There is a difference between having a constitutional right to something and having the Constitution require the government to pay you for something. For example, the 2nd Amendment gives you the right to own a gun: "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." But there is no constitutional provision, nor is there a case that I know of, that requires Congress to pay for guns for people who want them, but can't afford them. Whereas with trials, the 6th Amendment does say that a person receive "the Assistance of Counsel for his defence." Thus, if I can't afford counsel, the Constitution requires the government to pay for one--that's where we get public defenders from.
What, then, does the Constitution say about abortions? Well, nothing. As most know, however, the Supreme Court--in Roe v. Wade--found a constitutional right to an abortion in the Constitution--implicitly rather than explicitly. Thus, Congress and the states, cannot pass laws prohibiting abortions. Roe, however, does not require Congress or the states to pay for those abortions. Essentially, if you want one, the government does not have to help you pay for one. This is true for guns, too. It is also true for countless other medical procedures--you can get a face lift, tummy tuck, or 'enhancement' all you want, but the government does not have to pay for it.
The distinction between a right to a procedure, and paying for the procedure, seems to be lost on Rudy Giuliani. When he ran for NYC Mayor, he advocated for public-funding of abortions. In this recent interview, he stuck by that position:
Rudy Giuliani told CNN Wednesday he supports public funding for some abortions, a position he advocated as mayor and one that will likely put the GOP presidential candidate at odds with social conservatives in his party.
"Ultimately, it's a constitutional right, and therefore if it's a constitutional right, ultimately, even if you do it on a state by state basis, you have to make sure people are protected," Giuliani said in an interview with CNN's Dana Bash in Florida's capital city.
A video clip of the then-mayoral candidate issuing a similar declaration in 1989 in a speech to the "Women's Coalition" appeared recently on the Internet.
"There must be public funding for abortions for poor women," Giuliani says in the speech that is posted on the video sharing site YouTube. "We cannot deny any woman the right to make her own decisions about abortion." (Emphasis mine.)
He says not paying for an elective procedure is the government "denying" a right. That might be true in the case of assistance of counsel in a trial. It is not the case with gun ownership or abortion--or many other protected rights like free speech, assembly, etc. If a person wants something the Constitution allows them to have they have to pay for it. That's true whether it is a microphone for a speech, a printing press for a paper, a gun, or an abortion.
Giuliani missing this distinction is interesting. He is a lawyer and a candidate for President. As such, he should know that his position is incorrect constitutionally/legally and unnecessary politically. The constitutional argument is described above. But even on simple politics, the far left supports public funding--which Congress has the ability to provide under current law, if they feel it is good policy--not because it is legally required, but because they think it is good policy. Most Americans don't agree with them on this and think tax payer dollars should go elsewhere. This belief is especially true amongst limited-government and pro-life coalitions in the GOP. Thus, this position is bad politics for a candidate running in a GOP primary.
Assuming he won the GOP primary, this position does not even help him win the general election by making him appear more "moderate" to the average voter. Public funding of abortion is not a moderate, everyday-American view. Thus, this is simply bad policy mixed with bad politics on Giuliani's part. He should change his position to be in line--fortuitously for him--with both the Constitution and the vast majority of GOP primary voters, and most Americans.
Sometimes leaders must side with the Constitution at the expense of popular opinion, that is their charge when they swear to uphold the document. This may cost them political points, but they nevertheless have a sworn duty. Here, Giuliani does not have that problem and can more easily change his position. He might be labeled a "flip flopper", but better to change to a constitutional policy than be stubborn against one for the sake of "consistency."
Thomas More
Comments