As the presidential race continues to sort itself out – even without the casting of a single ballot – the pro-Life community is coming to face a rather stark set of circumstances. The specific terror comes in the form of Rudy Giuliani as the potential Republican nominee.

There are some of us who believe that that development would likely be a development of greater consequence than the election of Democrat Hillary Clinton. His recent speech at the Federalist Society, designed to calm our fears, did more to provoke alarm than his personal donations to Planned Parenthood.

We point readers to a profoundly interesting and thoughtful article which appears in the most recent issue of First Things. Professor Hadley Arkes, one of the great philosophers behind the modern pro-Life movement, offers an important analysis of the fallout likely from Giuliani’s nomination, or even election:

“The nomination and election of Rudy Giuliani would mark the end of the Republican Party as the pro-Life party in our politics. And that would be the case regardless of whether pro-Lifers respond to his nomination by refusing to vote for Giuliani, forming a third party, or folding themselves into a coalition that succeeds in electing Giuliani.”

In my opinion, Giuliani’s nomination would almost certainly guarantee Hillary’s election, but the damage to the Republican Party in nominating such a man would have longer term consequences. It is almost inconceivable that Giuliani could run next fall on the Party’s current platform. His differences with the GOP’s “core principles” are simply too numerous and deep to be ignored. The dissonance would simply make him too vulnerable to attack in a tough campaign. And certainly if Rudy has the votes at the National Convention to win the nomination – he will have the troops necessary to rewrite the platform.

And why does that matter? Again we turn to Professor Arkes:

“Since the days of Ronald Reagan, the Republican Party has become, ever more clearly, the pro-Life party in our politics. And, just as clearly, the ‘right to abortion’, with its theme of sexual liberation, has become the central peg on which the interests of the Democratic Party have been arranged. Under these conditions, the pro-Life movement has become bound up inescapably with the fate of the Republican Party.”

In dismissing Giuliani’s claim that pro-Lifers can support him because he would appoint judges like Samuel Alito, Arkes reaches back to the last time America was driven to confront such a monumental moral question. He compares Giuliani’s preference for “personal choice” on abortion to Stephen Douglas’ position on slavery. Lincoln pinned Douglas to the wall when he charged that Douglas’ “states rights” position was really an attempt to “blow out the moral lights” by teaching a policy of “indifference”. In other words, slavery was simply not that important, certainly not important enough for Congress and presidential candidates to trifle with. All of this was possible because Douglas studiously refused to reach a moral conclusion about the slavery of other human beings.

In that, Giuliani’s position is eerily similar to that proffered by Fred Thompson – notwithstanding the latter’s endorsement by “National Right to Life”. Mr. Thompson has stated that he opposes the Party’s platform in its call for a Human Life Amendment – which would guarantee the right to life for every child in America. Instead, his brand of politics would leave it to the local communities and states to determine where, how and if personhood was conferred upon the “biological entity” somehow growing within the mother’s womb.

Professor Arkes concludes by arguing that Mitt Romney remains the candidate best positioned to stop Giuliani. Perhaps. But be certain that Giuliani’s nomination would mean a major redefinition of the Republican Party. And perhaps that is not all bad for the pro-Life movement. But certainly it would take many years to reorganize a competitive political structure capable of electing policy makers.

The Arkes article should be read and pondered by any person seriously concerned with the lives of innocents fighting for survival in hostile wombs held within an all-too-hostile culture.

We urge you to read the article for yourself: http://www.firstthings.com/article.php3?id_article=6085