Posted on 02/17/2007 3:16:46 PM PST by Mr. Brightside
Rudy on Abortion
Tom Bevan
Fri Feb 16, 11:01 AM ET
In response to my last post on Rudy's poll numbers, reader AG emails with a good point: the phrasing of the questions in the FOX poll is far too crude to accurately gauge how Republicans feel about Rudy's position on social issues.
AG asks how the numbers might have looked if FOX had instead asked the following: Are you more or less likely to support a candidate who is personally pro-life on the issue of abortion, but believes it is ultimately a woman's decision? Are you more or less likely to support a candidate who will nominate strict constructionists to the Supreme Court in the mold of Scalia, Roberts and Alito?
AG also challenges the idea of labeling Rudy pro-choice: "In your opinion, what makes Rudy Giuliani "pro-choice"? He is personally against abortion, says he "hates it", would advise against it, and would nominate judges to the Supreme Court who would overturn Roe."
Fair enough. But I call Rudy "pro-choice" because that's what he calls himself, and that is probably how most people will come to understand his position.
The debate that's pinging around the blogosphere is whether Rudy's pledge to nominate "strict constructionists" to the bench will be enough to bridge the gap with the base on the abortion issue. Law prof Ann Althouse thinks it will:
Can Rudy walk this tightrope? I think he can. With the level of legal understanding that Giuliani obviously has, it's a very thick, stabilized tightrope. You pick great judges who follow a strong interpretive methodology, and they take their proper constitutional position in an independent branch dedicated to law. How utterly solid and responsible.
Ace points out that Rudy's "pro-choice" position isn't all that different that our current President's "pro-life" one:
He's basically parrotting Bush's position, which is, felicitiously enough, my position, and a principled, coherent position to take on the issue. Put strict constructionists on the court to adjudicate not legislate new dubious rights, and Roe may or may not fall, and then the states can decide on the question.
The Influence Peddler agrees:
A rose is a rose is a rose. Bush describes himself as pro-life; Giuliani as pro-choice. That doesn't necessarily mean that they're all that far apart - in terms of practical effect.
My two cents, for what it's worth, is that Rudy may well be able to paper over differences on abortion with his pledge. But labels do matter, especially the ones we give ourselves, because they offer at least a glimpse into a person's world view - and Rudy's world view is distinctly more liberal than the Republican base on abortion.
Yes, there are Republicans who call themselves "pro-choice." Even many Republicans who "hate" abortion but also begrudgingly recognize Roe v. Wade as the law of the land, don't want to throw women or doctors in jail, etc. (all of which Rudy says he believes) characterize their position not as "pro-choice" but "pro-life with exceptions." Again, it's a world view thing.
And the kicker for Rudy is going to be his public unwillingness to support a federal ban on partial birth abortion in 1999. This is a procedure that is opposed by the vast majority of Republicans.
To give you an idea of where this puts Rudy on the ideological spectrum: when the Senate finally got around to passing the partial birth abortion ban in March 2003 by a vote of 64-33, only two Republican Senators voted against it: Lincoln Chafee and Olympia Snowe (news, bio, voting record). You think either one of those Senators could win the Republican nomination for President?
Okay, so Rudy isn't Duncan Hunter. But if it comes down to Rudy vs. the wife of the Bent One or John Edwards, who you gonna vote for?
I'm voting for Rudy and his appointment of judges like Scalia, Roberts and Alito.
Next.
Ronald Reagan was for it before he was against it too.
I'm voting for Rudy because he is the only candidate qualified to be a War President... I'd much prefer to have him in charge of killing terrorists than any of the other lightweights out there.
Prove to me that he appointed people like that when he was mayor of NYC.
If you check his record of appointments, you will see it was pretty dismal.
Hillary could not have done worse.
(((STOP GIULIANI 2008 PRIMARY PING!)))
No he was not.
Look I have to believe what the man is saying now as an integral part of his platform.
He certainly didn't appoint judges that were setting them loose. Because in NYC when he got it going, you didn't even see the bands of hoodlums on corners awaiting their next victim anymore. They were all sent away for long stretches.
As for Hillary not doing any worse, let me mention a name for those in the know:
Lani Guanier.
Oh yeah, it could be a lot worse.
I'd like to hear his war qualifications as well. Does his special draft exemption qualify him to be a 'war' president?
You are damn right girlfriend. Rudy steps on liberals for fun and exercise.
What special skills, talents and abilities does Rudy have that would make him a good CIC?
I'm not going to beat up on him because I like him but why the hell do we have to make this election so easy for the democrats? Is it their turn or something?
Archives of the Mayor's Press Office
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Date: January 22, 1998
Release #034-98
Contact: Colleen Roche/Brenda Pérez (212) 788-2958
MAYOR GIULIANI COMMEMORATES THE 25TH ANNIVERSARY OF THE ROE V. WADE SUPREME COURT DECISION
Mayor Rudolph W. Giuliani today commemorated the 25th anniversary of the Roe v. Wade Supreme Court decision guaranteeing a woman’s constitutional right to privacy. At a press conference at City Hall, the Mayor was joined by Kelli Conlin, Executive Director of the New York State Affiliate of the National Abortion and Reproductive Rights Action League (NARAL/NY); Irwin Schneiderman, NARAL Foundation Board Chair; Barbara Schack, NARAL/NY Board Chair; State Senator Roy M. Goodman, Council Member Andrew Eristoff; and Assemblyman John Ravitz.
"Twenty five years after the Roe v. Wade Supreme Court decision, its impact is as significant as ever," Mayor Giuliani said. "This decision has precluded government from interfering with a woman’s Constitutional rights. "I take this opportunity to restate the commitment of the Administration to protect women’s right to seek reproductive health advice and services if that is their choice," the Mayor concluded.
Ms. Conlin said, "The 25th Anniversary of Roe v. Wade is an important time to remember the values that define the right to choose, and to applaud New York’s important role in leading the nation in regard to reproductive health. The Roe decision transformed abortion from a criminal act to a legal medical procedure, allowing doctors to provide this important medical service to women, without fear of criminal prosecution. Women were finally spared the humiliation of back alleys, and the fear of death due to unsafe, unsanitary procedures.
Ms. Conlin continued, "New York City has renewed its commitment to reproductive health care for women consistently, most profoundly in 1994 with the enactment of the Clinic Protection Act, which has dramatically reduced the incidence of violence and harassment of women entering health facilities."
With more than 50,000 members, NARAL/NY works in the political arena to protect women’s access to safe reproductive health services, and to expand the reproductive rights available to women.
www.ci.nyc.ny.us
32 posted on 02/14/2007 12:34:06 PM EST by Hydroshock (Duncan Hunter For President, checkout gohunter08.com.) [ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies | Report Abuse ] --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Please don't tell me that he HAD to do this because he was mayor of a large liberal city but as President he'll act otherwise. I don;t buy it. As a presidential candidate he'll act otherwise but as President he'll be the same liberal he's always been! Seems to me that the 25th Anniversary is NOT something that someone who personnally HATES abortion would celebrate.
Rudy is a damned liar.
What do you base this on?
Let me go out on a limb here.
Abortion is not a constitutional right, and the Supreme Court should overturn Roe v. Wade. The states should be left to decide whether abortion should be legal or not.
Having said that, however, my personal opinion is that abortion simply cannot be outlawed. The fetus is, after all, inside the woman's body. As much as I despise many militant "pro-choicers," they are right about that. If the government starts telling women what they can or cannot do with their own bodies, we are on a very slippery slope to totalitarianism. And it will cost the Republicans everything if they try it.
Yes, we should try to discourage abortion and encourage adoption, but if Republicans are so arrogant as to try to force their will on everyone, they will be routed at the ballot box, and rightly so.
For the same reason, drugs should be legal, but I won't get into that right now.
Rudy is from the far left wing of the GOP. I'm fed up with these betrayers.
No conservative. No vote.
Technically, you're right. After Reagan signed that abortion bill into law --- for exceptions of rape, incest, health/life of the mother --- in 1967, he regretted doing so within a year. That is much different then Rudy Giuliani`s abortion stance. Rudy has supported abortion on demand his entire life.
You don't see the difference?
"And the kicker for Rudy is going to be his public unwillingness to support a federal ban on partial birth abortion in 1999. This is a procedure that is opposed by the vast majority of Republicans"
I've recently come across another issue I have with Rudy on top of what you point out with partial birth abortion.
There are now more pregnancy crisis clinics than there are abortion clinics.
I am talking about the clinics that will show the women an ultrasound of their baby - offer counseling regarding keeping the baby or considering adoption - and offering helpful services regarding prenatal care, lending/renting of baby equipment, clothing, etc....
These types of clinics received more funding under the Bush administration.
I am wondering if a Guliani administration would continue this funding.
At one point when Spitzer was still AG of NY he was considering shutting these clinics down altogether.
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.