Posted on 02/28/2007 7:21:21 AM PST by pissant
Although it is "easy to hoot with derision" at the "awfully complicated positions" on abortion rights taken by former New York City Mayor Rudolph Giuliani (R) and former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney (R), the two possible Republican presidential candidates "make sense" when listened to "with a decent sympathy," Ann Althouse, a law professor at the University of Wisconsin, writes in a New York Times opinion piece (Althouse, New York Times, 2/24). Giuliani, who supports abortion rights, in recent talks with conservative media outlets and voters in South Carolina said he would appoint "strict constructionist" judges to the Supreme Court.
He in a recent interview with Sean Hannity of Fox News also said that a law (S 3) being reviewed by the Supreme Court that bans so-called "partial-birth abortion" should be upheld and that he supports parental notification requirements for minors seeking abortion with a judicial bypass provision.
Since Romney first ran for U.S. Senate in 1994, he has acknowledged that his position on abortion has changed from "proudly" supporting abortion rights to saying that he would "like to see" Roe v. Wade, the 1973 Supreme Court ruling that effectively barred state abortion bans, overturned.
Romney in 2004 said that when he studied human embryonic stem cell research, he experienced an "awakening that led him to the conclusion that 'the sanctity of life had been cheapened' by the Roe decision" (Kaiser Daily Women's Health Policy Report, 2/13).
Romney while governor "took an admirably limited view of executive power and acknowledged the independence of the legal system," and Giuliani "respects the distinctive work of judges and the separate role of the state legislatures," according to Althouse.
"To represent what the country as a whole thinks, the president ought to take account of the deep beliefs Americans have about both reproductive freedom and the value of unborn life," Althouse writes.
She concludes that people should have "patience" in what Romney and Giuliani are saying but should not be "naive" because the next president will appoint judges who will bring "a version of humanity that will express something of the president's cast of mind" (New York Times, 2/24).
Now, if we have a judicial applicant, a judicial nominee, who can look at a sonogram of an unborn child and not see the value of human life, then from this person, if I should become President of the United States, he will not receive a judicial appointment. I tell you what you he will receive, he will get an appointment with an optometrist so he can get a pair of eye glasses.
Duncan Hunter, Jan 22, 2007.
PING
Exhibit "A" in the case against the NYT and liberalism.
Isn't Ann a libertarian?
WTF does this mean?! There's nothing "complicated" about their positions, Rudy has no objection to a woman murdering her unborn child, as far as he is concerned it's a woman's "right" to be on a gurney on her way to deliver her baby and change her mind and get a partial birth abortion instead. Romney now claims to oppose abortion, but nothing he's ever done leads me to believe him.
Smokd and mirrors and tapdancing, my friend.
I never smoked anything that strong!
Rudy apparently inhaled too much.
Its really not that complicated.
Its only complicated if you want both pro abortion and anti abortion people to agree with you simultaneously.
Or...if you sudddenly wish to reverse your opinion, and don't want people to think that you are suddenly reversing your opinion.
I wonder if there's any other in-breeding in Rudy's family.
It seems that many folks running for President this time have adjustable opinions on most everything. Both parties candidates adjust their opinion to the most recent poll and how they are doing in the running.
I know of course that during a lifetime people's opinions DO change or are adjusted, but these folks seem to be making adjustment almost daily, and in order to increase their political appeal.
I kind of want to vote for some less adjustable. With morals and principles established and verifiable.
gee: I havent seen one yet.
This is the key, because I guarantee you that EVERY abortionist in the country will have a list of judges who are more than happy to sign an execution order any time of the day or night.
He and his first wife have kids?
I heard Hannity's interview with Rudy, Rudy made it very clear that he believes in the "right" to abortion. I don't really give a damn what any candidate says after that, they can rationalize all they want, but in the end they are pro-abortion.
It is often noted that at one time Ronald Reagan was "pro choice" what is rarely mentioned though is that this was BEFORE Roe v. Wade and that he wasn't actually pro-choice he went against his better judgement and signed a "therapeutic abortion" law as governor of California in 1967.
Nobody ever believed that Roe v. Wade would eventually result in well over ONE MILLION babies being slaughtered each year. Reagan abandoned any pretense of being even moderately pro-choice AFTER he saw what abortion did. However, there has been no event to act as a catalyst for Rudy, abortion has been a reality for his entire political career and nothing has changed his mind, not will it ever.
http://www.lifenews.com/nat2564.html
No, I'm wondering if this inbreeding is common in his family.
Rudy was pro life in his younger days, so he says.
Not worth going down that road.
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.