I rejected it years before that...
Posted on 04/06/2007 8:24:56 AM PDT by Clint N. Suhks
Former New York City Mayor Rudolph Giuliani (R), who has formed a presidential exploratory committee, on Wednesday said he favors government funding for some abortions but added in a statement that he "will not seek to change current law," Long Island Newsday reports (Gordon, Long Island Newsday, 4/4).
"Ultimately, [abortion is] a constitutional right, and therefore, if it's a constitutional right, ... you have to make sure people are protected," Giuliani said in an interview with Dana Bash of CNN (Saltonstall, New York Daily News, 4/5).
Giuliani's campaign later issued a statement that he will not seek to change the law known as the Hyde amendment (Long Island Newsday, 4/4). The Hyde amendment, passed in 1976, forbids the use of federal funds to pay for the cost of an abortion except in cases of rape or incest or when a woman's life is in danger (Kaiser Daily Women's Health Policy Report, 8/19/05).
In response to reporters' questions on Thursday in South Carolina, Giuliani said, "The best way to handle funding is to follow the law," adding, "Federal funds are used only in very limited cases for abortion, and it is left for a state-by-state decision. I have expressed previously that I am very comfortable with that" (Santora, New York Times, 4/6). Giuliani on Tuesday reiterated his support for abortion rights but said, "I don't know that I'd do anything as president to try to preserve that. That's a decision for the court" (Balz, Washington Post, 4/5). Earlier this year, Giuliani said he would appoint "strict constructionist" judges to the Supreme Court.
In a February interview with Sean Hannity of Fox News, he also said that a law (S 3) being reviewed by the Supreme Court that bans so-called "partial-birth abortion" should be upheld and that he supports parental notification requirements with a judicial bypass provision for minors seeking abortions (Kaiser Daily Women's Health Policy Report, 3/14). On Thursday, he said that his comments about judicial appointments were not an indication that he would like to see Roe v. Wade, the 1973 U.S. Supreme Court case that effectively barred state abortion bans, from being overturned, the AP/Forbes reports (Davenport, AP/Forbes, 4/5). "I'm against abortion," Giuliani said, adding, "I hate it. I wish there never was an abortion, and I would counsel a woman to have an adoption instead of an abortion. ... But, ultimately, I believe it is an individual right, and the woman can make that choice" (Saltonstall, New York Daily News, 4/6).
The speech Reagan delivered to CPAC in 1975 in the wake of the disasterous elections after Nixon’s resignation is incredible.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1735897/posts
Pollywog—I’m speaking from experience. My aunt went into labor on Christmas Eve, 1962. Something went wrong. They could have saved her life at the cost of her baby. She chose to die rather than allow her baby to die.
Not every woman should have to do the same. If there’s any risk at all that a mother might die because of bearing a child, then she ought not be forced to bear it.
In cases like this I would leave the decision up to a woman and her doctor, and those who can’t afford needed treatment should get it at no cost.
...and regarding rape or incest, I maintain that a girl or woman in either circumstance has the right to refuse to carry that potential child to term.
Fred thompson would. He’s already polling in the double digits without being announced, no dollars sent, and only even being mentioned as a candidate since march 11th of this year.
Meanwhile rudy has spent how many millions already and has been running for how long????
“Do any of the following names mean anything to you:
Scoop Jackson, Mo Udall, Gary Hart, Paul Tsongas, Bill Bradley, Jerry Brown and Howard Dean.”
Does the name Howard Dean mean anything to me???
YEAAAAAAAARRRRRRRRRRGGGGGGHHHHHHHHS it does!!!
Here’s some trivia to bewilder the “only Rudy can save us from Hillary” crowd:
Prior to Algore in 2000, the last ‘Rat nonincumbent who was a “clear frontrunner” to actually win the nomination was Adlai Stevenson.
The last nonincumbent “clear frontrunner” to win the Democrat nomination and go on to win the presidency was Grover Cleveland in 1892.
Pro-aborts “help” the poor by doing away with the poor.
And who is going to get rid of it? Giving lip service like “oh, Roe vs Wade is a bad law,” or, “we shouldn't have abortions,” “abortion should be eliminated,” but the question is, what are they going to do about it?
What is Thompson, Gingrich, Hunter or any other candidate going to do about federal funding for abortion? Is anyone going to ask this question? Their supporters probably prefer to just not know their answers.
Let's not forget that Bill Clinton expanded federal funds to include family planning counseling, and federal funding for abortions to groups overseas. GW Bush reversed Clinton's expanded federal funding and prohibited federal funding for family planning overseas.
Rudy said that he won't change the law as it stands right now, and I am absolutely certain Hillary will have no qualms about going back to her husband's policies and probably beyond them.
How so? He is pro-choice, not anti-constitution. As an ex-prosecutor he wants judges who can defend the strict meaning of the Constitution. That means, judges must interpret that constitution as it was originally intended and not making up law as they go along.
Has it occurred to you that politicians LIE to get elected?
LOL!! If Rudy wanted to lie to get elected, why didn't he just lie and say something like... “I was pro-choice before but I had a change of heart just like Ronald Reagan did, or both President Bushes did, before they became President. I'm no longer pro-choice but pro-life, and I will nominate orginalists judges to the court."
See, that's lying. Rudy didn't do that. So if Rudy says he is pro-choice and you and everyone believes him, why do you think he is lying when he said he would appoint originalist judges to the bench?
You can't accuse him of lying and believe him only what suits you.
Free Republic isn't America, it's just an internet forum. The national scientific polls indicate that Rudy is still number one - just like the polls were right in 2006, though many Freepers denied the basic truth of the polls and insisted that Republicans would keep the House and the Senate.
Hillary (1947) was named for Sir Edmund Hillary (1953), and Ronald Reagan waved his Harry Potter stick and poof Roe v. Wade just went away.
And Ronald Reagan never would have supported the Brady Bill.
Nor run from Beirut.
As the Red Queen explained, things mean what I say.
You bet.
I rejected it years before that...
Maybe it's just me, but I suspect that's because this is not really where he stands at all.
Let's not forget that Bill Clinton expanded federal funds to include family planning counseling, and federal funding for abortions to groups overseas. GW Bush reversed Clinton's expanded federal funding and prohibited federal funding for family planning overseas.
And that's exactly the point. Based on Rudy Giuliani's own track record and previous statements on this issue, I have a hard time believing he would not be closer to Bill Clinton than to George W. Bush on this.
What kind of redeeming qualities can a candidate have on this issue if he's received a grade of 100 from NARAL?
He didn't say he would change the law beyond where it stands right now, meaning federal funding for abortions in cases of rape, incest, and for the health of the mother. I don't get it. Are you saying he is lying? In that case I would ask you, why didn't he just lie and say he was pro-life? He knows it's a tough road for a pro-choice candidate in the GOP primaries.
He wasn't asked a question that addressed this. The REAL question he needs to answer would be this:
"If you were president and a Democratic Congress passed a bill overturning the Hyde Amendment, would you veto it?"
Well, regardless of what question he was asked, that was his statement. As for your question, it’s a fair one to ask.
Zook, I am sorry for the death of your aunt. Could she not have had a C-Section and immediately removed the baby? What would have they done to save your aunt at the expense of the baby? In any event, I am sorry for you and your loss.Since 1962 , much has been done to improve situations like this. Polly
(I ask this because you're more politically astute than he is. LOL.)
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.
