Posted on 04/04/2007 12:52:50 PM PDT by KantianBurke
TALLAHASSEE, Florida (CNN) -- Former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani told CNN Wednesday he supports public funding for some abortions, a position he advocated as mayor and one that will likely put the GOP presidential candidate at odds with social conservatives in his party.
"Ultimately, it's a constitutional right, and therefore if it's a constitutional right, ultimately, even if you do it on a state by state basis, you have to make sure people are protected," Giuliani said in an interview with CNN's Dana Bash in Florida's capital city.
A video clip of the then-mayoral candidate issuing a similar declaration in 1989 in a speech to the "Women's Coalition" appeared recently on the Internet.
"There must be public funding for abortions for poor women," Giuliani says in the speech that is posted on the video sharing site YouTube. "We cannot deny any woman the right to make her own decisions about abortion."
When asked directly Wednesday if he still supported the use of public funding for abortions, Giuliani said "Yes."
"If it would deprive someone of a constitutional right," he explained, "If that's the status of the law, yes."
(Excerpt) Read more at cnn.com ...
It's news to anyone who didn't yet know his position on this.
The majority of women who are eligible for publicly funded abortions do fall into that category. And many who still had realistic potential to avoid welfare and lead productive lives will have that potential derailed by having a baby before they have enough education to support themselves and a child. You can always to point to anecdotal exceptions, but the fact is that NYC’s gang-infested public housing projects are filled primarily with people who were born to mothers who were already on welfare (either directly, or as minor dependents of their welfare mothers) and were eligible for publicly funded abortions. There are precious few people who emerge from that background to be productive members of society.
That’s a sick attitude.
>> “There must be public funding for abortions for poor women,” Giuliani says
And yet, so many politicians grasp at the opportunity to make the endearing claim of their birth to that of a poor family.
Don’t you think Welfare and the government doesn’t pay for abortions anyway? If medicaid pays for D and C’s at all some of them are really abortions but the doctors put them in as D and C’s medical procedures to get paid for doing them. what do you think they do with health insurance. They put it down as a D and C.
Except you people protest when we use “old stories” to make a point.
Now it’s a NEW story.
I can NEVER vote for this man because he loves to kill babies.
I will sit out the election if I can’t vote Pro Life.
I cannot face God one day and say that I voted to kill babies.
Putting a price tag on a human life is just plain sick.
I think that's what you Freepers said the last time this was posted and that video was on FR. Didn't work then and won't work now. Most Americans could not care less about abortion at this time. They may not like it but they don't use that to vote for president.
No no - they do matter you are correct.
The real question is the weight applied to the issues of the day?
- Abortion vs. the WOT - war, leadership.
Ok - so we dock Rudy a point here - a point there - but he earns more points then he loses.
That’s why he leads in the pols.
People are not dumb - they consider - and the judge.
Right now - they judge him more positive than anyone else.
If there is a right to life then surely it is a fundamental right protected by the Constitution. I do not believe the SCOTUS would allow each state to decide whether or not to protect this fundamental right. After all, the SCOTUS found the "right to privacy" to be a fundamental right protected by the Constitution. They did not rule that each state could decide whether or not they would protect this right.
I believe the oft cited mantra that, if Roe v. Wade is overturned, the SCOTUS will leave abortion to be decided by the states is highly unlikely and not grounded in any rational interpretation of the Constitution.
“Can you imagine what they would call him?”
Mitt?
Actually I’d much rather that passive contraceptives be mandatory for welfare recipients. Then there would be no need for the abortions. Someone who can’t support themselves has no business having a baby and sticking taxpayers with the resulting bills.
The same reason why anti-war ex-hippie peacenik tree-huggers have to pay for the war in Iraq. You live in this country, you pay for stuff you disagree with all the time. If it's the law, and is publicly funded, because that's the way the law is written - "it" is paid for by everyone who pays taxes.
Why should I be forced to pay for some a$$hat Senator in Alaska's "Bridge to Nowhere"? I shouldn't, but I have no choice in the matter.
They will. I can guarantee it. They don't want to rule on something like this . They will throw it to the states.
You know, an even more fiscally conservative idea would be to bring back slavery for all low level government positions. Think of the money we would save by paying them just room and board!
Here is another fiscally conservative idea: how about "aborting" our seniors when they hit 70 years of age? I am thinking we could do that for a cost of about $250 each. Good deal, huh?
No, it’s facing reality.
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.