The Bush administration has been pervaded with pro-lifers in the agencies, the Department of Justice, and even the White House staff. And yet nothing in that force of pro-lifers has produced an administration willing to take initiatives in the pro-life cause [bold mine-DL]. Nor has there been any move, emanating from the White House, to enforce even the pro-life measures that have been enacted—including, most notably, the Born-Alive Infants’ Protection Act, the act that cast the protections of the law on a child who survived an abortion. All this from a president who seems earnestly pro-life. Could we really expect more from a president who earnestly believes there is a right to abortion, with the decision finally left to the pregnant woman in collaboration with her doctor?
The cause of that “and yet…” observation is a failure to lead, or rather an unwillingness to lead on the part of the President, which is precisely the flaw that he sees in Giuliani’s position. He also makes the pragmatic electoral case for backing Romney (he believes Romney to be genuine, whereas I think Romney wouldn’t know authenticity if it ran him over in the street), reinforcing the impression that is being created by the polls and the lackluster performance of a certain ex-actor that Romney is becoming the pro-lifers’ last-ditch hope against Giuliani.
By the way, Prof. Arkes makes some excellent points, but is it really a good idea to liken the continuation of the GOP as the pro-life party to the Purges? Goodness knows we already hear enough from outraged secularists and moderates about the oppressive grip of social conservatives and their schemes for domination–comparisons like this, however innocent their intent, don’t help combat these kinds of arguments.