Rudy’s Abortion Gambit

Mike Kinsley nails it:

[G]iuliani's story line about standing firm would have been more impressive if it hadn't been accompanied by stories–apparently leaked by his staff–about how they came to settle on this strategy and how clever it is. In the first Republican presidential debate, Giuliani tried to project ambivalence (not a bad place to be on abortion), but it came out as indifference (a bad place to be). He said it was O.K. with him if the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade and O.K. with him if it didn't. So his campaign decided to go with a "standing firm" narrative instead, as if these were racks of suits from which you could choose the one you thought fit the best. If "standing firm" seems like a clever campaign strategy, then it isn't very clever, is it?

When I ran for N.Y. State Assembly, my argument for being pro-choice was that it wasn't just a matter of a woman's right to choose but also one of a doctor's right to choose. Abortion is, after all, a medical procedure, and most medical procedures are not undertaken lightly or without a fair degree of emotional distress on the part of the patient, no less the physician. This is where politics ends and the doctor-patient relationship begins.

Everyone is, or should be, "personally" opposed to abortion; it's bound to upset your weekend plans, no matter how much you may donate to NARAL or Planned Parenthood. The very thought of flushing out a human fetus — or surgically removing any part of the human body — makes us queasy. But this visceral, as it were, reaction has no bearing on the medical or moral justifications for the procedure, especially when it is performed in emergent or life-threatening conditions.

A candidate for president has no business legislating what goes on in the OR. The sooner we realize this as a nation, the better.