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).
EVERY pro-abortion politician in the past 34 years has said that.
Unfortunately, abortion is LEGAL in this country and the President of the United States can do little about it except to nominate conservative judges like Rudy has vowed to do.
Why would he nominate a judge who has a philosophy completely at odds with his own?
Has it occurred to you that politicians LIE to get elected?
Does, "Read my lips, no new taxes" ring any bells with you?
Face it, you Rudyites can whine and complain until you're red in the face, but you are NEVER going to convince us that Rudy will do anything except advance infanticide in America.
Not at all. As long as abortion is legal in this country a poor woman has the right to abortion and can sue for funding, especially in the case of rape or incest. Rudy is not for public funding of all abortions, contrary to the way the far right is trying to portray him. I am against all abortions but agree with pollsters like Frank Luntz and others that abortion, guns and gays is not “THE” issue in this election.
It’s also very stupid in a Presidential election where we have one of the most conniving, dishonest, lying Socialist/Marxist’s like Hillary Clinton running, and is likely to win, unless we have a very strong leader like Rudy Giuliani to kick her to the curb.
Of course abortion is not ‘the’ issue. However, it seems to me that much of Rudy’s support is coming from people that are teetering on the edge of not trusting him. He just pushed a large number of those people over the edge.
IMHO, this is a huge moment in his campaign that sheds a lot of light on Rudy’s ineptitude as a politician and his lack of strength as a candidate. And that’s coming from a guy who has supported and voted for Rudy in the past and has supported him as a presidential candidate as well.
I’m curious, your focus seems to be on “single issue” voters, aside from his support for the war on terrorism (WHICH IS ALSO SUPPORTED BY EVERY OTHER GOP CANDIDATE) what other issues is Rudy running on that might appeal to conservatives (pushing the homosexual agenda, allowing more illegal aliens into the country and grabbing guns DON’T COUNT)?
Another THINKING person. My sentiments exactly. Hillary Clinton is a corrupt, lying, conniving, deceitful Socialist/Marxist who must be stopped from winning this election. I will vote for whoever gets our party's nomination, whether I agree with all his politics or not.
BALONEY! Rudy has never pretended to be anything other than what and who he is. That's why there are so many Republicans, even very conservatives, supporting him. He has not flip flopped on important issues like some who are running, including McCain, Romney and Thompson. He is stronger today than he has ever been.
Rudy is not advocating taxpayer funded abortions except for POOR WOMEN, especially in the case of rape or incest. I agree with him even though I am a pro-life Republican.
Obviously you ignored what was said and who said it in the interview. The reporterette read a statement Rudy made in 89 that said he was for public funding for abortion for the poor. And he agreed with that prior statement in the interview. He didn't say only for rape or interest. It was the reporerette that said "some" abortions, not Rudy.
Only until the back lash hit yesterday did he revise his state to limit it to the Hyde amendment. He's spinnig like a top. But that's NOT what he said on Wednesday nor in 89 when he was for it for the poor.
But I see you are easily deceived so I'm sure you'll ignore that too.
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.
I’m not, neither are 90% of the other FReepers.
Has it escaped your notice that Rudy has actually LOST about a third of his support among FReepers in the past several weeks?
Sodomites have the same rights, only those who support the homosexual agenda characterizes "equal rights" for homosexuals.
You can close your eyes and ignore the three G's if you want but it's still an issue that ALSO includes the WOT and homeland security. Believe it or not Conservatives can walk walk and chew gum at the same time, we can also concentrate on more than one issue.
But you go ahead and get Rudy to win the primary. That will only serve to elect Hillary because 30% of the base will stay home.
Rudy has the same conservative fiscal policies that Reagan had. He reduced taxes 26 times, reduced the welfare rolls by 600,000, reduced the crime and murder rate by a HUGE percentage, (80% for Murder alone.) Ran the grifters who preyed on the public out of business and cleaned up the sleazy sex and porn shops in Times Square, making NYC the safest big city in America. He is NOT a gun grabber and DOES believe in the 2nd Amendment. He did have to control the hand guns in NYC and I would probably have done the same thing. He hates abortion but thinks a woman has the right to choose. He has been consistent and hasn't tried to weasel out of any of his positions, as some Republican candidates have done. And he does not believe in amnesty for illegals:
"On immigration, he told reporters he doesn't support amnesty for illegal immigrants, but he could support a guest worker program if there were adequate border security and tamper-proof ID cards. He said that even if illegal immigrants "can demonstrate that they are lawful, that they are paying taxes [and] that they'll pay penalties," they still shouldn't be put ahead of people who go through legal channels. "And citizenship here, if it's earned, should be premised on being able to read and write English and understand American history, so we restore assimilation to the process of immigration," he said."
They just don't count for Liberaltarians.
If Rudy wins the primary, %30 of the base will stay home, and then they can piss and moan for four years griping about President Hillary Clinton.
Nonsense. The myth that Rudy lowered taxes in New York has been debunked. He has made no pledge to work to lower taxes if elected. And cleaning up a cesspool does not exactly make someone “tough on crime.”
I don’t think there are 30% who will be stupid enough to stay home and let Hillary win. And no one else can appeal to the huge base of Independents like Rudy can. Do what you gotta do.
Which is EXACTLY what the left is hoping for.
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.