and what's refreshing is that although many kids between 18-29, child bearing age, are liberal on many issues, they tend to be more in favor on stricter limitations (50%) on abortion. It's a step in the right direction.
Posted on 05/17/2007 6:20:46 PM PDT by neverdem
In the first two Republican presidential debates, Rudolph W. Giuliani has addressed questions about his stand on abortion by citing figures showing that abortions declined when he was mayor of New York, while adoptions increased.
Mr. Giuliani’s implication was that he had successfully reduced abortions at least in part by encouraging adoptions.
“We should do what I did in New York, which is to try to reduce abortions as much as you can, try to increase adoptions,” he said during the debate on Tuesday night, adding that the number of adoptions in the city increased 133 percent during his years as mayor, while abortions dropped 16 percent.
A review of the figures from Mr. Giuliani’s years as mayor, from 1994 to 2001, shows that although abortions did decline and adoptions did increase, the changes mirrored national trends.
Furthermore, other factors probably contributed to those changes, calling into question Mr. Giuliani’s suggesting correlation between the two trends.
On abortions, the number decreased in New York City in Mr. Giuliani’s tenure by 18 percent, according to the Guttmacher Institute, which studies reproductive health and policy. Nationally, the number fell in that period by 13 percent.
As mayor, Mr. Giuliani continued a strong tradition of supporting abortion rights, including using public money to provide poor women with abortions, as well as contraceptive services.
JoAnn M. Smith, president and chief executive of Family Planning Advocates of New York State, attributed the decline in abortion in New York chiefly to the state’s having long been a leader in providing and expanding contraceptive services and supplies through Medicaid.
“If you’re going to make a dent in abortion rates, you have to make sure women have prevention services,” Ms. Smith said, “and New York State has made a real commitment to that. Giuliani was part of the....”
(Excerpt) Read more at nytimes.com ...
Liberals are now rallying to Rudy's defense.
I worked in New York all through those years. Rudy did many good things as mayor, but I am not aware of ONE SINGLE THING he did to cut back on abortions or increase adoptions.
If the trends were favorable, it had nothing to do with Giuliani. Nothing. I don’t remember his doing anything to actively promote abortions, but neither did he do anything to reduce their number. And he certainly was an extreme pro-abort in every public statement that he made.
Yes, I was focusing on Giuliani, but her position is also a lie. Increased use of contraceptives has NOT led to decreased numbers of abortions. Quite the opposite. The contraceptive mentality led directly to the abortion mentality. The more condoms they have passed around in the schools, the more young girls became sexually active and had abortions.
And of course Planned Parenthood makes money coming and going: For the sex ed courses, for the contraceptives, and then for the resulting abortions.
Police arrest ‘Hugging Bandit’ (200 pound "Hugging Machine")
N.Y. TRIGGERS GUN STINGS NATIONWIDE
FReepmail me if you want on or off my New York ping list.
Actually I havent gone as far as look at Rudy’s stance on Abortion. I put the war on terror as priority number one and since our borders are national security I had been waiting to see if he has come out slamming this immigration bill. So far, he has not. I may not need to look further into his stance on abortion. Looks like he may have his name crossed off my list along with MCain.
When it comes to abortion I am pro-life. I am also prochoice. I believe in the woman’s right to choose leaving her home without her face covered in a Burka. So far, Rudy appears to be failing me on both issues
New York has an abortion rate higher than that of any state but California. In 1999, there was roughly one abortion for every two live births in the state, with the ratio in New York City being closer to even. For every ten children born in New York City, eight die at the hands of abortionists.
It’s a gruesome statistic, and the numbers only get worse when the focus turns to the black population. Statewide, in 1999, slightly more black children were aborted than were born.
What does this mean in terms of raw numbers? In 1999, 132,681 unborn children died in New York abortion clinics-10 percent of the total number of abortions in the nation, and enough to populate a mid-sized American city, such as Flint, Mich. Of these abortions, 96,000 occurred in New York City, with 78,000 of them abortions of either black or Hispanic children.
Source: National Review, April 8, 2002 / Choosing Life: Crisis Pregnancy Centers and their enemies - Statistical Data Included. http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1282/is_6_54/ai_84107372
When they start running daily articles exposing Hilary's crimes and lies, I will change my opinion.
Right the nyt is carrying the water for hilary. The nyt and the msm have a full court press on Giuliani.
The Unlikely Frontrunner - Is the GOP in for a Rudy awakening?
Giuliani spends a good deal of every stump speech stressing the need for America "to stay on offense" in the war on terror. His precise conception of that war, and his approach to foreign affairs in general, is harder to pin down. To the extent that he's amplified his view of the terror war, it seems much closer to the economic determinism of the moderate realist school than to the notorious butt-kicking strategy of the neoconservative warrior class. Indeed, he says the "war on terror" is itself a misnomer; he prefers the term "the terrorists' war on us," which does sound rather more defensive.
"Americans hate war," he recently told the Churchill Club, a gathering of Silicon Valley executives. "We're at war because they want to come here and kill us, not because we want to go there and kill them. We want to do business with them. We would love to have them all wired and part of the Internet buying American products, and then we'll buy their products. And then we'll have the kind of issues we have with China and India, like we used to have with Japan. But those are good issues to have. That's America, that's what America is about."
In the end, he says, victory in the terror war may come down to commerce. "Technology has transformed the world," he told the executives. "Part of the way we're ultimately going to win the war on terror is through that technology. We're going to win the war on terror because, yes, we have to be militarily strong, we have to consider defending ourselves, but ultimately we overcome terrorism when those parts of the world that haven't connected yet connect to the global economy."
Consider China, he said. "China has plugged in. It's still a dictatorship, and they have to overcome that. But they've plugged into the global economy. If you think of where the terrorists are coming from, those are places that haven't plugged in. Ultimately economic freedom pushes you to political freedom. . . . We need to be strong, we need to be determined, but we also need to connect as many of these [Middle Eastern] countries as possible to doing business with us, to being connected to the Internet with us."
Thanks for the ping!
Uh, Rudy, if abortions DO NOT kill human beings, then why would you care about reducing them? Just a thought.
Good one (although I might make an exception for Rosie O'Donnell)!
But I reckon that probably about 45% of my fellow voters believe otherwise. Today, those people have the "right" to procure an abortion anywhere in the country, and do so. How can we prevent this?
Would it not make sense to return this issue to the states, where it rested for most of our history? Many states would undoubtedly vote to end abortions, returning to earlier statutes in place since colonial times. However, how advocates of this strategy intend to accomplish this is a mystery to me. "Reversing Roe vs Wade?" How exactly would this get up to the USC now?
I think rolling back the "right" to abortion on this basis on a Federal Level has very little chance of success. More likely would be a new line of reasoning that might dissolve the weak link between "the right to privacy," already decided with the abortion issue entirely.
But so far, not one candidate has laid out the strategy for achieving what everyone on our side has stated as the goal.
He is a total pro abort - if “adoptions” went up in NYC during his reign, it was FOREIGN ADOPTIONS because New York babies were being slaughtered!
and that should say it all! unfortunately there are many that don't get that point.
typical slippery politician to twist the facts to support his agenda. if he is willing to do that in a race for the primary, what would he do if he were weilding the power of a president? i shudder at the thought.
If Roe were overturned, the issue would return to the states. Several states have already passed provisions for that occasion which would severely limit abortions in their states. Of course, in a state such as New York or California, the state legislatures would do the opposite - they would put no restrictions on abortion. However, I do believe that the abortion rate would at least be cut in half. I also believe that a cultural change would happen in that some irresponsible people would realize that abortion is not a legitimate form of birth control.
Ann Coulter once asked why feminists who love the “pro-choice” label are so against allowing Americans to choose at the ballot box.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
