It doesn't change the fact that all a woman must do to get a publicly funded abortion, is have any doctor claim her health, physical or mental, is in jeopardy.
: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 ...
One question. Is there still a threat of terrorists attacking the United States?
Yes.
Then, using your twisted logic, the President of the United States can do "nothing" about terrorism since everything every President has done to stop terrorism and eliminate the threat against our country has resulted in the fact that we still have a terrorist threat.
Another one...Did New York City still have crime when Rudy Giuliani left office? Then, again using your logic, Rudy did absolutely nothing about crime in New York City.
Why are you guys so worried about Giuliani’s position on abortion? He says he supports funding “if it’s a constitutional right.” It’s only a constitutional right as long as the USSC says it is. He’s already said he would appt strict constructionist justices like Roberts & Alito. With a couple more of those (which the next Prez will almost certainly get to appt.) there won’t be any more “constitutional right” to abortion, & no support for funding by Rudy.
btw, it’s not like he wants to open up public funding to abortion across the board anyway. He just says that at this point he wouldnt move for a change to federal law. Federal law limits it to cases of rape, incest & the life of the mother.
“Do you think a politician holding executive office should defy the law”
Gee, do you? Because rudy defied the law on the issue of sanctuary cities. Congress passed a law, he fought it to the supreme court, lost, and then still failed to comply with the law.
Do you agree with his actions on that?
“Ultimately, it’s a constitutional right”
Where in the Constitution does it say that citizens have a right to end the life of another innocent person, Rudy?
You're in for a Rudy awakening if he becomes President. Which he won't. As for "we're all safe from anyone attacking the 2nd amendment," that sounds mighty disingenuous. But then, you're an unusual guy. You signed up here on Election Day '04!
So, you're going to praise Hillary and Obama now for being consistantly pro-abortion? You've really gone off the deep end.
“It’s only a constitutional right as long as the USSC says it is. He’s already said he would appt strict constructionist justices like Roberts & Alito.”
How readily the rudyphiles fall for the spin.
He believes roe v wade as good constitutional law.
He believes the right to ‘choice’ exists in the constitution.
He thinks those are strict constructionists beliefs.
That’s the kind of ‘strict constructionists’ judges he’d appoint. Ones that agree with him, per his own words.
Nice try though.
Excellent points. If Rudy were president, and the next day got to appoint 4 Supremes, who the day after voted to toss out Roe..it would go back to the state legislatures...you’d see abortions legal in NY, NJ, Mass, Cal, and other states..and online travel agents hawking a “three day weekend in NYC..including airfare, a room at the Waldorf, tickets to a Broadway show and/or Yankees game, dinner at Babo, and a D&C ..for a fixed price..”
Rudy disrepects Freedom, the law, and the citizens of this country. He didn't respect the 2nd Amend, and he hasn't respected the firat. He has no respect for the only reason that justifies govm't and that is to protect life. The appropriate thing to note regarding this matter is that the right to privacy in no way invalidates law, which is the fundamental claim of the court. He supports that ridiculous claim, which renders the law arbitrary as dictated by some court. His support for that arbitrary element of the law and rejection of the notion that the right to life is a fundamental Constitutional right, that trumps all others is reprehensible.
Look, you said he doesn’t pander. He previously opposed the PBA ban and said he didn’t forsee his position on that changing. Then he started running for president and changed his position. I consider that pandering even if he’s pandering to me.
You might be right - you might right.
Thanks for the post - I appreciate your thoughts.
“No, what is SICK is you trying to equate Rudy Giuliani to one of the worlds worst dictator’s. That is VERY SICK!”
No, he’s calling attention to you saying “I admire him for sticking to his principles” regardless of what those principles are.
Thanks. That's a good thing. It's an intolerable act.
I appreciate your giving me the chance to answer that.
I am disappointed that you moved down to the next item on your complaint list about Rudy, rather than respond to the one at hand. That is no way to have a productive discussion. Have a nice day.
De nada..my pleasure..and I appreciate yours...It’s also nice to be able to have a discussion without some idiots flaming away at you...
I have never said I support abortion. I have said I respect Rudy for not switching his position for the sake of political expediency.
Precisely.
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.