Giuliani stands by support of publicly-funded abortions

CNN ^ | April 4th, 2007

[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."

[Jake The Goose]

“Under rudy, that right would be regulated away...consistent with the spirit of the 2nd amendment, naturally.”

Now Please - don’t go over the edge on this stuff.

The 2nd amendment will be long after you and I are gone.

No need to go into the woods here.

[SmoothTalker]

I don’t understand Hannity’s crush on Rudy. I really don’t. Maybe Rudy has some incriminating polaroids of Sean?

[Petronski]

He’s personally opposed to abortion? Big whoop. So also say Teddy Kennedy and John Kerry and so forth.

Get real.

[wolfcreek]

“a litmus test with no relevance to being POTUS.”

Fine. Let’s concentrate on the other issues Real conservatives care about.

2nd Amend.

Gay marriage

illegal immigration

Shall I continue or would you and Rudy like to continue.

[Kuksool]

If Rudy hates abortion so much, then why does he want to force pro-life people to pay for them with their money?

[azhenfud]

Giuliani’s policy resulted in New York’s abortion rate decline to be only 1% whereas the country as a whole experienced a 5% decline in abortions in the period of 1996-2000.

When government uses taxpayer funds to subsidize anything, that thing will be exploited by both government and its subjects receiving that “service”. When people are financially aided in abortion, they will use that option as birth control more frequently and with less reservation.

Hence, New York is known as the “Abortion Capitol of America”.

[dynachrome]

“Thompson/Watts 2008” would be a very good ticket.

[Graymatter]

Amazing, isn’t it? Abortion is a “constitutional right” (NOT!) and therefore the govt (we taxpayers!) must pay for it.
And why stop there? Don’t the rich get equal protection? Don’t we have the same rights as everyone else? If the govt is paying for the poor woman’s rightful entitlement, let it pay for the rich woman’s.
And wait! This is health care. Haven’t we a right to get our teeth fixed, to get heart transplants?

What a headbanger, that people are actually planning to vote for this man for President...and on the Republican ticket!

[Petronski]

Giuliani: A strict constructionist judge can come to either conclusion about Roe against Wade.

NeoCaveman: Now that's what I call "strict construction". LMAO!!!

Nice Catch! LOL

[madconservative]

“There is a big gap between doing nothing to stop abortion and forcing taxpayers, many of whom believe the practice to be nothing short of murder, to pay for it.”

Amen! It is ridiculous to assert that the president has no power over the abortion issue. Who will nominate Ginsberg’s replacement? Who has the power to veto public funding for abortions? Here, I thought it was the President.

As you say, they may not be able to stop it, but they can sure as heck help by not encouraging it and making me pay for it.

I have always argued to my socially conservative Democrat friends and family (being from Pittsburgh, I know quite a few of those strange creatures) that a vote for a pro-aborion candidate at the federal level is a vote for abortion. I have no intention of being a hypocrite by voting for a pro-abortion Republican. They can call me a traitor and they can call me naive. I don’t care, I believe that this is a matter of life and death. You've got to draw a line somewhere folks, otherwise I am just voting for a walking pig.

[azhenfud]

"If Rudy hates abortion so much, then why does he want to force pro-life people to pay for them with their money?"

Because he's a "fiscal conservative", don't you know.

[lonestar67]

I lack the ten million dollars I need to make a constitutionally protected free speech television advertisement against his position.

Could he please send me the check so I can realize my constitutionally respected right— or maybe just have the taxpayers send me a check— that would be fine as well?

[kevkrom]

But,,, he has the political character to hold his position as he see it. I just don’t hold this issue as a major decision metric.

I dunno, this seems to be a triple whammy:

1. It's a pro-abortion position. "Personally opposed" doesn't cut it when a 'rat says it, why should it be different if someone with an "R" says it?

2. It presents a poor understanding of the Constitution to call abortion a "right". Guiliani is probably referring to it as the current law of the land, but this type of phrasing will not sit well with Constitutionalists and social conservatives.

3. Claiming that because something is an individual right therefore compels me, the taxpayer, to fund it for someone else is both morally wrong and fiscally non-conservative.

I don't see any way to spin this other than really, really bad for Guiliani.

[NeoCaveman]

I have a new tagline

[WhyisaTexasgirlinPA]

Darn, I forgot.

[boop]

"Wondering what part of the Constitution Commandant Rudy is referring to? The tortured reasoning regarding “rights to privacy” that was used, in part, to justify Roe v. Wade?"

Yeah, so the american sheeple are expected to PAY for others to exercise "constitutional rights"? WTF? Does this mean that the taxpayers would be expected to pay for a gun for poor people who can't afford them? After all, we would be "depriving" them of their right to bear arms. If this is true, Giuliani has completely lost me. I can live with a pro-choice president, just not one who forces me to PAY for abortion.

[areafiftyone]

And you really think that abortion will be gone? It will be thrown back to the states. And then it will be up to the individual states to decide. The States like CA, NY, NJ, MA, CO and many others will keep it and the ones who can’t get abortions in their states will go to the states that allow it. The only way to stop abortion is to change the minds of people by education. Slamming presidential candidates because of abortion is not going to work. It will alienate people from conservatives and make conservatives seem like extremists.

[KantianBurke]

Pretty tawdry reasoning. You’re presupposing that the majority of women who get abortions are on welfare and are angling for another govt check. And even if that were the case, you’re assuming that those kids will inevitably be a drag on society. Many people born into broken homes have successful lives, both financially and career wise.

[annalex]

personally opposed to abortion ... would not have a litmus test

This means nothing, -- a classic proabort cop-out. Opposition to abortion should be a litmus test, for all candidates on all levels, or else the GOP ceases to be a conservative party.

This man is a disgrace.

[Politicalmom]

Right.

He was against the Flat Tax....Forbes endorses him and VOILA!, he’s FOR the Flat Tax.

He was against the partial birth abortion ban, now he’s for it.

He revoked gun permits from law abiding citizens, now he’s a bit RKBA supporter.