When I recently wrote about Rudy Giuliani, I imagined a disastrous scenario in which conservatives became convinced that he was the only "viable" candidate to take on the Democratic nominee for President, Hillary Clinton (shudder). The pressure compounded as Giuliani supporters adopted the motto "a vote for (fill in a pro-life candidate) is a vote for Hilary" and some pro-life leaders began to point out that Giuliani pledged to nominate a strict constructionist to the Supreme Court while Clinton promised a Ginsburg clone.
Yes, it was only my imagination, an unlikely scenario given the field of evolving candidates for president and not something to dwell on. But then I visited Life Training Institute's blog where Scott Klusendorf poses the question
Suppose at the executive level, it's Rudy versus Hillary in 08. Rudy consistently says that while he personally supports a woman's decision to choose abortion and would sign congressional bills supporting that decision, he's convinced the Court overstepped in Roe. In fact, he calls the decision "an exercise of raw judicial tyranny unworthy of a Court dedicated to interpreting the law rather than making it." He cites Alito, Roberts, Thomas, and Scalia as models of judicial restraint. Thus, he's fine with gutting Roe or even abolishing it. But if Congress then wants to federalize abortion rights at the legislative level, he'll support that effort even if the bill's provisions are every bit as permissive as Roe's.So, what would you do? And what will you do to ensure this is a decision you don't have to make?
Hillary, meanwhile, insists she'll only appoint judges who can be counted on to uphold Roe.
What's your pick? A) sit the election out, B) pick a write-in candidate with no hope of winning, C) limit the damage by going with Gulliani, D) vote for Hillary to teach the Republicans a lesson.