Posted on 04/05/2007 11:53:02 AM PDT by Cincinatus' Wife
COLUMBIA, S.C. -- Republican presidential candidate Rudy Giuliani on Thursday defended his record favoring the use of public money for abortions, saying he wouldn't try to undo a Supreme Court ruling allowing the procedures.
"Ultimately I believe it's an individual right and a woman should make that choice," the former New York mayor said during a Statehouse news conference where he picked up three endorsements.
Support for abortion rights is unpopular with conservatives who dominate the GOP in South Carolina, an early voting state.
"I tell people what I think. I tell them (to) evaluate me as I am and do not expect them to agree with me on everything. I don't agree with me on everything," Giuliani said. "If that's the most important thing, then I'm comfortable with the fact you won't vote for me."
The comments came as South Carolina lawmakers push a measure that would require women seeking abortions to first view ultrasound images of their fetus. If the South Carolina measure is approved, the state would be the first to make such a requirement. Other states require the images be made available to women.
Giuliani said states should make the call on such issues. "The Legislature of South Carolina should make its decision about that," he said. He also said states should make the decision whether to use public money for abortions.
Conservatives and political experts in South Carolina said Giuliani's moderate stance abortion will hamper his ability to win votes here.
"He's toast," said Clemson University political scientist Dave Woodard. "I think it's going to be really hard for him to overcome this in South Carolina."
While Republicans in South Carolina oppose abortion by degrees -- allowing abortions in certain circumstances, such as a mother's health, rape or incest -- there's little room on public financing, said Oran Smith, executive director of the Palmetto Family Council, an anti-abortion group.
"That's usually one of the first things off the list when you talk about things related to abortion," Smith said.
Some Giuliani supporters said the abortion issue doesn't bother them. "I'm really for the whole package. I feel like I'm comfortable being for him," said Rosemary Byerly, a staunch abortion opponent from Inman.
But Alexia Newman, a state Republican Party first vice chairwoman who runs Spartanburg's Carolina Pregnancy Center, said she felt duped by Giuliani's recent comments to the state Republican executive committee that if elected he would appoint judges who favor a strict interpretation of the Constitution to the Supreme Court.
However, Giuliani said those comments weren't a nod in the direction of undoing Roe v. Wade.
"If I'm going to appoint strict constructionist judges, which I'm going to do, for the reason that they are going to strictly interpret the Constitution, then, as president, I have to be a strict constructionist," Giuliani said. "The present state of the law on these issues is not something that I would seek to change."
Giuliani also said the state should be left to make its own decision about the Confederate flag, which flies outside the Statehouse.
Gosh, last I knew, conservatives wanted states to make these decisions instead of having the feds make all the decisions.
Given that Newt didn't take one single minute to mention abortion in his Contract for America but found the time to mention welfare, I guess these social issues have taken on an urgency that even Newt didn't realize and that state's rights conservatives haven't quite caught up with.
Not from what I've seen of Democrats and Democrats running for office. They never mention abortion. The leftist want freedom and no restrictions on what they do with their body. They are not interested in abortion or dealing with that issue. Only conservatives bring that issue up time and time again. They never learn from their mistakes in elections. If you think you will get Democrats over to your side with the abortion issue you are very much mistaken. When have you seen a Democrat candidate take on abortion?
I agree with you. Respecting those who believe infanticide is a right and should be subsidized is rather insane.
Except that states are quite limited in making decisions about abortion as long as Roe is around.
Rudy has said he would appoint strict constructionists. Here is his current definition of strict constructionism:
http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/04/04/giuliani.interview/
Giuliani told Bash that "a strict constructionist judge can come to either conclusion about Roe against Wade. They can look at it and say, 'Wrongly decided. ... We will overturn it.' 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.'
---
So in other words, to Rudy, strict constructionism HAS NO MEANING. Throw in his return to past form regarding abortion rights, and Roe would be safe during a Rudy presidency.
I hope you’re right, but I believe you are wrong.
They seem to have forgotten in their zeal to trash Rudy. Convenience!
Oh brother. You know, ignorance really must be bliss. Somehow the old state of SC found a way to greatly reduce and limit abortions. Heck if we can do it, anybody can do it.
Funny, Rudy’s statement made me think that it depends upon what the meaning of ‘strict constructionism’ is.
I'll take your word for it.
Somehow the old state of SC found a way to greatly reduce and limit abortions.
Hardly. The law in question is PROPOSED, and has not withheld judicial scrutiny. State efforts to curb abortion significantly have all ran into the SCOTUS wall.
You can't even keep your own spin straight.
LOL. I knew something was missing there. Well, maybe Newt should redo that contract of his and be sure and mention all the important social things. You know, those things that seem to take precedence over less spending and national security and standing behind our military.
And while he’s at it, he should tell conservatives to just stop supporting state’s rights. Immediately.
I said that SC had found a way to greatly reduce abortions. Why don’t you check it out before you write such a stupid response. We have fewer abortion providers here than any other state, for one. The rest, I’ll leave up to you to figure out what we’ve done to reduce abortions, since you’re so smart and everything. /s
Please show us that way. With a link.
Justice Roberts said during his confirmation hearing that Roe v Wade was settled law. It’s called Stare Decisis or something.
Now Rudy is saying he doesn’t know how SCOTUS would rule and you’re upset????? LOLOLOLOLOLOLOL
Abortion is a very emotional issue for both sides of the debate, I understand that. I don’t blame people on both sides for drifting into overstatement and fantasyland.
It’s just not good when you are trying to clearly evaluate social policy, that’s all.
http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/sfaa/south_carolina.html
One of many. Do your own damned research the next time you try and tell me I’m wrong.
Democrats for Life
In order to win this last 06 elections, they were forced to start using prolife language in the campaigns. For the first time ever, their party leaders placed more importance on an issue other than abortion - defeating the Iraq war effort.
Casey, Shuler and others would not have been able to beat their conservative opponents without some semblance of a prolife stance. Are they legit? We shall see when votes come up.
Ray Flynn, Tom Finneran among others pushing for change within the Democratic party at Democrats for Life.
http://www.michellemalkin.com/archives/000300.htm
A very, very powerful Democrat will do an about face on this issue, in the national spotlight within the next couple years.
The only major restriction I can see is a ban on abortions after 12 weeks. And that has not withstood final judicial scrutiny.
The last major SCOTUS ruling on these kind of laws, Casey, went against strong state restrictions. So overturning Roe is a major issue regarding states having the power to set their own abortion restrictions.
Your question looks very much like a trap to me. Sort of like asking "when did you last beat your wife"?
Respectfully disagreeing with an opposite opinion on say, how much should be allocated to NASA this year for research is one thing. But respecting a man who declares that legally slaughtering babies in the womb is a constitutional right is quite another. This issue makes Rino Giuliani a dispicable man for another reason as well. He recently tried to sell to the American people the proposition that he'd nominate pro-life SCOTUS justices like Scalia and Thomas. Then he comes right out and declares that abortion is a Consitutional right that needs to be protected. He's a scumbag.
Judge Roberts needed 60 Senate votes to be confirmed. Rudy would need 50.1 percent of American electoral votes to win. Big difference.
Now Rudy is saying he doesn’t know how SCOTUS would rule and you’re upset????? LOLOLOLOLOLOLOL
Nah, just calling Rudy on his previous promise to appoint strict constructionists. You know, the statement that your side has used for weeks to say Rudy would be good for the pro-life movement. And now you're forced to retreat from that, so you're reduced to your usualy personal attacks.
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.