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 ...
Get rid of these handouts and women will think twice before opening their legs.
“So I guess this means Rudy and Judi will not be taking time off from Cabinet meetings to attend pro-life rallies.”
She will be busy killing puppys.
No, that was not your point. In fact, it's hard to say that you had a point at all, rather than just the usual pro-abort verbiage that the Left spews whenever the subject comes up. But you specifically said (and I quote, verbatim and all): "Law changes won't do anything to change behavior." That is utter and complete nonsense, as anyone would know who isn't a pro-abort airhead, as all the Rudybots seem to be.
PING!
So you would support murder of the elderly when their public cost exceeds $500,000?
If you haven’t already, read the full article on this thread.
Rooty put a brand new spin on his”Constructionist” judges.
Its far more damning than his old spin.
Sounds like a promotion of anarchy to me.
Your position is morally indefensible.
This guy doesn't understand the Constitution, and he doesn't respect the sanctity of life.
They should start up RudyRepublic.com.
Why would you think that? Most elderly people have been productive members of society, and have made a net economic contribution to society well in excess of the costs of their late life medical care. The cost shouldn’t be borne by “the public”, but given that most of the elderly have paid into the public treasury for decades, it usually isn’t being borne by the public in the final analysis. That is less true than it used to be, as a larger portion of the population becomes lifelong welfare recipients, but is still true for the great majority. Those who could have paid in but chose instead to lead deadbeat lives should be left to a combination of whatever resources they can muster on their own and private charity.
Thanks. I’ll go to that one now.
sw
I wasn't a full-fleded Rudybot, but I supported him on the premise that his being NYC Mayor and ties to 9/11 would overshadow his social liberalism. I also hoped that he would denounce or come to his senses on these issues too.
It didn't happen, so I ate the crow and won't support him.
Catholic ping.
Why Pro-Life Catholics (oxymoron, I know; all Catholics SHOULD be Pro-Life, but you know) might want to reconsider voting for Rudy.
MAJOR Pro-Life ping. You need to see this.
Welcome into the light, Brother EEE! When you’re ready, the Frederation will be here to enfold you! :D
Try the article at the top of the page. You know. The one we are discussing on this thread.
"A strict constructionist judge can come to either conclusion about Roe against Wade," he said. "They can look at it and say, 'Wrongly decided thirty years ago, whatever it is, we'll over turn it.' [Or] they can look at it and say, 'It has been the law for this period of time, therefore we are going to respect the precedent.'
Weeks ago, I said that Rudy wouldn't know a strict constructionist if one bit him on his bald head. He just confirmed that I was right.
“A disqualifying issue is one which is of such gravity and importance that it allows for no political maneuvering. It is an issue that strikes at the heart of the human person and is non-negotiable. A disqualifying issue is one of such enormity that by itself renders a candidate for office unacceptable regardless of his position on other matters.” FIVE such disqualifying issues are Abortion, Euthanasia, Fetal Stem Cell Research, Human Cloning, and “homosexual marriage”. Source: A Brief Catechism for Catholic Voters
"Calls to advance human rights are an illusion if the right to life itself is subject to attack." Faithful Citizenship.
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.