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).
You're absolutely right about this. The problem with Giuliani is that he's an anatomical freak -- seeing how he's got about five "heels."
With regard to Giuliani, this "it's ridiculous for single-issue voters to oppose a GOP candidate" rant was thoroughly discredited months ago.
No, and they won’t answer that one! They are RINOs.
“Ultimately, [abortion is] a constitutional right, and therefore, if it’s a constitutional right, ... you have to make sure people are protected,”
This is the self destruction of Rudy Giuliani, he’s toast.
It’s still early. The upcoming Republican debates are important since they involve discussion of ideas. Mr. Giuliani may yet acquit himself among some of his wavering supporters — including me. He could even win new supporters.
Additionally to his blunder yesterday, Rudy said he would not have a litmus test for judges concerning Roe v. Wade. It's one thing to say he would appoint "originalist" judges and another if he would appoint a judge that would ignore the bad law. An originalist judge knows Roe usurps the 10th amendment, so basically he sent a message to Conservatives that he really won't care if his appointment is originalist or not.
Yup, it’s a RINO. If you want to be appalled, see posts of people who defend Rudy and state that “he is in the mainstream on abortion” notably from somebody who claims to be a GOP “campaign consultant”.
Hi Bunny, what a pleasure to see you here. Pity we never finished our conversation about the merits of Rudy following and enforcing the law when it came to guns, but I see that you might need my help on some of this.
The subject policy was instituted by Ed Koch, not Giuliani, and I believe its rationale was to assist law enforcement by encouraging illegals to come forward to report crimes and testify without fear of deportation.
And, no, I don't agree with the policy.
Sabra is a "New Yawker, and was there to witness the creation. Sabra, do I have the above right?
Probably.
“Hi Bunny, what a pleasure to see you here. Pity we never finished our conversation about the merits of Rudy following and enforcing the law when it came to guns, but I see that you might need my help on some of this.
The subject policy was instituted by Ed Koch, not Giuliani, and I believe its rationale was to assist law enforcement by encouraging illegals to come forward to report crimes and testify without fear of deportation.”
I don’t need your help on it. I know the history of it. You can learn the history of it here:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1528310/posts
Bloomberg was able to repeal it by executive order. Rudy could have too. Instead he fought the US government all the way to the supreme court to maintain the policy. And when he lost, he continued with it anyway. And we can see a result of it here:
“An example: a notorious and brutal rape was committed in New York in 2002. Four of the perpetrators were illegal aliens who had been in police custody before the crime but were released without notification to immigration officials who might have taken them into custody pending deportation proceedings. Instead the City’s sanctuary policy prohibited any officials from making the notification. The public outrage over this incident momentarily brought the policy into question. Ultimately Mayor Bloomberg repealed it by executive order—only to see it return, slightly modified, shortly thereafter in response to pressure from immigrant advocacy groups.”
Keep spinning, as you can see from rudy’s slipping poll numbers, fewer people are buying it.
Rudy defended the policy all the way to the supreme court.
Sorry mr eager to argue I just want our side to win, you don’t seem to get that.
It was never an issue that made news until the Republican Congress passed some laws and the city went to court. Can’t say it’s a issue that really registered so much with me. There were illegals, they were just there. Like the rest of Koch’s NYC.
I believe almost all big cities act similarly.
Being a legal immigrant and naturalized, I’m very unforgiving of illegals and believe English should be the official and maybe only language allowed in civic affairs (see how tough I am) but on the policy of allowing illegals- if they are present- a measure of safety so that they are not afraid of law enforcement and attaining medical care, and some other issues, I see it as an very unfortunate necessity. The harm to the law abiding citizens of doing otherwise can be devastating.
A necessity for a municipality only because of the failure of the Federal Government.
On just a gut level based on experience with Giuliani’s law enforcement, I believe, that if there is one issue where Giuliani would surprise and exhilarate his detractors it would be that when controlling the border is his responsibility he would close it so even an illegal cockroach doesn’t get through. And will be called a fascist for his troubles.
Haven’t been a New Yorker for several years.
More condescension? Is that the best you got?
All I wanted to do was discuss, not argue. I said I was on the fence yet you labeled me as a one issue voter. If you want a president in favor of federally funding abortion fine, vote for him. If want a president who tried to sue 11 gun manufactures fine, vote for him. If you want an adulterer for president fine, vote for him. If you want a president in favor of Sodomite civil unions fine, vote for him.
Just know by doing so you will alienate many Conservatives that probably will stay home and then you will get your wish that Hillary will become president.
I wanted him to enter so that we would hear crickets from Republican voters about his candidacy...ending speculation that he would fire up Republicans and send droves of Rudy supporters to Thompson’s camp.
One day is a lifetime in politics.
I didn’t mean to imply that Rudy could not have repealed it. It was presumably created by executive order, and could be repealed by executive order. I think we both agree on the underlying facts now. Isn’t that splendid?
I sometime feel that I am one of the few posters around who admits that they don't know about a lot. It is just awesome to see how so well informed about nearly everything so many are around here.
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.