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).
“Only in your dreams. Most pundits like Frank Luntz agree that guns, gays and abortion will not be the deciding issues in this election. It’s all about leadership and the WOT.”
The GOP can’t win without all out support of the conservative right. Rudy’s lib. views on guns, gays and FEDERALLY funded abortions won’t do it.Rudy’s boy Kerik is about to be indicted and Rudy recommended him for homeland security chief. Six marriages between him and his wife “du jour” won’t play well in the red states. Either Fred Thompson, Romney or McCain would be far better choices.Pundits like Luntz et al are not worth listening to as they are apologists for the RATS.
Is that Chuckie Schumer smooching behind Julie-annie in the picture?
Wagglebee can speak for me. He is stating fact. People like you are trying to sell a bag of smoke and mirrors.
Once thing you may not understand is that there are not enough conservatives to elect a conservative or enough liberals to elect a liberal. So guess whose vote is really key to winning any election? That one may be a bit tough for you so take a while to digest it.
There is no reason to vote for A RINO Republican. If you lose, it will be your reasoning, not mine.
Pubbies are not going to get by nominating a RINO to fight the WOT, not good enough. The RATs have eliminated those words. Enough Americans now believe there is no WOT. In a way, Bush protected us but has hurt himself by not focusing on all fronts. A PC culture is a lot responsible for that. Not all fronts are military. Many of those people putting their lives on the line in the mid-east are the very people that Rudy people show such contempt for.
Our problem is the war within. Muslims are growing in numbers. There are more ways than one to fight them. We have to stick up for our beliefs and believe them as much as they are committed to their own beliefs.
Mainstream is not right. Mainstream is mediocrity and unprincipled weakness.
Sorry. Rudy is not the man to do that.
This is very true. Foes of abortion need to know where the law stands (and where it has been for a while), so the can best make judgments and choices about future policy.
Many pro lifers consistently misstate The Hyde Amendment, and don’t have a practical grasp of what overturning Roe would mean. There’s a lot of short term gratification with the issue, and it’s not productive.
Another thing that folks fail to grasp is that a person may personally be for legal abortion and also think the issue is best left up top the states and that Roe should be overturned. That goes for politicians and judges.
In the meanwhile, you can believe that Roe is valid law of the land, which by the way it is whether we like it or not.
That specious argument must pass the Plessy v Ferguson smell test. A law that stood more than twice as long as Roe.
And guess what? It stinks.
I’m not advocating that Roe not be overturned. I’m talking about what would happen, as a practical matter, if Roe is overturned.
That’s not specious in any way. And many pro lifers I know have a poor grasp of a potential post-Roe political landscape.
I am sure there are many who are leaning toward Rudy, but haven’t committed as yet.
I take it you think President Bush is a LIBRUL because he believes in equal rights under the law for gays?? Big shocker......Most people in this country do too. But we want MARRIAGE preserved for one man and one woman.
Plenty of law was based on Plessy, so the argument that “some” law built on president can’t be overturned certainly is specious.
What does that have to do with what I wrote?
You’re insane to believe that. Rudy’s support among FReepers has DROPPED by nearly a third in the past several weeks. Rudy is in the same freefall nationwide.
Apparently that’s you and Rudy.
That's an argument the pro-abortion crowd uses and it flies in the face of Plessy.
You’re not making any sense. What I wrote has nothing to do with whether Roe was soundly decided or not. I am an advocate of overturning Roe, not a critic of it.
And all that being said, many pro life advocates do have a poor grasp of what would likely actually happen to abortion policy after Roe is overturned.
You keep repeating yourself.
And you haven’t started making sense.
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.