I got a (your) hide needs tanning amendment for him!
:O)
P
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 ...
“Any ideas?”
Would be a rough road for any conservative/moderately conservative black to be on the ‘pub ticket. He probably doesn’t want to go thru the hell he would be put by the MSM.
(Maybe Ward Connerly or Dr. Walter Williams could be persuaded)
He specifically stated that taxpayers should pay the freight because poor women should be allowed to have the same "rights" as anyone else when it comes to abortion. This line of reasoning is stupid beyond the point of comprehension. I have a right to free speech, but that doesn't mean I should have the ability to have taxpayers finance my purchase of a newspaper or radio station. I have a right to keep and bear arms (for the sake of this argument, let's ignore the inconvenient fact that Rudy Giuliani doesn't recognize the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution), yet that doesn't mean I should be allowed to build my own arsenal at the expense of my fellow taxpayers.
How hard would it have been for Giuliani to simply stand up there and oppose the use of public funds for abortion based on these very reasonable, objective reasons?
I can’t afford that AR-15 I’ve always had my eye on. How about a handout Rudy? It’s my right.
My thoughts:
The same thing occurred to me the moment I read his statement. I have the right to take a vacation, but I don’t have the right to make other people pay for it. Rudy doesn’t seem to have any problems restricting peoples 2nd amendment rights, rights which are clearly spelled out but will go so far as to support the government paying for abortions?
This “right” he talks about was conjured out of thin air in a ridiculous decision by the courts. Has the whole trimester thing in Roe ever been enforced? It seems that every abortion after the first trimester qualifies as an exception to the restrictions in Roe.
An issue as charged with emotion as this one begs to be settled state by state by the peoples elected representatives. As for forcing people who have religious objections to fund the choice to kill an unborn child, this is likely to kill Rudy’s chances of getting nominated.
“He revoked gun permits from law abiding citizens, now he’s a bit RKBA supporter.”
Amazing what running for the GOP nomination will do to a liberal republican, isn’t it?
Ok - we now agree 50% - that’s not too bad.
A tax credit for gun and ammunition purchases would be my idea of good tax policy. ;-)
But not using tax dollars for women who choose to rip fetuses from their uterus.
Yeah, but what about those elderly that are not self supporting? The irresponsible ones that were bums their whole lives. Can we kill them to save money? That would be fiscally conservative, right?
Rudy will not get the nomination, his new wife, abortion and Bernie Kerik will see to that.
Ugh.
My gawd.
Rudy, gun ownership is an enumerated constitutional right. But you had no problem taking guns away from lawful gun owners and lobbying Congress for more federal gun control laws.
Yet Roe is a contrived right - yet you have no problem with the fedgov PAYING FOR ABORTIONS.
The man has no moral compass and no grounding in the Constitution. Rights are what he deems them to be. He is too dangerous to put in charge of this country.
If Rudy was running for President as a Democrat, would you vote for him over a Republican like Hunter, Romney or Thompson?
To be fair to Giuliani, I don't think he ever said he supported the Hyde Amendment. That was a lame, pathetic excuse put forth by Bill Simon -- who claimed he "had an assurance" that Giuliani would support it.
When this campaign is all over, you're going to need a mainframe computer to keep track of all the folks who "jumped the shark" and threw away all of their credibility to support this jack@ss.
“How dishonest of you! Folks have posted the many ways that the President can influence the abortion issue, but you choose to continue making this false assertion as if you’ve found some easy way to lie Rudy into office”
I have to agree. Presidents, among other things, appoint justices to the Federal Courts. Surely no one would seriously argue that the President has no influence on Roe v. Wade.
Well I have to get off this same old people same tired theme thread. I’ll be seeing you on the Rudy threads!
That's fine... I was afraid that if you saw us all as so "out of touch" that you would be better off not hanging around.
Look, it's clear that FR is not completely representative of the public as a whole (I mean, Ron Paul? Tom Tancredo?)... even the Duncan Hunter folks are probably deluding themselves. But that doesn't mean Guiliani is the answer you think he is either.
Right now, Guiliani is coasting on name recognition and a vague impression of being the "white knight" needed in these dark times in the WOT. But we're still 10 months out from the first primary ballot being cast, and there's a lot of time for people to get to know the candidates. Just being strong on the WOT and "electable" isn't going to be good enough if and when other candidates start showing that they're just as strong, just as electable, and resonate better with the values of the party members as a whole.
Even if it is true, it's a crap argument. Don't argue that abortion is cool because of some other screwed up government program.
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.