Replies

There is one thing I blame Rudy for not doing and that is not emphasizing that he isn't going to do anything much different than any Republican president has done so far, including Reagan. Most people don't know about the Hyde Amendment and the media preys on their lack of knowledge. By saying Rudy Giuliani supports federal funding for abortion, they make it sound like Rudy is anxious to create new laws to support federal funding for abortion, when in fact the Hyde Amendment has provided federal funding for some abortions and has been in effect since 1977. That means 3 decades of federal funding under 18 years of GOP presidents' watch.

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.

It's historical revisionism.

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.

There is one thing I blame Rudy for not doing and that is not emphasizing that he isn't going to do anything much different than any Republican president has done so far, including Reagan.

Maybe it's just me, but I suspect that's because this is not really where he stands at all.

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?

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.