Deal W. Hudson

Pope Gets Very Political in Spain

Deal Hudson

On Sunday Pope Benedict XVI addressed via video screen 1.5 million people gathered together in Madrid to protest the pro-abortion, pro-gay marriage policies of the present socialist government.

“Founded in the indissoluble union between man and woman, it is the place in which human life is sheltered and protected from its beginning until its natural end,” Pope Benedict said.

Speakers attacked the government of Prime Minister José Luis Rodríguez Zapatero, who has a lead of two percentage points in polls over the strongly Roman Catholic and conservative Popular Party. The elections are on March 9.

I wonder if the Pope would ever do this for a group in the United States, say, the upcoming annual March for Life on January 22?

Has Nellie Gray and the other organizers ever asked a Pope to speak?  I don't know.

The McMo(mentum)

Marc Nadeau

I'm presently in Israel with my family.  We decided to spend the Holidays in the Holy Land, of all places.  I may well come back to you later with some observations about the situation of the Christians in the Holy Land...  For the moment, I prefer returning to one of my favorite topics these days: John McCain and the McMo(mentum).

Last Friday (December 21st), I visited the McCain HQ in Manchester New Hampshire.  On the way in, I observed the Tancredo campaign folding their tent.  What I saw in the McCain camp was quite the contrary - a highly energized and mobilized group who were working hard to make sure that the McMo(mentum) will happen next January 8th.

Before heading to the HQ, I found a copy of the day's USA Today at my door.  A very interesting poll was published in it that revealed that the gap between Romney and McCain melted from 16 points at the beginning of December to 7 points last week.  Clearly, there is an undeniable surge of the McMo(mentum) in New Hampshire.  This phenomenon also proves that Romney's force was the other's weaknesses.  Not necessarily a good way to carry the presidency, you'll agree with me.  Go ask John Kerry if you doubt my point.  Now that I come to think more about it, I see lots of parallels between Romney and Kerry - notably the fact both will have thought that they deserved the presidency.

I totally agree with what Marjorie wrote some time ago to the effect that some positions of the Senator from Arizona make some people uncomfortable (i.e. immigration and campaign finance).  I personally do not support all the positions espoused by the war hero.  But that does not make McCain less electable or attractive.  If I have a choice between the phony Catholicism of Giuliani, the house of waffles of Romney, the half-baked Huckabee cake or the independent streak of McCain, I'll pick the fourth anytime. 

This reminds me of an excellent book I recently devoured, The Conservative Ascendancy, in which Donald T. Critchlow quotes Ronald Reagan as saying that "Now we don't get everything we want and yes we have to compromise to get 75 or 80 percent of our program. We try to see that the 75 or 80 percent is more than worth the compromise we have to accept." (page 187).  Coming from the Gipper, the comment says and means it all.

We may not agree with everything that McCain says or stands for, but one thing is certain: he's the one who can keep the White House for the GOP come next November - and for many reasons.

One of those reasons is the Catholic factor.  While doing a little research for this post, I found a very insightful article about the Catholic Vote in 2004 race for the White House.  In this piece, one can read that "in Ohio, Bush received 55 percent of the Catholic vote compared to 50 percent in 2000. That translates into 172,000 more Catholic votes in the Bush column than in 2000. Bush's margin of victory in Ohio was 136,000.  […]  The story was the same in Florida where Bush took 57 percent of the Catholic vote compared to 52 percent last election. That means that Bush received about 400,000 new Catholic votes this years. He won Florida by about 377,000 votes."

Where do I go with this?  The 2008 presidential race will be hotly contested and close.  Every vote, every groups, will count.  The Catholic vote will be of tremendous importance for whoever wants to succeeds President Bush in the Oval Office.  In the Republican field, who can win the hearts and votes of the Catholics?  Romney - forget it.  Thompson - I don't want to shoot at an ambulance.  Giuliani - let me doubt it.  Huckabee - may I suggest you ask Senator Brownback what he thinks about it.  That leaves McCain, who is way better positioned to succeed where the others could only scramble.  Not by default, but because he can efficiently represent what they are and what they seek in the American public sphere.

So, Marjorie, for all these reasons, I accept your counter-offer for betting two bottles of Scotch about the outcome of the race in the GOP.  Next January 3rd and 8th, I'll still be in the Holy Land, but I'll keep a close watch of what will happen in Iowa and New Hampshire.  Keep the bottles in a safe place, Marjorie, it'll be my privilege to share it with you next summer.  We'll then be able to cheer the McMo(mentum)...

In the meantime, all the very best for the Holidays to all of you!

The Problem with Mitt Romney's Pro-Life Conversion

Deal Hudson

The Problem with Mitt Romney's Pro-Life Conversion

The Window for December 27, 2007

Mitt Romney, by his own admission, was a pro-abortion governor of Massachusetts. That changed on November 8, 2004 in his second term during a conversation with Dr. Douglas Melton from the Harvard Stem Cell Institute.

 

According to Romney, Dr. Melton dismissed the "moral issue" of cloning embryos for stem cells "because we kill the embryos after 14 days." (Melton disputes Romney's account.)

 

"It hit me very hard that we had so cheapened the value of human life in a Roe v. Wade environment that it was important to stand for the dignity of human life," Romney said. From that moment of conversion, Gov. Romney declared himself pro-life and an opponent of embryonic stem cell research. I join those who applaud Romney's new direction and agree that his promises are the right ones.

 

But there is a lingering problem: Romney is opposed only to creating clones for stem cell research; he is not opposed to using "discarded" frozen embryos. These frozen embryos have been the primary source of embryonic tissue for stem cell research. How can you declare yourself opposed to this research when you are not opposed to the way it is actually carried out?

 

Romney's position became even more confusing during his December 10th interview on CBS with Katie Couric. She asked Romney whether he agreed with using discarded frozen embryos for stem cells.

 

Romney replied:

 

Yes, those embryos are commonly referred to as surplus embryos from in-vitro fertilization. Those embryos, I hope, could be available for adoption for people who would like to adopt embryos. But if a parent decides they would want to donate one of those embryos for purposes of research, in my view, that's acceptable. It should not be made against the law.

My question is this: How can you consider a frozen embryo a moral entity capable of being adopted, while at the same time support the scientist who wants to cut the embryonic being into pieces? Even more, if Romney's conversion was about the "cheapened value of human life," how can he abide the thought of a parent donating "one of those embryos" to be destroyed?

 

Peter G. Flaherty, Romney's deputy campaign manager, has made it clear the governor is opposed to using federal funds on frozen embryo research, calling it "ethically troublesome."

 

As the primary in Iowa approaches, many Iowa conservatives have still not made up their minds. Gov. Mike Huckabee has surged because he became the candidate about whom social conservatives had the fewest doubts. Romney's well-oiled campaign -- the best of any candidate, in my opinion -- was never able to overcome the lingering doubts created by his pro-abortion past and the glaring inconsistency of his position on embryonic stem cells.

 

Romney is not the first politician who tripped over this issue. Back in the summer of 2005, Sen. Bill Frist (R-TN) appeared to be the frontrunner for the GOP presidential nomination until he declared his support for expanded federal funding for research on frozen embryos. When Frist refused to recant or clarify his position, his presidential aspirations came to a swift end. Frist's meltdown came on the heels of the first showdown between the Bush White House and his pro-life supporters. The issue, again, was embryonic stem cells.

 

Jay P. Lefkowicz, who was domestic policy adviser at the time, describes in Commentary the huge effort made by Bush and his staff to make a decision on federal funding for research. Bush's decision to limit funding to the existing stem cell lines pleased very few, though the pro-life message of his TV appearance softened the blow to the pro-lifers.

 

Romney now inhabits a similar political space: His overall pro-life message is pleasing to many voters, but they're still looking for a safer bet.

 

Romney's speech on religion, given at Texas A&M on December 6, was clearly an attempt to calm the fears of his social conservative base, not only about his religion but also his overall commitment to conservative values. Thus far, the former governor of Massachusetts has not received the bump in the polls his campaign hoped to see after the widely-covered speech. More helpful to Romney's standing was the endorsement by National Review. The NR editors nevertheless acknowledged the chinks in Romney's pro-life armor in their carefully-worded statement of endorsement:

 

He [Romney] may not have thought deeply about the political dimensions of social issues until, as governor, he was confronted with the cutting edge of social liberalism.

 

It's clear from his convoluted statements on embryonic stem cells that Romney's thoughts on this issue are still far from coherent and consistent.

 

For many grassroots conservatives, and those from the Religious Right, Romney may be too big of a stretch, especially when they -- at least, for now -- identify so closely with the preacher from Hope, Arkansas.

Bob Novak on John McCain

Deal Hudson

Just three weeks ago Bob Novak told me that John McCain had "kicked the elephant one too many times." In his column this morning, Novak predicts McCain may be the "last man standing" in the GOP presidential race.

The real wildcard in this present calculus is the sudden popularity of Mike Huckabee.  If you saw him in his orange hunting outfit yesterday you realize in how many ways he's not ready for prime time. 

When I saw that orange hunting cap pulled down tight over his eyebrows, my first thought was Elmer Fudd.

Speaking of cartoons, I was delighted yesterday when I went to see the sequel to "National Treasure" that Looney Tunes is still sending its product to the big screen.  This new Daffy Duck was a brilliant send-up of our addiction to home theater. 

It felt good to have a hearty laugh at my own expense.

Christmas in Bethlehem

Deal Hudson

The news from Bethlehem this Christmas has been the best in many years. Pilgrims have started to return, which means the local economy is getting a much-needed infusion of cash. 

Whether this continues depends, of course, on the West Bank area remaining calm, which is not likely. 

The upcoming visit of President Bush to the region in early January may flush out some of the bad guys who want to capitalize on the bulked-up media presence.

Another factor in the president's trip will be the war of words between Patriarch Michel Sabbah and the Israeli government over whether Israel can be officially recognized as a Jewish state. Sabbah says such a designation is an affront to the three great religions whose historical roots are in this land.

I hope that President Bush will nip this nonsense in the bud -- Israel is a secular state and everybody knows it. It has been secular from the very beginning. 

Ken Woodward, the Newsweek journalist, just published what is the best summary of the situation in Bethlehem that I have seen.

The Plight of Bethlehem
Why Christians can't visit the holy shrines in Jerusalem.

BY KENNETH L. WOODWARD
Monday, December 24, 2007 12:01 a.m.

A mere nine kilometers separates Bethlehem, where Jesus was born, from Jerusalem, where he was crucified, died and was buried. Pilgrims can easily visit both the Church of the Nativity and the Church of the Holy Sepulcher in half a day--as long as they are not Palestinian Christians. Israel's security wall, its restrictive exit permit system, roadblocks and military checkpoints now make it impossible for most Holy Land Christians to visit the shrines that, for all Christians, make the Holy Land holy.

Like East Jerusalem, Bethlehem is part of the West Bank, not the State of Israel. Temporary exit visas to go from one to the other to worship--or see a doctor or even visit relatives--are hard to come by, of brief duration even when granted, and always subject to the whims of Israeli soldiers.

The squeeze is economic as well as religious. Few producers in Bethlehem can get their goods to markets in Jerusalem. Fewer buyers can get to Bethlehem to sustain its markets. Tourism, a huge segment of the city's economy, is up since 2004, but it is still far from robust.

When last I was in Bethlehem, in 2000, an average of more than 91,000 tourists visited the city monthly. This year, the average is half that number. When buses do arrive, tourists are routinely whisked in and out without time to shop. As a consequence, nearly 100 hotels and restaurants have closed since my last visit. More than 250 workshops that made olive wood crèches, mother-of-pearl crosses and other religious souvenirs have disappeared too. And so, of course, have many of the stores that sold them. In sum, where Bethlehem once enjoyed one of the lowest urban unemployment rates in the Holy Land, it now has one of the highest--by some estimates as much as 60%.

Recently on a visit, former British prime minister Tony Blair tried to boost tourism to Bethlehem, even though his own country, like the U.S., discourages its citizens from traveling there. He also called on Israel, which bans its own citizens from traveling to the West Bank, to ease its restrictions.

Israel, of course, must protect its security. But it cannot blame the Christians' dire circumstances on the second intifada: Muslims are suffering just as much as the tiny Christian minority. Indeed, Bethlehem has historically been one place where Muslim-Christian relations have been remarkably friendly. Now, however, urban Bethlehem finds itself encircled by Israeli settlements, and where the settlers go, there follows the concrete wall, topped in places by razor wire and snipers' towers.

For example, the wall is being completed around Beit Jala, separating this Christian village from 70% of its lands, which are mostly owned by Christian families. Some of the families are attempting to contest the confiscations in court, but construction--and the confiscation--goes on.

In Bethlehem itself, the wall severs the city from nearly three-fourths of its western villages' remaining agricultural lands, as well as water resources that have served the region since Roman times. This area contains much of Bethlehem's remaining room for development and its nature reserve, where city dwellers took their children.

From the Church of the Nativity, Christians can also look out on Har Homa ("Wall Mountain"), a verdant Jewish settlement on a hillside that was formerly Christian land. Since the Annapolis, Md., meeting just a few weeks ago, the Israelis have approved construction on 300 additional homes--despite an official complaint from U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice--that further constrict the city's population.

Unfortunately, many Christians in the Holy Land have no legal recourse to this absorption of their lands and property. As part of the 1993 treaty between Israel and the Vatican, by which the Holy See officially recognized the State of Israel, Israel was to codify the rights of Christian churches and institutions as part of a comprehensive agreement. But because of disputes over taxation of churches and related issues, the Knesset has yet to act. The Franciscans, the Sisters of Charity and other religious groups both Roman Catholic and Greek Orthodox have had property confiscated and Christian housing destroyed.

Israel cannot afford to lose the Palestinian Christians: They have long represented a moderating force. A century ago, they accounted for 25% or more of the Holy Land population. Today, they represent less than 1.5%. Since 2000, Bethlehem alone has lost 10% of its Christian population.

Palestinian Christians regard their ancestors as the first Christians, and no doubt some of them were. They call themselves the "living stones" of Biblical Christianity, preserving ancient communities and traditions in the midst of repeated armed conflicts. They deserve to keep their land and work for "peace on earth, goodwill toward men."

In this crisis they deserve the support of all Americans, not just Christians. And not just at Christmas.
Mr. Woodward is a contributing editor at Newsweek.

Copyright © 2007 Dow Jones & Company, Inc. All Rights Reserved.

The Little Drummer Boy

Marjorie Campbell, marjoriecampbell.com

I saw Bing Crosby and David Bowie sing this version of The Little Drummer Boy-Peace on Earth on Mr. Crosby's 1977 Christmas special.  I was so moved by the sound of these two very different men seeking peace in Christ that the memory remains one of my favorite images of hope and harmony.  Merry Christmas - and peace in Christ on earth - to all.  (If the YouTube link does not work, try here or http://youtube.com/watch?v=c9KpNznVLlY).

">

Post Continues

Marjorie Campbell, marjorie@marjoriecampbell.com

On December 6,  I posted the letter of Chaunie Shaelens to Serrin Foster of Feminists for Life about her unplanned pregnancy and the reaction she received at her student health center.  Chaunie has sent another letter which I post here, as she bravely shares her unexpected  her journey - in all its humanity. 

Dear Serrin,  

A week after I discovered I was pregnant, I went to meet with our club's advisor. After my experience at the campus Health Center, I decided I needed to address the issue of how our school responds to pregnant women. I spoke with my club advisor, and together we made an appointment with the Director of Health Services to discuss what had happened and broach the issue of bringing the proper resources to campus.

I was incredibly nervous about the meeting. It's one thing to stand in front of fellow students and hand out pamphlets. It's another to bring your concerns to those in your administration who have the power to make change. The stakes were heightened by the fact that the Director's decisions were directly impacting my decisions about how I would proceed in my education, my work, and my pregnancy—and how it would affect other women facing similar decisions.

My advisor and I walked into the office of the Director of Health Services for our meeting. Much to my dismay, I discovered that the Director of Health Services was actually the nurse practitioner that had done my pregnancy test. I could feel my face turning red from embarrassment, and I steeled my spine to address the issues we had come to talk about. So, I began one of the hardest conversations of my life.

The Director remembered me and told me how busy she was that day, that she was rushed because I was a walk-in. She told me that I should have made an appointment, rather than just drop in.

I told her that I didn't know you could schedule an unplanned pregnancy.

I remember pacing the hallways of school for an hour before I worked up the nerve to go into Health Services that day. It was hard enough to walk in, let alone actually call and schedule an appointment! I probably never would have kept the appointment. She should have recognized the courage it takes for a woman to reach out for help. The fact that I walked in for help should have been, for her, an opportunity, not an inconvenience.

The Director told me that she had felt badly about what happened. She said she was new to her position and she didn't have much support herself. Though she was defensive at first, the more we discussed my experience, the more she seemed to take my message to heart.

Put simply, the Director of Health Services had no resources to offer me.

At the end of the meeting, the Director was in complete agreement that something needed to change and resources needed to be made available for other women like me!

I was thrilled that she was so open to working together, and surprised that I had made a difference. We scheduled a follow up meeting with her boss to continue up the chain of command, working for resources and support for pregnant and parenting students.

I'll write again soon to update you on my journey! Meanwhile, I encourage you and others at Feminists for Life to continue your work for pregnant and parenting students like me.

For women,

Chaunie Saelens
Former Feminists for Life Intern
President of campus Students for Life

P.S. Please feel free to forward this on to others.

Bishop Says Catholic Schools Not the First Priority

Deal Hudson

Bishop Says Catholics Not the First Priority

The Window for December 21, 2007

Bishops are closing Catholic schools all over the country because they can no longer afford them. But this is the story of one school being closed that doesn't cost the bishops a penny.

 

Seventy-five-year-old St. Augustine Catholic School is the only Catholic school in Ocean City, New Jersey. Supported by three local parishes, St. Augustine's serves 112 students and is funded completely by the local parishes, parents, and community supporters.

Yet on November 29, Bishop Joseph A. Galante (Camden) announced that St. Augustine's will be closed at the end of this academic year. Seven other diocesan elementary schools will be "clustered" with existing schools.

 

"We do this, and we do it now, because we must," Galante wrote in a statement. "With fewer students, the school has become a financial drain on local parishes," he said.

 

St. Augustine's receives 25 percent of these parishes' budgets, according to Andrew Walton, director of communications for the Camden diocese.

 

"With 4,000 families in these parishes and only 112 students it's a matter of justice in the use of resources," explained Walton.

 

As reported in the Philadephia Inquirer, Bishop Galante's new plan means diocesan schools will not be allowed to support themselves. Parishes will send a percentage of their budget to a central fund, which will be distributed by the bishop to all the schools in the diocese.

 

But Harry Vanderslice and parents from all three parishes are fighting to keep the school open. Vanderslice attended St. Augustine's, as do his children. "Why should our parish money supporting St. Augustine's be given to the diocese so that it can support different schools? This is going to be a huge blow to the Catholic community in Ocean City."

 

The impact predicted by Vanderslice on the three parishes supporting St. Augustine's is ironic. The reorganization of the schools is part of Bishop Galante's larger plan to increase the vitality of parish life, and adult spiritual formation in particular.

 

I asked Walton whether he agreed that Catholic schools often increase the number of active, participating parents and children in parishes. "Parishes should give vitality to Catholic schools and not vice versa," said Walton. "If parents are sending their children to Catholic schools and not attending Mass themselves, they are sending a terrible message."

 

When I asked him whether educating children in their faith shouldn't be the top priority of the parishes, he said, "No, Bishop Galante has met with every parish in this diocese and built a consensus that parish life itself must be reinvigorated."

 

Vanderslice and his ad hoc committee to save St. Augustine's met with Bishop Galante on December 18. They presented their argument for keeping the school open: In addition to financial self-sufficiency, they argued that parents whose children are presently enrolled in St. Augustine's would very likely enroll them in public school.

 

Galante responded, saying, "I am concerned about the faith of the parents."

 

Was the bishop implying that parents who send their children to public schools have a defective faith? Walton countered, "Not at all; the bishop simply wants to shift the resources of the diocese toward strengthening parish life, which means the spiritual formation of adults as well as children."

 

At the end of the meeting, Bishop Galante agreed to reconsider the decision to close St. Augustine's.

 

If St. Augustine's is closed, the students would have the option of attending St. Joseph's School, three miles away and off the island where Ocean City is located. But there aren't enough slots at St. Joseph's to take all the students from Ocean City. Another Catholic school, Bishop McHugh, has the room, but it's 20 miles away -- a 90-minute drive in traffic, according to Vanderslice. Ocean City itself is a small, tightly knit community of just over 16,000 local inhabitants (that number swells to 150,000 on summer weekends).

 

Vanderslice is hoping for a change of heart. Bishop Galante has already made an exception to his mandate: A few days after the news about school closings, Bishop Galante announced that five schools in the inner city of Camden and Pennsauken would not be closed, in spite of the cost and the low number of students. Most of the operating costs would have to be raised from donors, inside and outside of the diocese. According to the Post-Courier, all the diocese's urban schools will remain open, in spite of an 11 percent drop in enrollment since 2001.

 

Galante explained his decision at a press conference on Thursday. "We want to be able to do all that we can to educate the young people in the city," he said. "They deserve as much of an opportunity to better their lives as any of our other young people do throughout the diocese."

 

In other words, provision is being made for inner-city children so they can attend Catholic schools in their neighborhoods, but not the children of Ocean City.

 

The students in these inner-city schools are predominately non-Catholic. In keeping them open, the diocese clearly affirmed its commitment to the poor. But is it justifiable to deprive Catholic students of their school due to limited finances, while making special provision for non-Catholic students in the inner city?

 

As Vanderslice told me, "The closing of St. Augustine's will reverberate through the generations of families who have gone there. Mothers, fathers, grandparents, aunts, uncles, cousins are all connected by their experience at St. Augustine's."

 

Walton admits the closing will cause emotional trauma for the Catholic community of Ocean City. But he insists the number of Catholic children in Ocean City no longer warrants the expense.

 

"Because of real estate prices, most of the families have moved off the island," said Walton. Vanderslice, who deals in real estate, says this is only partly true. "If the diocese gave us the go-ahead, we are absolutely sure we could get more students at St. Augustine's. We already get many of our students from the adjacent city of Upper Township where real estate prices are still affordable."

 

At bottom of this dispute is the clash of two visions about what lends vitality to parish life. For Vanderslice and his fellow parents, it is the maintenance of the focal point of the Catholic community, St. Augustine's School. But Bishop Galante believes radical measures are needed to shake off the lethargy he found in his 100-plus parish visits.

 

Perhaps he will find an exception should be made -- like that in urban Camden -- from changes that will destabilize the Catholic community of Ocean City for years to come.

Why the GOP Won't Nominate Rudy Giuliani

Deal Hudson

The Window for December 17, 2007

Why the GOP Won't Nominate Rudy Giuliani


Two dramas are unfolding this political season.

 

First, can Barak Obama defeat Hillary Clinton? Now that Oprah Winfrey is on his stage, evidently he can.

 

Second, will the pro-life party nominate Rudy Giuliani and break its promise to the religious and social conservatives who came into the party over the last thirty years?

 

The plotlines are not unconnected. As long as Hillary looked unbeatable, the "only-Giuliani-can-beat-Clinton" argument won adherents. The Giuliani temptation was splitting the GOP between the pragmatists -- those for whom Giuliani's promise to appoint justices "like Roberts and Alito" was sufficient -- and the principled -- those who wanted more than token assurances on the pro-life front. That split almost became a reality when Dr. James Dobson floated the idea of a third party in the face of a Giuliani nomination.

 

But now Giuliani is out of the headlines. He's well behind in all the early primary states, and his lead in Florida is dwindling. What's happened?

 

The primary reason for his loss of support is the new vulnerability of Clinton's candidacy. Hillary is over three points down in Iowa. Her husband says it will "be a miracle" if she wins there on January 3.

 

Those reluctant supporters -- those who "held their nose" -- are realizing the opponent may be Obama, or even Edwards. That eliminates the only reason pro-life voters had to support Giuliani in the primary. No one is going to turn around and start arguing Republicans need Giuliani to beat Obama or Edwards.

 

The Huckabee surge in Iowa, the strength of Romney and McCain in New Hampshire, and the continued strength of Thompson in South Carolina means that the pro-life base of the Republican Party is going to get a nominee they can support.

 

With religious and social conservative voters behind the nominee, the GOP can beat any pro-abortion candidate the Democrats put forward. As Patrick Hynes has shown, in his Defense of the Religious Right, those are 30,000,000 voters nationwide, or nearly a third of the electorate. Some will say that pro-lifers should stay behind Giuliani even if the Democratic nominee turns out to be someone other than Clinton.

 

They will say his assurances about justices and the promotion of adoption are enough. Pro-life voters do not believe him. For them, Giuliani is only a "lesser of two evils" candidate. They know that Rudy Giuliani is aggressively pro-abortion -- he supports taxpayer-funded abortions.

 

This is not ancient history. In an April 4, 2005 CNN interview, Giuliani affirmed his support for taxpayer funded abortions to keep poor women from being "deprived of their constitutional right" to have one. Giuliani's position presents a direct challenge to the Hyde Amendment, passed in 1976, which excludes abortion from the "health care" service provided to low-income people through Medicaid. (The only exceptions are rape, incest, or the life of the mother.) Giuliani could not be trusted to veto any attempt to overthrow the Hyde Amendment. He obviously does not share the conviction of the late Congressman Henry Hyde (who was buried a week ago) that taxpayers should not be funding a procedure that is morally repugnant to many of them.

 

In the same April 4th interview, Giuliani calls abortion "wrong." Yet, at the same time, he calls it a "constitutional right." Giuliani holds the odd position that an American citizen has a "constitutional right" to do something wrong.

It's clear also that Giuliani could not be trusted to reaffirm the Mexico City Policy which restricts federal money from paying for abortions overseas. Would Rudy Giuliani, if elected president, reaffirm the Mexico City Policy like George W. Bush did in the first week of his presidency?

The Giuliani campaign is surely praying for the Hillary Clinton machine to get rolling again. But it will be too late. The base of the GOP has emerged from its daze of Hillary-fear and now realizes they have pro-life candidates they can confidently nominate and who can win in 2008.

 

Contender Mitt Romney

Marjorie Campbell, marjorie@marjoriecampbell.com

After my close encounter with Mr. Guiliani last week, I welcome the surging interest in the other Republican Presidential contenders. It's all healthy. 

Deal, can we expect an interview with Mitt Romney?

Mr. Romney's family life, a sure sign of character, has always impressed - though not surprised - me.  Like so many people who count Mormons among their close friends, I have observed many families steeped in Mormon traditions enjoying a family life many people can only envy.  Why is that?  As Michael Novak commented recently when he endorsed Mitt Romney, "by their fruits you shall know them."  If you have not yet visited the Five Brother Blog - to enjoy humor and support as only sons can offer their presidential Dad - I encourage you to do so.  It's a favorite blogspot for my 18 year-old daughter who reminds me, "Mom, they are all married!"

Speaking of support, here's an interesting video follow up to the December 12 Republican debate:

">