by Mark Silva
Candidates who oppose abortion often have been held to the question of whether or not they might make the issue a "litmus test'' for their appointments of federal judges.
Former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani, who favors abortion rights for women, faces the same question in his campaign for the Republican Party's presidential nomination in 2008.
Campaigning in Council Bluffs, Iowa, on Wednesday, Giuliani said he would not make a judicial nominee's stance on the landmark Supreme Court ruling of Roe v Wade a litmus test.
In the conservative region of western Iowa, where Giuliani's philosophy runs counter to legions of Republican voters, the candidate pledged to appoint judges who strictly interpret the Constitution on gun rights and other issues. He never mentioned abortion during his address to about 100 people at a junior high school, but reporters pressed him on it afterward.
"Abortion is not a litmus test. Roe v. Wade is not a litmus test,'' Giuliani said. "No particular case is a litmus test. That's not the way to appoint Supreme Court justices or any judge.''
Roe v. Wade is the 1973 ruling establishing a constitutional right to abortion.
Giuliani favors abortion rights though he has said he personally opposes the procedure.
He told reporters that any candidate for a federal judgeship would refuse to decide ahead of time on future abortion rulings. "Otherwise, why have legal arguments if you're not going to give judges a chance to change their mind," Giuliani said.
Noting that he had faced no questions about abortion during his campaign appearance, he added: "I think Roe against Wade is an issue. It is not the only issue.''
The Associated Press contributed to this report.
• 
• 
• 
Comments
There IS a party that makes abortion a "litmus test" for judicial candidates.
The Democrats.
Posted by: Bruce | July 19, 2007 10:44 AM
This comes down to people wanting to force their ideology and opinon on others and nothing more, to take peoples rights away becuase you dont like it is ridiculous and the people that make this an issue are truly what is wrong with america today and why we dont solve are real problems, trade deficits, budgets, schools system and the runaway corporate greed that is truly making america a hard place to live. Screw religion, it get in the way of reality and common sense logic.
Posted by: GOFAST | July 19, 2007 11:31 AM
Whether or not Giuliani is nominated and perhaps elected, whichever Republican is elected will see the overturn of Roe. But the overturn of that decision does not mean that abortion automatically becomes illegal, because only a constitutional amendment can do that.
Posted by: C. Porter | July 19, 2007 12:39 PM
As I was trying to say, if the last post I was trying to put through didn't go through, whether or not Giuliani gets in for president, Roe will be overturned. I know that a constructionist judge's job is to interpret good law and overturn bad law and science. Roe, I'm glad to say, will eventually be overturned, but only a constitutional amendment will make abortion illegal in this country. After Roe, please, leave abortion to the states, not the federal courts.
Posted by: Anonymous | July 19, 2007 12:43 PM
Republicans would be wise to be careful what they wish for in attempting to overturn Roe v Wade. Its a great campaign issue for Republicans now, but think about the resulting policy if indeed abortion is tossed back to the States:
Roe is overturned. The red states immediately ban abortion across the board. Women in those states start to feel rather uneasy now that their GOP overlords have managed to save every woman from themself. Abortion remains legal in the blue states. Health care, already the least effective in the red states, declines further. More children are born out of wedlock. More unwanted children= higher crime= more money for jails and less for education and other state priorities. The gaps between the blue states and the red on education, health, wealth, etc continue to expand.
End result: the overturning of Roe v Wade will be a net positive to Democrats.
Posted by: Politics versus Policy | July 19, 2007 1:13 PM
Okay, Rudy, for being so perfect write a thousand time...
"I will choose justices in the mold of Thomas and Scalia."
"I will choose justices in the mold of Thomas and Scalia."
"I will choose justices in the mold of Thomas and Scalia."
End of story
Posted by: GW | July 19, 2007 1:23 PM
According to the Mark Silva article, the Iowa Republican crowd didn't "press" Giuliani on abortion. Instead, the media did, showing once again the media's utter disconnect from what the average Republican thinks.
Posted by: Bruce | July 19, 2007 1:52 PM
Rudy thinks all of America thinks like the city of New York.
Wrong.
Pick a side & stick to it. Sitting on the fence makes him just like every other politician.
Can't have it both ways, Rudy.
Posted by: Rey Flores | July 19, 2007 2:28 PM
Hey Rey,
What happened with your union staff organizing campaign? Which SEIU local? What happened to the ULP?
Posted by: Doug Zook | July 19, 2007 4:38 PM
... whichever Republican is elected will see the overturn of Roe."
*****
Posted by: C. Porter | July 19, 2007 12:39 PM
This is just hysteria, plain and simple.
Lest we forget, Justice Harry Blackmun, who wrote the majority opinion in Roe, was a Republican. That decision has survived already for twenty four years through five different Republican administrations - despite an increasing number of conservative justices on the Supreme Court.
Oh, and lets not forget that the current Supreme Court upheld Roe while (erroneously) upholding the constitutionality of the federal law banning partial birth abortions. The Court didn't say the law was constitutional because Roe is bad law. It said the law was constitutional because it didn't offend the basic holding of Roe.
So what exactly was it, again, that makes you think the next Republican President can or will have Roe overturned?
Posted by: John W. | July 19, 2007 5:24 PM
GOFAST,
You want to keep the right to abortion,
...then be ready to abandon the right of the mother to sue for child support. She made the choice to bring the child into the world, not the man.
.... then be ready to legalize prostitution and drug use. If it's a woman's (or man's) body to choose to do with it as they please, then abolish those laws.
.... then be ready to file only one count of homicide against a defendant when a pregnant woman is murdered.
.... then abandon the right to prosecute a woman who does harm to her fetus by participating in excessive drug and/or achohol use.
Didn't mention religion once.
Posted by: Terry | July 19, 2007 10:15 PM
Correction: Roe v. Wade is already thirty four years old. My life must have ended in 1997. [Sigh.]
Posted by: John W. | July 19, 2007 11:36 PM
We can count on him, just look at his other choices-
Penn campaign chairman busted for bribery
La campaign chairman confesses to prostitution
SC campaign chairman arrested for distrib cocaine
His close friend, biz partner, and ex-NYC police chief is doing time for public corruption
And on the issues, wow, Rudy is the conservative's conservative.
Anti-trad family, pro-abortion, disposable wives, favors special legal status for gays
Anti-soveriegnty, pro-amnesty, pro-Can-Am-Mex merger, member of cartel that is seizing 100s of thousands of sq miles of land for the NAFTA super tollway that is to be owned by a foreign (Spanish) corp called Cintas.
Foreign policy experience-- zilch.
No doubt he will use all of the skills he has shown to pick good conservative judges. No doubt.
Posted by: blady | July 19, 2007 11:38 PM