Posted on 04/04/2007 12:52:50 PM PDT by KantianBurke
The Hyde Amendement ( a federal law which banned tax funded abortion) helped to reduce the abortion rate.
My answer: Why should anti-war people pay for a war?
Not really my answer, but I bet someone on the left would bring that up.
The correct answer is that pandering politicians decided to pass laws funding abortions and that none of us get to pick and choose how are tax dollars are spent.
The language is slanted here - Rudy’s quote is framed by the abortion issue, but in actually I read him as supporting state’s rights to choose whether or not to allow and/or support financially.
He makes no promise to protect “abortion rights” across the board or to fund them universally.
Legally it’s a simple finding of fact and finding of law — rational stances both; that abortion is legal at the current time, and that he is in no position to ban it, or deny state’s rights to support it financially in its current legal state, defined as an at times “necessary” medical procedure.
“over 60% of all abortions are done with some public assistance money.”
Source for that please.
McCain is finished..I think he drops out this fall, before any primaries. He looks old, tired....and the media haven't even begun to pound the twin drums of his health ( the melanomas) and his wife Cindy( who makes Judy look like Mother Teresa..)
FWIW, I have a sneaking suspicion that Fred is auditioning for the VP slot...I don't think he has the "fire in the belly" to go flat out and run for the top spot. I could be wrong.
Source? Given that for generations unwanted pregnancies were carried to term and produced productive law abiding citizens the burden of proving such an assertion is on you.
The slippery slope that Govtshrinker advocates... If you are going to be a drain on society, you have no right to live. Why support handicapped people with SSI? They never worked. They are a drain on society. The fiscally conservative viewpoint.
As an ex NYer who worked in NYC during Commandant Rudy’s administration, I can say that the only thing that “resonates” is Rudy’s BS.
HE is the reason that Hillary is a US Senator, for one thing. He had his little mid life hissy fit (divorce, Judy Nathan affair) in the middle of the Senate campaign. The Pubs then put in a last minute replacement, Rick Lazio, a good enough guy, but way underfunded and zero name recognition upstate. He got trounced, Hillary is now a US Senator, and has a real good shot at becoming President.
There are other very unsettling things about Rudy as well. I won’t go into all of them, but suffice it to say that if 9/11 had never happened, Rudy would be unknown to most everyone in the country.
Either one believes what people say or they don't, re: anti-abort or not. I gotta' go.
Only temporarily! Exterminating the non-productive...the not sufficiently productive...the inefficient...
Frankly I don't really know where it ends up. However, "extermination" is such a loaded word, and so misleading. It isn't as if these people would be tossed whole in the landfill. They have valuable by-products. Hearts, livers---skins!
Giuliani really believes this?
“Moreover, a broad cross section of U.S. women have abortions. 56% of women having abortions are in their 20s; 61% have one or more children; 67% have never married; 57% are economically disadvantaged; 88% live in a metropolitan area; and 78% report a religious affiliation.”
Your numbers may vary.
So you disagree with him on abortion. That makes sense. Now what about his view that constitutional rights must be funded by the government? Do you agree with him on that?
“As a government official, he has to legally back all current law”
Yes, but as a government official you must realize that he can use the bully pulpit to have laws changed. Laws are altered all the time.
Its FR policy to excerpt several news source including articles from CNN. Its not my fault if its ending makes your hero look like a dolt. So can the conspiracy theories. Besides one SHOULD read the entire article before commenting on it.
Are you a gun owner? just wondering. Would you be OK with limiting 2nd amendment rights? Would you be willing to approve of someone who is OK with 2 men having marital benefits? Oh, never mind, if you're not a conservative you wouldn't get it.
No - I completely disagree with public funding - completely disagree.
Still support him though.
Thanks for asking - I appreciate that.
Yanks in ‘07.
Fred in ‘08.
True, and too bad it won't fit in your tag line.
"RUDY GIULIANI 2008 - STRENGTH AND LEADERSHIP AND TAXPAYER-FUNDED ABORTIONS"
I am a gun owner - NRA member in good standing since 1985.
I have zero fear of Rudy pushing any gun control initiatives that would effect me.
Also - as the D.C. court decision just showed us - we’re all safe from anyone attacking the 2nd amendment.
That was a great day for the 2nd amendment - and for the residents of D.C.
GOP should give Guiliani’s campaign a partial-birth abortion. I’m sure he will understand what happens when you are not wanted.
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.