Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Giuliani stands by support of publicly-funded abortions
CNN ^ | April 4th, 2007

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 ...


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Crime/Corruption; Front Page News; News/Current Events; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: abortion; constitution; giuliani; prolife; rudy08; rudy2008; stoprudy2008; taxpayerdollars
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 401-420421-440441-460461-473 next last
To: Jake The Goose
Name a single POTUS who did anything to stop abortions?

I can name serveral that fought to prevent federal funding of abortions.

441 posted on 04/04/2007 11:19:35 PM PDT by Elyse (I refuse to feed the crocodile.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: super7man

I remember reading the Roe v Wade decision and what struck me was that it was not decided on the “right” of privacy, but on the right of self defense.

Going to term with a pregnancy was at the time much riskier than having an abortion. The judges felt that a woman had the right to decide whether she wanted to face the extra risk to her life by going to term.

Also, with the state of medicine at the time premature babies were not able to survive outside the womb like very young premies can today with medical advances in Pedriatrics ICU.

All this smokescreen about “right to privacy” is inaccurate as far as I could tell when I read Roe v Wade.


442 posted on 04/05/2007 12:47:09 AM PDT by patriciaruth (http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1562436/posts)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 52 | View Replies]

To: kevkrom; rintense; Always Right; dynachrome; SmoothTalker; papasmurf; Graymatter; NeoCaveman; ...

I’m looking into Governor Romney lately.

Looks like he still has his business acumen and can raise money for a good, solid race.

There doesn’t seem to be any record of military service. He went to college at the end of the Vietnam War era, and the lottery system came about then. Wonder what his lottery number was.

He’s evidentally turned a blind eye and deaf ear to ingrained liberal icons like abortion in his State of Massachusetts, but I don’t think he made as many compromises on those kind of issues as Rudy did to be elected in NYC. I think his basic values are family values and religious values. Obviously that’s not true for Rudy.

So, I am leaning toward supporting Romney, much as I love McCain’s stabbing us in the back every time he could get on the news /sarcasm, and much as I love Rudy for cleaning up NYC and his bravery and good management on 9/11. Those seem to be the top three contenders for now.

Rudy v Hiliary666 would mean I’d vote Rudy, but for now, Romney is my choice.

I sure hope he doesn’t go with the same prissy look which makes me wonder if he has the guts to kick our enemies in the nuts.


443 posted on 04/05/2007 1:16:27 AM PDT by patriciaruth (http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1562436/posts)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 141 | View Replies]

To: All

Probably graduated high school 1965, with college exemption up in 1969.

Draft lottery 1969: birthday March 12, 1947 = 350
Draft lottery 1970: birthday March 12 = 89


444 posted on 04/05/2007 1:27:45 AM PDT by patriciaruth (http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1562436/posts)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 443 | View Replies]

To: Jake The Goose
Ask yourself: is it the issue that's awful, or the act? Be honest now.
445 posted on 04/05/2007 3:29:36 AM PDT by Lexinom (Duncan Hunter - the electable answer for the WOT and border security. www.gohunter08.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: cva66snipe
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.

Sugar-coating a liberal with an (R) does not make him any safer. If anything, it makes him more dangerous.

446 posted on 04/05/2007 4:42:53 AM PDT by The_Eaglet (We need another Ron in the White House.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 408 | View Replies]

To: Torie
One may not like the law, or the SCOTUS position on these matters, but the implication that Rudy disrespects the law, is unfair.

No, it is not.

Rudy said he'd appoint strict constructionists. Therefore, he opens himself up to this kind of scrutiny. And fails it.

447 posted on 04/05/2007 6:23:18 AM PDT by dirtboy (Duncan Hunter 08/But Fred would also be great)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 276 | View Replies]

To: patriciaruth

Thank you.

I will have to look into this.

This would then pose the question, “Is the government obligated to pay for an individual’s right to self defense?”

I think not. Exercising the right should not obligate another person(s) to action.


448 posted on 04/05/2007 6:37:34 AM PDT by super7man
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 442 | View Replies]

To: Alberta's Child
since none of the specific anti-gun laws we've discussed here with regard to New York City have been challenged in Federal courts

Imagine that. Wonder why?

449 posted on 04/05/2007 7:18:27 AM PDT by Sabramerican
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 410 | View Replies]

To: GovernmentShrinker

LOL. Bye


450 posted on 04/05/2007 7:27:33 AM PDT by dashing doofus (Those who are too smart to engage in politics are punished by being governed by those who are dumber)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 255 | View Replies]

To: Alberta's Child; Sabramerican
which basically means that they have neither been "ruled" unconstitutional nor constitutional.

You might want to read up on the second amendment and the doctrine of incorporation. The current SCOTUS precedent is Biltmore v. Barron, which held that there was no incorporation. Thus a state is free to make the possession of each and every gun held be a private citizen within its borders illegal.

SCOTUS may reverse that holding at some point (unlikely when it comes to incorporation), but until it does, the local gun laws in NYC are Constitutional.

451 posted on 04/05/2007 8:39:02 AM PDT by Torie (The real facts can sometimes be inconvenient things)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 410 | View Replies]

To: Torie

I have come to learn that “Conservatives” have their own unique view of Constitutional Law.

Basically, everyone gets to decide on their own what is and isn’t Constitutional law, those nine people be damned.

Unless they vote our way.

Hell, I think we even have a rare meeting of the mind here between Liberal and Conservatives.


452 posted on 04/05/2007 8:48:52 AM PDT by Sabramerican
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 451 | View Replies]

To: Always Right

You’re wrong. Conservatives will support Rudy if he is the nominee. They always do. I wish it were otherwise but is is not.


453 posted on 04/05/2007 8:54:08 AM PDT by Austin Willard Wright
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Jake The Goose

You are taking two approaches, both at the same time. You are excusing Rudy on the one hand if he did say this. On the other, you are claiming that CNN reported it wrong.


454 posted on 04/05/2007 8:56:33 AM PDT by Austin Willard Wright
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Austin Willard Wright

In fact Rudy did say it - long since confirmed.

I don’t excuse it - I don’t agree with it.

But I am still support Rudy for POTUS.


455 posted on 04/05/2007 9:00:59 AM PDT by Jake The Goose
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 454 | View Replies]

To: KantianBurke
Ruh, roh. Rudy’s gun went off in the holster and shot his foot.
456 posted on 04/05/2007 9:01:33 AM PDT by colorado tanker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: HamiltonJay
Rudy’s taking a hit on this one for sure.... Public monies should not be paying for abortions that are not medically necessitated (IE 99.99999999999%) of all abortions.

You have to wonder who is advising him. It's like they have no idea how unpopular tax-funded abortion is, even in rather liberal states.

He really is an urban hillbilly, out-of-touch with the country and culturally tone-deaf to anything outside Manhattan liberal/leftwing circles.
457 posted on 04/05/2007 2:10:37 PM PDT by George W. Bush
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 103 | View Replies]

To: areafiftyone

Rudy will win regardless of the 1 hit wonders here. Rudy resonates with the American people. Freepers do not.

No, he doesn't.

Tax-funded abortion is extremely unpopular. When voters start to look at him closer, they're going to back away. They already are, judging from the polls.

He'll drop out by fall, I think.

458 posted on 04/05/2007 2:16:36 PM PDT by George W. Bush
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 145 | View Replies]

To: GovernmentShrinker; Jim Robinson
That was before the cradle-to-grave entitlement welfare system came into being. Feel free to pay a visit to an NYC public school in a predominantly welfare-dependent neighborhood. You can decide for yourself how many of these barely literate, appallingly behaved kids are going to grow up to be productive and law-abiding citizens. And decide if our society would really be better off with twice as many of them.

You're doing a good job of channeling Stalin and Sanger here.

Exactly where should we construct our killing fields for this human refuse? If they need to be killed in the womb, why shirk at extermination of the more advanced and contagious phase of the existence of these parasites on society?

I'm not sure FR is really the right place to advocate the genocide of the poor or their offspring. Maybe you should look elsewhere for a Planned Barrenhood forum. FR is pro-life. And you are repulsive.
459 posted on 04/05/2007 2:33:55 PM PDT by George W. Bush
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 232 | View Replies]

To: flashbunny
Then says he’s pro 2nd amendment and has a record like he belongs to the brady bunch.

Uh, you know that he does actually belong to the Brady Bunch? Recall that photo of him giving a gungrabbing speech. Next to the podium, Brady in the wheelchair and Schmucky standing in the background. And Rudi was the only Republican who attended the Rose Garden signing and celebration of the Xlinton assault weapons ban.

He is a full-blown agent and co-conspirator with the Brady Bunch and HCI. There is no doubt about it. He even used his position as a mayor to attack the gun manufacturers and gun shops in other states, something his successor, Bloomin'idiot, has continued and enhanced.
460 posted on 04/05/2007 2:42:21 PM PDT by George W. Bush
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 298 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 401-420421-440441-460461-473 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson