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 ...
I would tend to agree with you, my friend. This doesn’t please me...However, unless and until a more traditional conservative demonstrates that he can attract both support AND cash, I’m sticking with Rudy...The WoT is still the overarcing issue this election..
Nah - I love FR! I think differently than most of them but I love it just the same. Take care - I have other Rudy posts to deal with!
We could have a lottery among Rudy's supporters here to see who the Lucky #5 would be.
Also, if abortion is not the taking of a human life, why does Rudy hate it?
And if it is the taking of a human life, how can he support it as a "constitutional right"?
So much for his fiscal conservatism and his strict constructionism. All gone with one brief glimpse into the real Rudy.
His handlers must have all had strokes after this one.
Can you imagine the government actually offering complete sterilizations to those who come in for abortions? At $250 a pop, another $50-75 could initially save $175-200+ a head.
Think of how much money we’d save doing that; career welfare recipients relying on “government” ought understand and expect “government” to make their burden as easy as possible to bear.
Hey, if they want ME to pay to kill their kid, they won’t mind me paying to stop them ever requesting this procedure again.
Life has consequences.
“Given that the current choice is between about $250 for an abortion and hundreds of thousands in various welfare payments and other taxpayer subsidies, um, yes, this is a fiscally conservative position. Have you really thought through what it costs the taxpayers to support the child (often brain-damaged in utero and very premature due to substance abuse) of a non-working, unemployable mother? Public housing, public schooling (including the entitlement to very expensive special ed services), food stamps, Medicaid, and all too often multiple rounds of incarceration and substance rehab programs starting when the child reaches its teens. A fair estimate of the average cost would be $500,000 per child.”
We could also save billions by eliminating Medicare and Medicaid. When elderly people get sick, just let ‘em die.
Sorry, but fiscal conservatism must have a grouding in morality, IMO.
Oh, right, ideally we shouldn't have to kill people, but it's easier than backing away from socialism.
In fact, my understanding of socialism is that we will have to kill more than babies eventually, because socialism will expand and it won't be feasible until we start killing old people and children and handicapped too. And those will only be stopgap measures.
But you know this. Only in the ideal world can we not massacre millions for socialism.
Planet Stalin: where mass murder is an "available option," unlike dismantling the welfare state.
C’mon.
That stuff’s old.
This morning, at least.
Don’t you have anything more recent?
“that passive contraceptives be mandatory”
The gov’t already provides “free” birth control to the parasites. They do not bother to use it. So the taxpayers are now forced to fund abortion or the child. Mandatory birth control for anyone on welfare is a nice idea and will never happen.
The parasites have a right to have children, don’tcha know?
The ACLU scum would be all over this.
I'm kind of in limbo myself... Guiliani cannot be trusted, I think, even in the WOT if he has no basic concept of right and wrong. McCain is a loose-cannon nutjob who would probably be OK in the WOT, but how can you be sure? Romney comes across too much as "say whatever it takes to get elected", and once again becomes unpredictable in how he would govern.
Then you have the also-rans... even if I favor the likes of Hunter (too Buchanan-lite populist for my tastes), Tancredo (Johnny-one-note camera whore), or Paul ("my Constituionalism is better than your Constitutionalism"), they're pretty much hopeless causes (and I've have had enough experience there as a 2-times Keyes supporter).
So far, Thompson (Fred, that is) looks good. Not perfect, but good. Solid on the WOT, better than most on immigration, pro-life (despite the Rudy and Romney camps saying otherwise), fiscally conservative, and a well-documented federalist. But he's not committed to running yet and he still needs to be vetted. He also has some odd votes to explain on CFR (though he's already addressed that somewhat) and affirmative action set-asides.
You can’t - it has nothing to do with being President.
So tough to talk about with someone on the other side of whatever stance you take yourself. It’s 100% emotion.
*****************************
Boy are you ever wrong , abortion is the #1 hot-button issue because without a right to life we have nothing , it is identical to the slavery issue of 160+ years ago , denying personhood to human beings , then it was for financial gain , now it is for the benefit of the socialists/communists (known as democrats) to make the supreme court the “god” (purposeful small “g”) of their universe which has the federal gov’t as the omnipotent sugar daddy. You better believe it’s 100% emotion , at least on the pro death side as for them to come into an argument speaking the truth would destroy their little world...
Fine, we're losers, you're a winner. SO GO AWAY ALREADY!
rudy will lose huge numbers of voters on this issue alone.So now he wants the rest of us ,who view abortion as murder, to help pay for the murder of children. hes a sick son of a ,well I dont want to get banned.
Ok - I can’t argue with that statement - I can’t.
I still support the man.
I cannot - and will not pretend that anything you said is wrong. Abortion is wrong - and it’s awful.
I still support Rudy for President.
I have decided to disagree with him on this issue - and still support him as leader of the free world.
My addition:
Isn’t paying poor people to kill their kids racist? If a disproportionate percentage of the babies the government pays to have killed are minorities doesn’t this funding discriminate against minorities.
On a tangent, if liberal Democrats have proportionately more abortions, will their numbers decline over time?
GROW UP! And I'm not going anywhere. No matter when you are on any of the Rudy threads you always have something rotten to say to me. You are consistent in your nastiness!
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.