believe him or doubt him, Romney’s position on abortion is now publicly, completely, comprehensively pro-life across the board. Romney is unequivocal. Even if he’s only “pandering” to the base of the Republican party, he’s good and stuck now. From Supreme Court nominations, to the arguments his solicitor general would make in abortion cases before the Court, to the Mexico City policy, to the Hyde Amendment, to partial-birth abortion, to embryonic stem-cell research, to cloning, to euthanasia and assisted suicide — Mitt’s laid down his marker, and effectively invited pro-lifers to hold him to right-to-life positions. On any related issues on which he has not publicly spoken, or which may emerge in future, we can infer what a President Romney would say and do as consistent with a set of declared principles, and hold him to a standard he has himself laid down.Not so Hizzoner the Mayor, Franck argues --he cites specific evidence that shows Giuliani's been all over the map on social questions, and makes the case that what he now says as a sop to the social C's is quite flimsy, and must be parsed. E.g.:
The mayor has also pledged in his presidential campaign that he will not oppose the continued existence of the Hyde Amendment, which bars the use of federal Medicaid funds to pay for abortions. In the past he had opposed this restriction, but in May he offered a tepid “It works, there is no reason to change it.” Lately he is trying to sound more like he means it by saying he would oppose Hyde’s “repeal,” yet this assurance is pretty watery. The Hyde Amendment is annually attached to the appropriations bill for Health and Human Services, or to continuing resolutions to fund the government. It’s not a statutory proscription embedded in the U.S. Code that would need to be positively repealed in a bill President Giuliani could neatly veto. The death of the Hyde Amendment could come any year that a liberal Congress simply leaves it out of its funding measures. Would President Giuliani really veto a major appropriations bill — or a continuing resolution funding the whole federal government — over the absence of this restriction? Does anyone believe the answer to this is “yes”?Good point. I have to point out one error Franck makes, though, and the fact that he makes it I find telling. Franck says Mitt Romney opposes embryonic stem cell research, which he does not. Romney opposes cloning and the creation of embryos for the sole purpose of research, but he supports embryonic stem cell research. Romney tries to hide this --as he did in his speech to the values voters summit-- by saying he opposes "embryonic cloning." Which I guess is technically correct, but it smacks to me of trying to fool us into thinking he opposes ESCR when he doesn't --and judging by Franck's error, it's working.
It is that kind of thing (and being a hunter "all his life") that makes me think Romney's words no less than Giuliani's must be parsed on all the social questions. Do I think Mitt Romney will veto a major appropriations bill just because the Hyde amendment's not there? Not for a second. I can be convinced -- I have no magisterium on these questions yet-- but right now, no, I don't.
