On Point Vincent Carroll, editor of the editorial pages, writes his On Point column most weekdays. He is also an author and freelance writer. Reach Vincent Carroll at carrollv@RockyMountainNews.com.

• Blog front page
• Add this blog to your RSS reader

Rumor has it that Rudy Giuliani is a former U.S. attorney who knows a thing or two about constitutional law. Rumor likewise says he’s a front-runner for the Republican nomination for president, who must woo conservative primary voters if he has a chance to win.

Given these rumors, which happen to be true, the wonder is that Giuliani doesn’t realize that government is under no obligation to subsidize Americans’ enjoyment of their constitutional rights.

You have a right to free speech, but government doesn’t have to buy you a newspaper to run, a soapbox for the park, or a computer for composing e-mail.

We all enjoy a right to own property, but the fellow with no more to his name than the knapsack on his back has not been deprived of his liberty.

So why does Giuliani believe the right to abortion — that most dubious of constitutional imperatives — should be subsidized?

“Ultimately (abortion) is a constitutional right,” he recently told a CNN reporter, “and therefore if it’s a constitutional right, ultimately even if you do it on a state-by-state basis, you make sure that people are protected.”

“So,” responded the reporter, “you support taxpayer money or public funding for abortion in some cases?”

“If it would deprive someone of a constitutional right,” replied Giuliani. “Yes, if that is the status of the law, then I would, yes.”

Giuliani later was quick to point out that he does not support changing the Hyde Amendment, which prohibits federal funding of abortion except in cases of rape, incest or when the mother’s life is at risk. But the damage is done. He missed a golden chance to walk away from his 1989 support of taxpayer funding for abortion — a radical position that mainstream voters of both parties rarely espouse.

I’ve been arguing that Giuliani appeals to Republicans on so many issues that social conservatives might defy conventional wisdom and give him a pass on his pro-abortion stance. But the odds on that possibility just grew longer.

Obnoxious, but protected

“More basically,” says The Denver Post, “we urge the legislature to add political robocalls to the list of commercial solicitations that can’t be sent to Coloradans who have signed on to the no-call list.”

Add political robocalls to the list of commercial solicitations? Now that’s a neat trick. The Post says “computers have no constitutional rights” — what a relief! — while only “political calls by people are protected speech.”

Does that mean a political message sent by computer e-mail to more than one address is a “commercial solicitation,” too? Is an editorial in a newspaper (which couldn’t be published these days without computers) delivered to multiple homes also unprotected speech?

Political robocalls are often obnoxious speech, no doubt, but obnoxious political speech is just as secure under the First Amendment as the genteel words of the most polished pundit.
And by the way, do robocalls that attack a candidate, ballot measure or legislation ever actually work?

It’s one thing to answer the phone to hear the recorded voice of a popular figure such as John Hickenlooper genially pushing, say, a tax for preschool. Even if you disagree, you’ll probably listen. But the crude robocalls that so bother critics only make sane listeners want to do the opposite of whatever the phone call urged.

Vincent Carroll is editor of the editorial pages. Reach him at carrollv@RockyMountain
News.com.

READER COMMENTS

Way for Pro-birth Vince to tro out the "Pro Abortion" Canard!

My interpretation of Rudy's comments is that he believes women have a constitutional right to not be forced to have a child that was a result of non-consensual or illegal sex -- a situation like rape or incest, or when a full-term pregnancy or childbirth would likely cause the death of a pregnant young teenager or woman. In essence, Giuliani supports a woman's right, in instances where the woman's explicit constitutional rights were, or are being violated, to terminate a pregnancy she is absent the financial wherewithal to remedy.

Aron, how in the world do you come to that conclusion?

"My interpretation of Rudy's comments is that he believes women have a constitutional right to not be forced to have a child that was a result of non-consensual or illegal sex -- a situation like rape or incest"

Guiliani is very clear on what he means. If a women has the right to an abortion, then she should have a publicly funded means to have the abortion. It has nothing to do with rape or incest.

This is great news. If Giuliani wins, that means the government has to buy me a gun. I know that right's in the Constitution. Seems like a pretty good deal to me.

Rudy has lost a supporter....namely, me.

Jimmy,

Pay CLOSE attention.

The question CNN reporter Dana Bash asked was:

“So, you support taxpayer money or public funding for abortion IN SOME CASES?"

Those "some cases" to which she is referring, alludes to the Hyde Amendment which prohibits federal funding of abortion...except in cases of rape, incest or when the pregnant woman's life is at risk.

Giuliani, just like all of his competition for the GOP nomination, does NOT support changing the Hyde Amendment.

What's more newsworthy, but hasn't garnered any significant media attention is the fact that, on Thursday, Rudy Giuliani voiced his support for legislation in the South Carolina legislature that would make the Palmetto State the first in the nation to make it mandatory for any woman interested in having an abortion to be forced to view an ultrasound of the developing fetus she expresses a desire to abort, and certify in writing that she saw it. Such a belief should put to rest any lingering doubt whether Rudy personally opposes abortion. It is becoming quite evident that he is not paying lip service to the GOP base when he says he would advocate against it and would strongly advise pregnant women to consider adoption.

"The ultrasound proposal currently under consideration...is a good example of a matter best left to the states to decide," said Elliott Bundy, a spokesman for former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani.

Giuliani, himself, said states should make the call on such issues. "The Legislature of South Carolina should make its decision about that." He also said states should make the decision whether to use public money for abortions.

Rudy has as much chance of becoming President as I do.

None.

This stance alone costs him. There are others that conservatives will not buy into as well.

Have to admire the honesty though. Too bad the Dems hide their true agenda and ideology.

Rudy is going to be judged as being in favor of the law he supported in New York State, which is one of the most liberal abortion laws in the world, not just the United States. That means that his support for laws such as South Carolina's is minimal. Push comes to shove, he will not stand with the Pro-life people.

Paying for abortions for poor women saves us more than it costs--since ultimately we have to pay her labor and delivery costs, if she keeps the pregnancy because she can't afford an abortion.

The question is, how much extra taxes are we willing to pay for the costs of right-to-life policy?

He's done. He will never make it out of the primaries.ROTFLMGAO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

This matter of abortion has never really been about rape, incest, or the life of the mother. It is likewise not about pregnancies resulting from non-consensual sex. These qualifiers are stalking horses, and the real thrust of the pro-abortion movement has, from the beginning, been about the ending, at whim or not, and near term or not, of inconvenient pregnancies. The left and their pro-abortion cadres use the qualifiers to stunt the debate and control its terms. But the fact is that most pregnancies that are candidates for termination through abortion do not result from rape or incest, and the life of the mother is hardly ever at risk. They really want abortion to be free to all, at any point, and for any and all reasons. To the extent that they deny this, they lie. They do the same thing with the dreaded and abominable "partial birth" variety of the procedure when they claim that it shouldn't be proscribed because hardly any abortions are of the "partial birth" variety anyway. The procedure itself is what should be at issue, not the motivations for it. But they lie, and they do so to co-opt reason and to change the terms of the debate.

betsybounds,

Rudy Giuliani does NOT support public funding of abortions in, what you, yourself, recognize are the overwhelming majority of cases (inconvenient pregnancies). That's the fact that's being falsely characterized by those already opposed to Giuliani because of his other socially liberal positions...gun control, civil unions for gays, embryonic stem cell research, lenient on immigration...

Since when is a comment pointing out that Carroll is a professional hack Catholic apologist deemed needing of deletion from your site? The man is far from objective, and his opinions should be clearly labeled as being pre-approved by our own soulless Archbishop.

Aron:

Excuse me. I don't think I mentioned Mr. Giuliani or his support of public funding for abortions, or his lack thereof. In the event, I think the thrust of what Mr. Giuliani said--and has since spun away from into some unclear direction--was that if obtaining an abortion is a constitutional right, then the funding of abortions is a government obligation. I point this out as at least a potential Giuliani supporter--I have considered that, up until this point and to the extent that it matters, my vote is his to lose. I have largely considered that it is mostly moot what position a presidential candidate holds regarding abortions, since their granting is not in any case an executive function. I was instead commenting on the smoke pro-abortion people like to blow surrounding the issue, especially as it pertains to motive for the act.

I don't give the proverbial rat's rear about his position on abortion, as long as his position is consistent. But ever since the Bernard Kerik fiasco several years ago, I've had serious doubts about whether he is really presidental material. The last thing we need is to elect another incompetent boob like Bush in 2008. I need an awful lot of convincing that Rudy is up to the job of being president.

[url=http://seenplace.info/05/transcend-512mb.htm]transcend 512mb[/url]

POST A COMMENT

• Carroll: Slippery holiday slope
• Carroll: Parental gall
• Carroll: Clearing the air
• Carroll: Blather about business
• Carroll: The 'Truthers' cult
• Carroll: Numbers game
• Carroll: Brownouts by design
• Carroll: Poor judgment