Posted on 02/22/2007 7:27:03 AM PST by meg88
hursday, Feb. 22, 2007 8:13 a.m. EST
Rudy Giuliani: 'A Woman Has the Right to Choose' Abortion
Reprint Information Hollywood Hates America Dick Morris: Don't Dare Criticize Hillary Cheney: McCain Is Wrong on Rumsfeld Bill Richardson: Obama Should Apologize Atheists Challenge Faith-Based Initiatives
Republican presidential hopeful Rudy Giuliani met with firefighters and police officers in this early voting state Wednesday, using the forum to reference the Sept. 11 terror attacks, which earned him national attention.
"The first people that arrive on the scene of the bombing or the anthrax attack ... it's going to be one of your brothers or your sisters or you that gets to do it," the former New York mayor told a crowd of about 200 emergency workers. "Your ability to do it well will once again determine if we save lives - save America."
Giuliani compared firefighters and police to uniformed military personnel and said the federal Department of Homeland Security needs to ensure first responders "have the training and protection you need to defend your country."
Giuliani has a tough road ahead in South Carolina, which is to host the first Southern primaries in 2008. His moderate positions on gun control and support for abortion rights do not sit well with the state's Christian conservatives, who accounted for a third of the 2000 GOP primary vote. Those voters swung heavily to President Bush that year, giving him a 2-1 ratio margin over Arizona Sen. John McCain, who was viewed as soft on abortion.
Story Continues Below
On Wednesday, Giuliani reiterated his own position.
"I'd advise my daughter or anyone else not to have an abortion," Giuliani said. "I'd like to see it ended, but ultimately I believe that a woman has the right to choose.
"I believe that you've got to run based on who you are, what you really are and then people actually get a right to disagree with you," he said. "And I find if you do it that way, even people who disagree with you sometimes respect you."
Get Natural Energy And Strength Without Exercise?! Are You Guilty Of Exalting Evil? Lose 20 lbs w/ the Hoodia Diet Patch-Get 1 week Free Blast Away High Cholesterol: 67 Points in 28 days. Border Agent "Severely Beaten" in Prison! TheDietList® World's Largest Source Of Weight Loss Info Retire Overseas Live in Paradise.Free Report. Giuliani also said he's not concerned about a recent poll that showed rising numbers for Democratic opponents.
"We're a tremendous amount of time away from an election," he said. "We haven't even gotten to a primary yet. The best thing we can do now is organize."
© 2007 Associated Press.
You are very welcome.
Dear George W. Bush,
I generally agree with you, and thus, beyond saying that once in a while, you still have to say what a thing is, I'll leave it there.
sitetest
Dear LtdGovt,
"He said no such thing, he said 'right'. He did not state that the right is a constitutional right."
Over the years, Mr. Giuliani has referred to "a woman's constitutional right to choose" an abortion.
Maybe he's recently dropped "constitutional" from his lexicon, but that's a relatively new development.
"'Rather, I said that I think that the case could be made for such a judicial ruling. It is certainly easier to make the case that an appropriate interpretation of the Constitution would BAN abortion rather than BAN laws restricting abortion.'
"That's a hard position to defend."
I don't disagree. I merely said that it's easier to make the case than that the Constitution bans abortion.
"Unfortunately, all activists see their work as 'interpeting the law' (no offense), even when it isn't. It is my firm belief that it is the duty of the government to provide me with 100 bottles of wine a year. Now would that be strict constructionism? That's a ridiculous comparison, but you catch the drift."
Yup, I catch your drift. You caught it from me.
My point is that "strict constructionism" may not mean the same thing to you, or me, as it means to some politician.
One reason why I was willing to vote for Mr. Bush was that he'd said before that Roe should go. Thus, when he talked about "strict constructionist," I could draw a straight line from what he believed specifically about Roe to what he'd consider a "strict constructionist."
For the very same reason, using the very same logic, I won't vote for Mr. Giuliani.
"Similarly, the Constituion only protects those who have already been born."
That's one interpretation.
sitetest
Probably dodging warrants out for his arrest----not to mention married Kerik's several ex-girlfriends who want a piece of his hide. LOL.
Dear George W. Bush,
Actually, Mr. Reagan signed the bill in 1967. By 1968, he was already denouncing it.
And recall, it only permitted abortion in cases of rape, incest, or "grave risk" to the health of the mother.
Mr. Reagan was concerned that the last exception could be exploited, but his advisors assured him that wouldn't happen.
Unfortunately, he was right, and the health exception was exploited to allow a much greater abortion license.
That's why he went from being a moderate pro-lifer (before 1968) to a much more radical pro-lifer (after 1968).
sitetest
Interesting. Thanks for the information.
And what I'm saying is that what you are suggesting is as good as abortion on demand, because it's impossible to implement because any woman can claim rape if they don't want to be pregnant.
You'd probably be surprised to know that I am not 'for' a ban on very early abortive contraception. I just have always seen a contradiction in pro-lifers who would allow for a rape exception. I think arguing for a rape exception defies the very logic that they'd use to ban other abortions. A fetus is either a life deserving protection or it isn't. A woman can have any number of reasons why remaining pregnant would be devastating to her life and liberty. I'd argue they're either all good enough to allow her some kind of early 'out', or none of them are.
Very important points to ponder.
I could refer to abortion as a woman's constitutional right. When would I do that? When I'm making a factual statement. Right now, the Supreme Court does interpret the constitution as conferring on women the right to get an abortion. In that case, your personal beliefs don't matter.
As for strict constructionism, yeah, the meaning of that may be uncertain. But it's not uncertain what the judicial philosophies of Scalia, Roberts and Alito are, and Giuliani has promised to name judges like them.
Dear George W. Bush,
Actually considering that the South Dakota ban made no exceptions for rape or incest, the 44% that the referendum garnered was pretty amazing.
I think that a referendum putting forth a bill banning abortion in the cases of life of the mother, rape, and incest, would easily get more than 50% in South Dakota. Throw in severe fetal deformity, and it'd likely top 60%.
I know that Gallup has done polls asking the question nationally, should abortion be restricted to cases of rape, the incest, life of the mother, and severe fetal deformity, and they've seen positive responses in the high 50%s and into the 60%s.
I think after a period of perhaps a decade after overturning Roe, most states would have laws that were approximately that restrictive.
sitetest
Here's another link with several more great polls.
http://www.usccb.org/comm/archives/2006/06-090.shtml
There are many different levels of prostate cancer. It is a very serious disease. A few have very little cancer, but many have much more.
What is 'very early abortive contraception'? RU-468? THe morning after pill (of course, that isn't abortive)?
Ronald Reagan explained the rape exception in a very nice way. He did not say that abortion was murder, but he did think that it was wrong. He said that just like a woman had the right to defend herself from the rapist, she had the right to defend herself from the result of the violent act that she did not ask for.
While there may be an increased incidence, and we might even guess it is a hormonal reaction to an incomplete pregnancy cycle... I'd be real careful about statements that say having the baby grants a woman any kind of "immunity". Every woman in my family over 45 had breast cancer, all had babies, none that I know of had abortions. Lets not either (a) let women feel complacent about breast cancer screening, or (b) add any cloud of suspicion to those who do get breast cancer, by arguing abortion is even a common factor, let alone the only factor in occurrence of breast cancer.
Probably. I'm not involved enough to know the names of the products.
Some people definitely regard the morning after pill as being as much an abortifacient as RU-486 (you transposed a couple of numbers). They tend to be against any oral contraceptives; fortunately, the regular birth control pill is not likely to be banned just because they don't like it.
Dear LtdGovt,
"I could refer to abortion as a woman's constitutional right."
Now your moving the goal posts.
You said he hadn't called abortion a constitutional right.
I insisted he did. You now seem to be giving an excuse of WHY he did, no longer falsely insisting that he didn't.
However, folks who believe that Roe should go generally talk about Roe granting a false constitutional right. On the other hand, Mr. Giuliani has often spoken in praise of a constitutional right to abortion.
Thus, for him, strict constructionism likely includes a constitutional right to abortion.
As for praising Justices Scalia, et. al., that's nice. He also said that Mrs. Ginsburg was a good choice for the Court.
I think what he's telling us is that he's willing not to look at someone's likely jurisprudence on the question of abortion. Nonetheless, in that he believes that abortion is a constitutional right, as well as severe and strict gun control, as well as the idea that the government may mess around with social structures (the family) that precede it chronologically and ontologically, I don't see that someone like Mrs. Ginsburg would fall outside his circle of folks who would make acceptable justices.
As well, you're asking me to give him the (very, very huge) benefit of the doubt. I'm not very happy with how he has had his surrogates present his case. At times, it's seemed extremely intellectually dishonest to me (like when Deroy Murdock wrote that we social conservatives should be GRATEFUL for Mr. Giuliani - barf). At other times, he's been condescending as the day is long (like when basically telling us through surrogates that he doesn't need social conservatives).
I no longer repose any trust in him. I no longer think him a man of honor. I wouldn't trust him as far as I can throw him, at least not to do things that he isn't otherwise inclined to do. He's a politician, like any other, and worse than many.
sitetest
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.