes one of ideology vs. practical effect. If Rudy's secular image makes him more effective at eliminating Roe, he could potentially be the most effective GOP candidate at reducing abortions. Does that mean that pro-life voters would have a moral obligation to vote for the man (accepting for the moment Johnston's argument), even if doing so means turning the party over to someone who is "personally" pro-choice, and abandoning the public debate over the immorality of abortion? Even if Mr. Johnston is correct that Rudy has the best chance of reducing abortions in near term, are not pro-life voters being asked to relegate their convictions to the "don't ask, don't tell" category?

This is a fundamental question that GOP primary voters, and values voters in particular, are being confronted with. Even if Rudy overturns Roe, what will be the result if the GOP is unwilling or unable to debate the national consequences of legalized abortion? Will future generations of unborn children be subject to pro-abortion laws passed in 50 statehouses, rather than a pro-abortion edict issued by 9 judges?

At the end of the day, even if Mr. Johnston's anlysis is correct, and Rudy is our best hope at overturning Roe (an argument that is hardly without dispute), that still doesn't make him the necessary choice for social conservatives. After all, for 30 years SoCons have been trying to win the battle over Roe, but for thousands of years they've been seeking to win the big picture struggle for hearts and minds. Mr. Johnston's argument makes a reasonable case that Rudy could win the battle, but the logic of his own argument asks the pro-life movement to abandon the war.