Rudy Giuliani: [to SC Firefighters & Police] 'A Woman Has the Right to Choose Abortion'

Associated Press/Newsmax.com ^ | 2.22.07 | staff report

[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.

[sitetest]

Dear LtdGovt,

"'If a judicial nominee can look at a sonogram, the picture of an unborn child, and not see a valuable human life, I'm not going to give him an appointment to the court,' said Rep. Duncan Hunter, R-Calif.

"So Duncan Hunter wants his judicial nominees to outlaw abortion nationwide. Interesting. I thought he was against judicial activism."

You've gone a little too far in your conclusion.

From what Mr. Hunter is saying, it isn't necessary to conclude that he is looking to try to appoint justices who would outlaw abortion.

Roe was decided the way it was (at least ostensibly) in part because the seven tyrants who voted for it said that at the time of the decision, it could not be answered whether the unborn child was really a human being.

Mr. Hunter's point is that the unborn child clearly IS a human being, and that this is apparent when looking at a sonogram. Thus, a necessary premise of Roe is vitiated, and thus it should be overturned.

That doesn't speak to whether or not the Court should then go the next step, and state that the constitutional rights of the child preclude abortion generally.


sitetest

[LtdGovt]

You surely know it doesn't work like that. Roe overturned all state law that regulated / banned abortion at the time. A reversal of Roe puts the responsibility / power back to the states.

This post is an insult to your own intelligence. Did you even read what Hunter had said? He expressly stated that he would only nominate people who would acknowledge that a fetus is a human being. Not candidates who see abortion as an improper infringement by the judicial caste on the legislative arena, but someone who sees a fetus as a human being. Thus, those people would likely impose a nationwide ban on abortion.

[LtdGovt]

Judicial activism is what gave us Roe V. Wade. I love how some people are stare decisis types only now that the damage has been done. Personally, I'm in favor of conservative judicial activism to the extent that it undoes all the damage the liberal activists courts have done from the 1960s on.

Do you think that judges should create non-existant rights for fetuses? There is as much support for arguing that the practice of abortion is unconstitutional, as there is for the argument that the Constitution does not allow the death penalty: both are implicitly allowed.

[tkathy]

Rudy realizes that, in the 21st century, laws do not stop abortion, persuasion is the only way.

[upcountryhorseman]

"whether a woman has the right to choose" is not the point.
The point is: this is a State matter and should be returned
to the States.

[P-Marlowe]

I'm sorely disappointed with the whole field of Media Driven Republican Candidates (McCain, Gulliani, Romney). Romney at least NOW professes to be pro-life, but it means little since he was never pro-life when he was running for office in liberal Massachusetts. To be pro-life in Massachusetts would have meant standing on principle not politics. Maybe he's standing on principle now, but that would simply mean that he was two-faced, and I've had it with two faced politicians.

Although I would dread the thought of another Arkansas Governor being president, Huckabee looks like a legitimate conservative candidate. And as far as hitting the issues, Duncan Hunter is on the money.

I agree that Gulliani is simply not acceptable. McCain is not stable. And Romney is not real.

[LtdGovt]

You make a good point. But just look at the difference between Hunter and Bush. Bush is looking for judges who know the proper role of a judge. They would almost certainly overturn Roe, at least, Alito and Roberts. Therefore, if you're looking for judges who would do that, that requirement is enough. However, Hunter goes one step further and explicitly promises to nominate judges who would say that a fetus is a human being, and for that reason hostile toward abortion. Is that difference meaningless? I don't think so.

[SJSAMPLE]

Rudy believes a woman has a right to an abortion after she's raped, but not to carry or even OWN a firearm to prevent that rape in the first place.

No thanks, Rudy.

[jla]

"If a judicial nominee can look at a sonogram, the picture of an unborn child, and not see a valuable human life, I'm not going to give him an appointment to the court," said Rep. Duncan Hunter, R-Calif. "I am going to give him an appointment to an optometrist to get a set of eyeglasses."

I LOVE THIS MAN!!!

In the 80s, 007Girl, you'd have been commended by others in the G.O.P. Sadly, today many will verbally tar and feather you as a 'radical conservative standing alongside the others out on the fringes of the Right'.

[LtdGovt]

Although I would dread the thought of another Arkansas Governor being president, Huckabee looks like a legitimate conservative candidate.

You've got to be kidding me. Huckabee is the biggest liberal out there. He has raised taxes, imposed restrictions on the use of cigaretts, and has generally acted like a Democrat. Of course, you might not have looked past the issue of abortion yet, since that appears to be your main problem with most of the contenders. But I encourage you to do some research on this liberal, Huckabee.

[tumblindice]

"There is as much support for arguing that the practice of abortion is unconstitutional, as there is for the argument that the Constitution does not allow the death penalty:

both are implicitly allowed."

"Old Sparkys" a nice ride for the deserving, but not the killing of unborn children.
Not here.

Founder's 2004 statement
“ As a conservative site, Free Republic is pro-God,

---

pro-life

---

pro-family, pro-Constitution, pro-Bill of Rights, pro-gun, pro-limited government, pro-private property rights, pro-limited taxes, pro-capitalism, pro-national defense, pro-freedom, and pro-America. We oppose all forms of liberalism, socialism, fascism, pacifism, totalitarianism, anarchism, government enforced atheism, abortionism, feminism, homosexualism, racism, wacko environmentalism, judicial activism, etc. We also oppose the United Nations or any other world government body that may attempt to impose its will or rule over our sovereign nation and sovereign people. We believe in defending our borders, our Constitution, and our national sovereignty.[3]

[Sabramerican]

People just love when politicians lie to them.

Ask George W Bush whether a woman has a "right to choose" abortion. He may stumble all over the answer and explain how he thinks choosing that path is wrong, but he wouldn't dare say that a woman does not have that right. It's the law of the land.

We all want to believe that we hold to higher ideals. That we are consistent in our beliefs. It's BS. We all turn and sway depending on when our ox is gored.

Second Amendment absolutists swear allegiance to every dotted "i" in the Second Amendment. But interpret the rest of the Constitution as they see fit.

Everyone has an opinion about what is and is not Constitutional based on a pet interest.

Yet Thomas Jefferson accepted that it is the Supreme Court of the United States- and only the Supreme Court- that decides what is and is not Constitutional. That is settled and a foundation of our system of Government.

Like it or not- a woman has a right to choose abortion in the United States.

But politician know that we prefer lies. So they lie. And then govern in a way that disappoints us. And we- blame not ourselves for buying into the charade- blame the politician.

[TalonDJ]

Instead we have a right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Without life, those other rights are unimportant. Dead people don't worry much about liberty and happiness.

Exactly. Not only that, Rudy is wrong on guns too. If we have no sanctity of life and limited or no ability to safeguard our own lives then there are NO other issues. None. Everything else comes after being alive and able to defend ourselves from a tyrannical government.

[xzins]

Courts can say what they will.

To invite me to sit out the election is to invite a republican to sit out the election. How many can do that and the republicans still emerge victorious?

If the last election is any indication, my state of Ohio made the difference. A change of a mere 60,000 votes would have President John Kerry readying for a second run for the presidency.

A change of some 700 votes in Florida in the 2000 election would have made Al Gore president.

Wouldn't it be far better to find a candidate on whom we can agree about life?

Do you think those originalist judges are now there on the bench because us pro-lifers are apathetic to this issue?

Rudy Giuliani just did an "in your face" yesterday to every pro-lifer in America. He said he personally believes in a woman's right to choose. First, there is no right to choose. How do I know, because the right judges will overturn it. If there were some "right to kill babies" in the constitution NO ONE in that profession would be denying it.

It is not activism to deny the existence of a right to kill babies, when that right is not present in the Constitution. What is happening is that an interpretation of law has been imposed upon America by judicial fiat....the worst form of activism.

There is only an interpretation of law that permits abortion.

There is no "right to choose."

[LtdGovt]

"Old Sparkys" a nice ride for the deserving, but not the killing of unborn children. Not here.

I assume you misinterpreted my post. My intention was not to say that Roe was sound, but to say that it is permissable for states to allow abortion (i.e., abortion is constitutional).

If you did not misinterpret my post, and really wish to argue that the Constition prohibits states from allowing abortion, then by all means, let's have a debate about it.

[George W. Bush]

If it's true that Giuliani said this just yesterday, then it is impossible for me to vote for him. Impossible.

I think a lot of others were hoping to see Giuliani repent on this. But I never expected it. He really is a pro-choicer, through and through. It's the same on guns and big-government solutions. He is and has always been a creature of the state and an advocate of state power. And he is very autocratic.

I'm waiting to see how Romney does. I think there are clear signs of a man who has come to grips with the horror of abortion. His actions to prevent cloning and embryonic research were pretty good. With his wife suffering from MS, they have taken a strong stand against such research even though so much is claimed about how it might cure MS (or any other disease). They say that they investigated it because they were thinking of supporting it but when they looked at all the data and the procedures, they were too repelled to support it even if it might cure her. It's very compelling stuff. As you probably know, once you really grasp this subject and look at the research, you often completely reject the horror of abortion. We might see this happen.

I don't particularly like saying nice things about the Mormon candidate. But I've been looking hard for someone with the broad conservative agenda (pro-business, smaller government, balanced budget, pro-life, pro-gun). Someone like Reagan who can articulate our positions. And I recall that Reagan signed that '68 abortion bill but didn't come out as a pro-lifer until 1975, a year before he first ran.

People can grow and change, can repent the easy liberalism of their youth, recognize that their previous judgment had been terribly shallow or selfish. As you get older, you often change those positions. I think we might be seeing that with Romney. Maybe. And we should keep in mind that someone who really thoroughly converts to your position is quite often your best advocate. Look at Ronald Reagan, for instance.

Anyway, I'm still in the Paul/Hunter camp. But I'm looking at Romney if it becomes clear that we can only choose from the Big Three. McStain can't be trusted and Giuliani truly is the leftwing social liberal.

[xzins]

guns

You are correct. "Guns" is a pro-life issue. The 2d amendment is a "pro-life" amendment in the constitution.

[TalonDJ]

Like it or not- a woman has a right to choose abortion in the United States.

Yes, and like it or not, many of us want to see that changed. The Supreme Court has the final say, but having read RvW I know that final say is not always right. They pulled 'rights' out of thin air where there were none. And a court that actually reads the Constitution and believes in it's precepts will overturn RvW given the change. Prohibition was the 'law of the land' too. Things change.

[LtdGovt]

Rudy Giuliani just did an "in your face" yesterday to every pro-lifer in America. He said he personally believes in a woman's right to choose. First, there is no right to choose. How do I know, because the right judges will overturn it.

Firstly, that is not an argument. Whether or not you like it, the right exists. Just like city councils have a right to expropriate our property to encourage businesses and such. You may not like it, but it is the law of the land, and those rights exist.
Secondly, what the court says has nothing to do with Rudy's beliefs as a pro-choicer. He believes that a woman should have the right to have an abortion, and his belief is not dependent upon the survival of decades-old Supreme Court opinions.

[sitetest]

Dear LtdGovt,

"However, Hunter goes one step further and explicitly promises to nominate judges who would say that a fetus is a human being,..."

In that whether or not the unborn child is a human being was a CRITICAL QUESTION left unanswered in Roe, focusing on the fact that sonograms give evidence to the eyes that the unborn child is actually a human being does indeed go directly to overturning Roe. But not instating a judicially-created ban on abortion.

The tryants in 1973 specifically stated that they would not overturn Texas' (and every other state's) laws on abortion if they could determine that unborn children were, in fact, human beings. They did NOT say that the logical step, if the humanity of unborn children were adequately demonstrated, was to overturn state laws that permitted abortion to one degree or other.

Keep in mind that abortion laws were pretty much a mixed bag in 1973, with most states still severely restricting the practice, but with some larger states having liberalized laws, ranging from California's abused "health exception" to New York's nearly-anything-goes. There was never a hint that the tyrants, had they been forced to acknowledge the humanity of unborn children, would have struck down liberal abortion laws in states like California and New York.

The logical result of justices who see sonograms and who affirm the humanity of unborn children, in terms of judicial rulings, would be to rule that one of the necessary premises of Roe was vitiated, and therefore, Roe must be vacated.

And, that would be the legal limit, as well, if the question before the Court were whether an anti-abortion statute violated Roe. It really WOULD be a case of judicial activism if the Court, without being asked, were to rule that because unborn children are human beings, that abortion must be banned.

That being said, once Roe was overturned, that might be a logical next step for those seeking a ban of abortion, to find some way to bring a case to the Court where the question might be whether or not liberal abortion laws impermissibly infringe on the rights of unborn human beings.


sitetest