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 ...
From what I have seen, some would vote for Hillary if she had an “R” next to her name and made the right noises on the War on Terror, or what ever we are supposed to call it now.
You did not finish your sentence. Choice with regard to what? If you are referring to abortion, you are using leftist PC language invented by the abortion industry.
It is a false negative - and a litmus test with no relevance to being POTUS.
I disagree: decisions regarding sign/veto of partial birth or other abortion restrictions, SCOTUS appointments, HHS secretary appointment, bully pulpit and POTUS’ political capital.
I’m in the exact same boat you’re in.
I’ll probably support Thompson. Would probably vote for Romney if he were the only choice...but I can’t in good conscience vote for Rudy. I admire him for what he’s done, but that doesn’t change what his is.
It is not secret that I believe Mormonism is a cult. And it is no secret that Romney has much more experience in leadership roles than Fred. That said, there is so much more to consider.
I like Congressman Hunter very much, he's a true conservative in my estimation. I like Senator Thompson very much, but Romney is far more qualified to lead. So, we Republicans are very fortunate to have such a field of candidates from which to select the best fit since we have so much of our values spread across so many good men.
In the end, if Fred Thompson or Duncan Hunter was named the VP nominee and Mitt Romney the Presidential nominee we would win by ten to twenty percentage points in the electoral college and might even win the popular vote.
OH! And one last thing: if we field two really charismatic men like Romney and Thompson, we will have better turnout and win House and Senate seats back!
Oh there are some freepers who’ve said they’d vote for her if she would close the borders.
agreed.
All "BIG CITY" rulers in the US are socialists, and they are all the same.
That man is about as far removed form the Constitution as Hillary Clinton is. Him being a Republican doesn't by any means make him any better then Hillary either. Only what he believes can make him a better choice. What he believes is basically mainstream Liberal Domocratic Party Platform.
I call "BS" on this statement. This never kept Mr. Giuliani from openly and proudly violating the provisions of the 1996 Federal immigration reform law that specifically forbade cities like New York from establishing "sanctuary city" policies, did it?
This is one of the most pathetic excuses I've seen yet about Giuliani's track record on this issue.
That's a disingenuous argument, since none of the specific anti-gun laws we've discussed here with regard to New York City have been challenged in Federal courts since Giuliani took office in 1994 -- which basically means that they have neither been "ruled" unconstitutional nor constitutional.
Giuliani was most definitely repudiated by the Federal courts for grossly unconstitutional government actions on at least one other issue. Do some research on Giuliani's program under which vehicles were seized from motorists accused of driving drunk -- EVEN IF THEY HAD BEEN ACQUITTED OF THE CHARGES -- and ask yourself if an authoritarian A-hole like this should even be allowed within 500 miles of the White House.
I think you've posted the most thorough repudiation of Rudy Giuliani's alleged "moderate" stance on this issue.
I'm really shocked at how many people here can't even bring themselves to admit that Rudy Giuliani's track record on this issue make him a hard-core radical leftist even compared to DEMOCRATS.
Let's go step by step, since raw emotions get in the way of reason when it comes to Rudy:
1. Rudy Giuliani told CNN Wednesday he supports public funding for some abortions.
What are those “some” abortions?
Rape, incest, and the life of the mother.
Is this funding legal?
In 1977 the Hyde Amendment passed specifying that abortion could be federally funded in cases of rape, incest and for the health of the mother. In 1981 Reagan vetoed a bill that expanded federal funding for rape and incest beyond the limitations of the existing law.
In 1993, with the stroke of a pen Clinton canceled several anti-abortion regulations made by the Regan and Bush Sr. administration, and expanded family planning counseling and federal funding for abortions to groups overseas. GW reversed Clinton's expanded federal funding and reinstated the Reagan policy that prohibited federal funding for family planning overseas.
This is the law as it stands right now. And what is Rudy saying now?
“And the Giuliani campaign noted later in the day that the former mayor would not seek to make any changes to current law, which restricts federal funding to cases of rape, incest and the life of the mother.”
In other words, he won't touch the existing law (Ronald Reagan's policy), because that's where the law currently stands.
I remember GW campaigning in 2000 that even though he was pro-life, he would make an exception in case of rape and incest, adding that good people can disagree on it.
And if I remember correctly, he also said that Roe v. Wade shouldn't be overturned.
GW appointed pro-choice judges to the bench during his tenure as governor of Texas. However during his 2000 campaign he emphasized that if he were to become president that abortion would play no part in nominating judges.
2. Giuliani also vowed to appoint conservative judges to the bench, though denied such a promise was a "wink and a nod" to conservatives in support of overturning Roe v. Wade, the landmark Supreme Court decision on abortion.
And this is what counts.
Giuliani's support of publicly funded abortions is one of several issues that are likely to put him at odds with social conservatives in his party.
The media must be loving this moment, knowing that the abortion issue is a dividing force in the GOP, while Hillary and Obama have raised $26 and $25 millions respectively and are sailing smoothly to their primaries without any criticism from our side.
If Rudy was a dishonest individual whose aim was to simply win the GOP nomination by saying the right things in order to appeal to the conservative base of the party, he would have just pandered to them and told the base exactly what they wanted to hear. He didn't do that.
Rudy has the confidence of being a straight shooter, and whether one agrees or disagrees with him, you know where he stands. So yes, Rudy supports the Hyde Amendment because the Hyde Amendment allows federal funding for some abortions: in the case of rape, incest, and for the health of the mother. I also believe when he said that he will nominate strict constructionist judges to the bench.
And as far as I know, this, is essentially the abortion policy under the current President - nothing more.
I personally would prefer that Rudy becomes pro-life, gets rid of the federal funding, and overturns Roe v. Wade, but even for a pro-life President this is an unrealistic expectation.
I do however appreciate someone telling me his or her true position, and despite your hyperbole and dislike towards Rudy, his positions are as good as GW's positions (since GW's actions towards the pro-choice movement are limited.) And if Rudy wins the nomination he would nominate originalist judges to the courts, something Hillary or Obama wouldn't do.
Bill Simon had assurances that Rudy supported the Hyde Amendement.Yeah, sure. LOL.
After this political blunder by Giuliani, I wouldn't be surprised if Bill Simon never shows his face again on the campaign trail.
Can you read the article?
And the Giuliani campaign noted later in the day that the former mayor would not seek to make any changes to current law, which restricts federal funding to cases of rape, incest and the life of the mother.
That means he supports the Hyde Amendment. I bet you don't know what the Hyde Amendment is:
In 1976, Congress passed the Hyde Amendment, which forbids federal funding for abortion. The only exceptions are in cases of rape, incest, and danger to the life of the woman. link
Your post not only reveals your ignorance, but reveals a serious case of rectal cranial inversion. Before you start accusing others of being liars, educate yourself first!
“The Hyde Amendment requires coverage of abortion in cases of rape, incest, and life endangerment.”
And that's what GW supports and that's exactly what Rudy supports. Surprise, surprise!!!
“And if Rudy wins the nomination he would nominate originalist judges to the courts ...” Based on what he did with judges during his power inNY and what he’s said about Ginsberg, I don’t need to trust him to do different from what he’s done in the past ... there are better alternatives than to jusy trust Rudy to be different from what he has been in the past since there is no evidence other than what he says that he would do differntly.
well that puts a fork in his candidacy...
Outsantding post, Victoria, as always! I have noticed for a while that the details of the Hyde Amendment, and how it has evolved to the modern day, is consistently misunderstood on FR.
Kudos for setting the plebeians straight! ;-)
Giuliani made absolutely no mention of any such limitations with regard to "rape, incest and the life of the mother" in this interview. And he specifically stated that taxpayer funds should be used to pay for abortions simply so that these poor women would not be deprived of a "constitutional right." But the "constitutional right" in question has no such limitations based on rape, incest, and the life of the mother.
And I am 100% certain that Giuliani's views about the use of taxpayer funds for abortions never included any exceptions of any kind when he was making those statements to groups like NARAL and Planned Parenthood.
What are those "some" abortions? Rape, incest, and the life of the mother.
You have interpreted his use of the word "some" to mean this, but there is nothing in his statement to indicate that this is the case. He didn't say "some abortions for poor women" . . . he said "some abortions."
In this context, the word "some" could just as easily mean: Any abortion where the woman cannot afford to pay for it.
And what is Rudy saying now?
"And the Giuliani campaign noted later in the day that the former mayor would not seek to make any changes to current law, which restricts federal funding to cases of rape, incest and the life of the mother."
The fact that a comment from a campaign spokesman is needed to "clarify" a point that Giuliani himself never made in his original interview -- or in any other interview -- is pretty damning, in my opinion.
I'm tired of this BS from you.
I'm sure the leftist media are also thrilled with the possibility that the 2008 presidential election could involve two major party candidates who are unapologetic hard-core liberals on so many issues.
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.