Hillary Clinton vs. Rudy Giuliani - A pro-life dilemma

Warren Throckmorton ^ | Warren Throckmorton

[cpforlife.org]

The recent articles regarding Hillary Clinton have been quite popular. I am following up with a series of interviews with friend, colleague and presidential historian Paul Kengor regarding the role of faith and social policy in the upcoming election. This interview presents Paul’s take on the religious views of front-runners Hillary Clinton and Rudy Giuliani, specifically with regard to abortion policy. Would Rudy be denied communion? Does Hillary think of abortion as a kind of sacred right? Read on…

THROCKMORTON: Just a basic question for foundation: Why do you believe that the religious views of politicians are relevant to their campaign for the presidency?

KENGOR: To quote FDR, the presidency is preeminently a place of moral leadership, and religion is the foundation of morality. George Washington noted that religion and morality are the “indispensable supports” of a successful democratic republic. There is no such thing as a legislator or policy-maker who leaves morality out of his or her decision making. All of our figures impose some kind of personal morality, whether flawed or not. Religion is usually the basis for that morality, and, in American history, typically the Christian religion.

Presidential candidates often point to their faith as justification for the policies they promote during their campaigns.

I believe, the scandal is when you have a liberal Democrat like John Kerry who stated in the final 2004 presidential debate, “My faith affects everything I do, really,” and then cites how his faith influences his desire to end poverty, to clean up the environment, to hike the minimum wage, but then, suddenly, completely separates his Roman Catholic faith from life-death issues like abortion and embryonic research. In my view, that’s outrageous. Kerry does it, Mario Cuomo does it, Ted Kennedy does it, and, most recently, from the Republican side of the aisle, Rudy Giuliani is doing it.

THROCKMORTON: Your new book examines the religious views of the current democratic front runner, Hillary Clinton. How about the Republican leader, Rudy Giuliani? What is his religious background?

KENGOR: He says that he studied theology for four years in college, after completing 12 years at a Catholic private school. By studying theology, I think he means that he was probably required to take some religious education courses at Manhattan College, which was the Catholic college that he attended, where I believe he studied politics and philosophy. He says that at one point he considered becoming a priest.

THROCKMORTON: What are his current religious leanings and how will these impact his policy making?

KENGOR: He has been quite private about that, knowing that any mention of his faith will get him in hot water as the first major pro-choice Republican with a legitimate crack at winning the party’s presidential nomination. The Republican Party has become the Party of Life, and nominating Rudy might well change that image. There are numerous pro-life Christians, Protestant and Catholic, who are going to fight that possible shift, from the likes of James Dobson at Focus on the Family to the pages of the National Catholic Register. They are not pleased that after all of these pro-life gains that have come only because of Republican presidents fighting abortion extermists in the Democratic Party, there is a sudden chance of a course reversal under a Republican president named Rudy Giuliani, no matter what his guarantees about appointing “strict constructionist” judges. They understand that in the real world there will be an untold number of pro-abortion executive orders and initiatives and decisions that would come across a President Giuliani’s desk, and that concerns them. As president, he might at best get to appoint two Supreme Court justices, but he will constantly be dealing with a flurry of pro-life and anti-life legislation.

THROCKMORTON: I have heard Mr. Giuliani say, I hate abortion. How does he reconcile this statement and his Catholic affiliation with his abortion public policy?

KENGOR: Hopefully, everyone hates abortion. The burning question in response would be to ask him why he hates abortion. Naturally, one would presume, he would say that he hates abortion because it terminates a human life. That being the case, how can one support the termination of human life? Once he concedes that point, he knows he’s in trouble. His church is very clear on this, from encyclicals like Humanae Vitae to Evangelium Vitae to Veritatis Splendor to the Catechism to the very recent eloquent remarks from Pope Benedict XVI.

Imagine this striking scenario: a Catholic president of the United States who is denied Holy Communion in certain dioceses because of his stance on abortion. That would be truly remarkable.

Non-Catholics have trouble understanding this, so let me try to explain Catholic thinking: Catholics believe that at Holy Communion they receive the literal body and blood of Christ. The recent Vatican document Redemptionis Sacramentum affirms Church teaching that “anyone who is conscious of grave sin should not celebrate or receive the Body of the Lord without prior sacramental confession.” The document restated the church’s position that anyone knowingly in “grave sin” must go to confession before ingesting the consecrated bread and wine that Catholics consider the literal body and blood of Jesus Christ. Cardinal Francis Arinze said that “unambiguously pro-abortion” Catholic politicians are “not fit” to receive the sacred elements.The Vatican has spoken on this. It is up to American bishops to decide whether to carry out the policy.

In 2004, a number of Catholic archbishops suggested or flatly stated that if a President John Kerry presented himself for communion in their diocese he would be turned away. Among others, these included Archbishop Raymond L. Burke of St. Louis, Archbishop Alfred C. Hughes of New Orleans, and even Archbishop Sean O’Malley of Boston—Kerry’s home diocese. Most recently, in Giuliani’s case, Archbishop Burke has spoken up.

THROCKMORTON: Compared to Hillary Clinton, who would be most pro-choice, if such a comparison can be made?

KENGOR: That’s a no-brainer: Hillary Clinton. If you’re a pro-lifer, and if no issue is more important to you than the right of an unborn child to have life, then nothing could be more calamitous than a President Hillary Clinton. I don’t know of any politician who is more uncompromising and extreme on abortion rights than Hillary Clinton. I know this well and don’t state it with anger or hyperbole. Her extremism on abortion rights was the single most shocking, inexplicable find in my research on her faith and politics. I couldn’t understand it. No question. It is truly extraordinary. Nothing, no political issue, impassions her like abortion rights. For Mrs. Clinton, abortion-rights is sacred ground.

By the way, speaking of Catholics, Mother Teresa and Pope John Paul II saw this abortion extremism in Hillary, and both confronted her on it repeatedly, especially Mother Teresa, right up until the day she died. I have a chapter on this in the book. It’s a gripping story.

THROCKMORTON: Of Hillary and Rudy, who would most likely make abortion rights a litmus test for Supreme Court appointments?

KENGOR: Hillary, no question. She has made that clear. Rudy would not.

[gwbiny2k]

And one more thing...even if Hillary loses after 1 term,
and we get the most rabid pro-lifer elected, it still won’t
change the SCOTUS majority for decades to come. Note that
several judges are close to retirement or have health
problems.

[Pinkbell]

If it all comes down to a liberal socialist vs. a slightly less liberal socialist, I think I’ll vote third party or write in Duncan Hunter. If it’s Hillary, I don’t see this becoming a full blown socialist nation, and I don’t see this country recovering. If it’s Rudy, he swings the Republican party left, and ultimately we’ll end up with some form of socialism too. We need a conservative in there.

[Brilliant]

A lot of good pulling the rug out from under Santorum did. Now the Senate is pretty much devoid of vocal pro-lifers, with the exception of Brownback.

From what I can see, the guys who trash Santorum for not supporting Toomey did the same thing to Santorum that Santorum did to Toomey.

[Man50D]

You are either truly delusional or deliberately prevaricating my position. Either way you are beyond hope.

Instead of responding with remarks to refute my alleged prevarications you reply with insults, innuendos and false assumptions and yet somehow you perceive me as being delusional or beyond hope. Very clever. The GOP is becoming beyond hope as it drifts farther away from conservatism and closer to socialism.

[ctdonath2]

A true Republican or conservative would not willingly hand power over to liberal Democrats

A true Republican or conservative would not BE a liberal Democrat.

Just because there is an (R) after the name doesn't mean the candidate isn't a flaming leftist.

If you're worried about that "moderate fraction of voters" throwing the election, maybe you'd better start listening to them!

[Blogger]

There is no dilemma because there should be no compromise. I will vote for NEITHER. These are human lives that are being taken. You don’t vote for a Hitler over a Stalin simply because less will die. Rudy has no convictions that will lead me to believe he would choose conservative justices either. He is a social liberal by conviction. I would expect justices that reflect that view.

[Blogger]

When you are systematically destroying the next generation, life by life, you are also destroying the country. Morally, you are destroying her. Physically, you are destroying her. Spiritually, you are destroying her. Question is, do you destroy her in one short administration or over time.

Conservatives must NOT compromise principle for pragmatism. If we do, then Hillary is the least of our worries.

[Blogger]

It won’t be brought down if you vote pro-abortion.

[Blogger]

Rudolph Giuliani is a social LIBERAL.

This is not being a suicidal “single issue” person. Though if the choice is vote for someone who allows the killing of innocent babies or someone who doesn’t, anyone who doesn’t make that an issue has ceded any moral authority to make a decision.

We will not vote for a pro-abort. PERIOD.

[wagglebee]

You will want to ping this one.

[wagglebee]

You Rooty Rooters have a lot of audacity talking about “single issue” voters.

Here’s a “single issue” for you, Rooty Toot happened to be mayor of NYC on 9/11, a tragedy that was made WORSE because of seven and a half years of FAILURE on his part.

Here’s another “single issue” for you and the other Rooty Rooters to consider: when was the last time you voted for a candidate who supported an enemy that murders 3500 Americans a day?

Here’s another “single issue” to consider: when was the last time you voted for a candidate who gave orders to ignore the crimes of millions of people?

Here’s another “single issue” to consider: when was the last time you voted for a candidate who supported the denial of clearly defined constitutional rights?

[stockstrader]

Hotheads? Based on what? So now anyone that opposes a liberal like Giuliani is now a hothead? Unbelievable...lol Do you always make bogus, unsubstantiated and uncorroborated comments like that?

[cpforlife.org]

This is a WorldNetDaily printer-friendly version of the article which follows.
To view this item online, visit http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=58065

Wednesday, October 10, 2007

---

---

Why Dobson is right

---

Posted: October 10, 2007
1:00 a.m. Eastern

By Jill Stanek

---

© 2007 

Monday night, Sean Hannity interviewed Dr. James Dobson on the recent news that many conservative leaders may support a third-party candidate if Rudy Giuliani is put forth as the GOP presidential candidate.

This third-party business is a huge deal.

Hannity makes no bones about supporting Giuliani (an issue for another day). So I was not surprised he took the "lesser of two evils" approach with Dobson, i.e., if we don't accept Giuliani, we'll certainly get Hillary.

Dobson responded not just with solid moral arguments but two solid political arguments:

1. It's way too early to try to force conservatives – again – to compromise.

2. Who says Giuliani can beat Hillary?

Good people I know are warning against a conservative split from the GOP, and Dobson acknowledged the danger.

(Column continues below)

But for many reasons, I'm open to following conservative leaders like Dobson and Tony Perkins down this path, if they so decide. It would be a serious, risky endeavor. The Republican Party has been relatively good on the pro-life issue.

But it hasn't been great on it, particularly when political stars aligned for it to take big strides, and then it did not. Also maddening is when the GOP wages war against solid pro-life candidates like Pat Toomey to sustain pro-abort incumbent weasels like Arlen Specter.

We only need look to the Democrat-controlled Congress for inspiration on how to handle the abortion issue with conviction. Its leaders are never shy about advancing the pro-abortion agenda, by word or deed. Even now, it has mattered naught to Democrat leaders that their current power is drawn in large part by conservative or moderate candidates they ran who won. They press on.

Clear now that one reason certain Republican politicos waffled on conservative issues was because they became morally compromised, which leads to policy compromise.

So what if Democrats get caught with cigars where they don't belong or a frozen stash of cash? There's no divide between their morality and their policy. Nothing to compromise.

Perhaps GOP housecleaning will lead to GOP ideology resolve, including presenting a presidential candidate who emulates his party's base. We'll see.

Otherwise the days ahead will be interesting.

---

Related special offers:

"ENDING ABORTION: How the pro-life side will win the war"

"Lime 5: Exploited by Choice"

"On Message: The Pro-Life Handbook"

---

Jill Stanek fought to stop "live-birth abortion" after witnessing one as a registered nurse at Christ Hospital in Oak Lawn, Ill. In 2002, President Bush asked Jill to attend his signing of the Born Alive Infants Protection Act. In January 2003, World Magazine named Jill one of the 30 most prominent pro-life leaders of the past 30 years. To learn more, visit Jill's blog, Pro-life Pulse.

[Little Ray]

Gee. Rudy was really good at appointing judges like Alito and Roberts when he was mayor of NYC.

Fer heaven’s sake, don’t listen to what Rudy says, look at what he’s done! He wouldn’t know a “strict constructionist” judge if one bit him on the @$$.

[wagglebee]

There is absolutely no reason to believe that ANY president would ever knowingly judges who have a political philosophy that is in direct opposition to their own.

The reality is that nearly all politicians will lie to get elected, so the best way to predict what they will do is to look at what they’ve done in the past. Look at the case of Bush41, he spent the first half of 1980 calling Reagan’s proposed tax cuts “Voodoo Economics.” He then spent eight years supporting Reagan’s policies and during the 1988 campaign he made the declaration, “Read my lips: no new taxes.” What happened? He signed the first tax increase that hit his desk.

Rooty Toot can say whatever he wants, but his entire record is LIBERALISM.

[TommyDale]

"ROFLMBO!"

Not a burrito, right? LOL!

[TommyDale]

"Right now it looks like it will most likely be Hillary v. Giuliani in 2008 and, if so, the Conservative movement in the United States risks tearing itself apart."

No, the Conservative movement may actually desert the GOP and tear it apart. So be it, rather than compromise for another Democrat like Rudy Giuliani with a (R) after his name.

[stockstrader]

Let's look at Rudy's very own words--

“Presidents, going back to the beginning of the republic, generally appoint people on the Supreme Court that they believe agree with them".

–Rudy Giuliani discussing Supreme Court appointments on ‘Hannity and Colmes’, July 20, 2005

But yet the Rudy apologists are promising us that Rudy will NOT do that!!!!! Go figure.

Unbelievable, absolutely unbelievable.

[Retired COB]

“Which candidate has promised to appoint justices like Alito and Roberts?”

Have you reviewed the types of judges he appointed in New York? They're all liberals.

What make you think he'll change now? That's about as foolish as a woman marrying a man hoping to change him later....it never happens. In Presidents, like husbands, you should choose someone who agrees with your prospective. Don't believe the campaign promises in either case.

[stockstrader]

Not to worry. The Rudy apologists are promising that Rudy will only appoint those who oppose his long-held, core, bedrock social positions!!....lol They promise us that Rudy WILL abandon his core social principles once elected.

The apologists (the 20%ers) are promising us that Rudy will appoint personnel and implement policies to PROTECT US FROM LIBERALS LIKE HIMSELF!!!