Posted on 04/06/2007 9:44:30 AM PDT by veronica
Not at all. Murder is a crime that is defined, prosecuted and punished at the state level. If abortion is murder, it certainly should be defined as such at the state level as well. That is the appropriate position for a presidential candidate, and if the SCOTUS were to adopt that position, it would be the end of Roe v. Wade.
As Delivered
Thank you very much for inviting me to say a few words of welcome. This event shows that people of different political parties and different political thinking can unite in support of choice. In doing so, we are upholding a distinguished tradition that began in our city starting with the work of Margaret Sanger and the movement for reproductive freedom that began in the early decades of the 20th century.
As a Republican who supports a woman's right to choose, it is particularly an honor to be here. And I would like to explain, just for one moment, why I believe being in favor of choice is consistent with the philosophy of the Republican Party. In fact, it might be more consistent with the philosophy of the Republican Party. Because the Republican Party stands for the idea that you have to restore more freedom of choice, more opportunity, more opportunity for people to make their own choices rather than the government dictating those choices. Republicans stand for lower taxation because we believe that people can make better choices with their money than the government will make for them, and that ultimately frees the economy and produces more political freedom. We believe that, yes, government is important, but that the private sector is actually more important in solving our problems.
So it is consistent with that philosophy to believe that in the most personal and difficult choices that a woman has to make with regard to a pregnancy, those choices should be made based on that person's conscience and that person's way of thinking and feeling. The government shouldn't dictate that choice by making it a crime or making it illegal.
I think that's actually a much more consistent position. Many Republicans support that position, but you don't hear that as often. For example, in a recent poll by American Viewpoint, 65 percent of Republicans supported changing the plank in the Republican platform that calls for a constitutional ban on abortion. That's 6.5 out of every 10 Republicans. And over 80 percent of Republicans believe that the decision with regard to an abortion should be made by a woman, her doctor, and her family rather than dictated by the government.
[Applause]
In any case, I just wanted you to know that many of my fellow Republicans stand with you on this issue. So I thank you, I thank NARAL for taking the lead in establishing freedom of choice for all of us, and as the Mayor of New York City, I thank you for being here in New York City.
# # #
http://www.nyc.gov/html/rwg/html/2001b/champlunch.html
Freep-mail me to get on or off my pro-life and Catholic Ping List:
Please ping me to all note-worthy Pro-Life or Catholic threads, or other threads of interest.
Indeed ... Rudy is getting a lot of credit for being a straight shooter and sticking to his beliefs on abortion, but there are a ton of inconsistencies there.
If it is a constitutional right, why does he want to leave it up to the states?
How can he view abortion as a constitutional right (a position anathema to strict constructionists) and still claim that he wants to appoint strict constructionists?
Why does he "hate" abortion if it is not the taking of a human life? No one hates appendectomies.
Etc., etc.
Someone needs to ask Rudy what other “Constitutional Rights” are up to the states.
EXACTLY! If yes I would still consider supporting him. If no not only won’t I support him, I would consider him my political enemy.
Giuliani finds himself trapped in a box of his own making -- because he's trying to create the appearance that he's softening his stance on an issue where he has been an unabashed hard-core leftist for his entire political career. He's never even considered abortion an issue of little or no importance (as Romney probably has), so his gyrations look ridiculous and desperate. Because of this, he will always come across as completely phony and/or Clintonesque as he twists himself into these philosophical knots.
Ironically, this is the price he's paying for running as a Republican instead of a Democrat.
This article sounds an awful lot like damage control in that he’s trying to obscure the statements he made in his CNN interview.
I also sympathize with all the posters' strong feelings on this issue, however, for me, the main issues in the upcoming election are fiscal responsibility, lower taxes and the war on terror. Having just rendered unto Caesar, it makes me sick to know that the Democrats are trying to raise my taxes in every little way they can.
Latest data from my home city, Pittsburgh PA, shows we lost another 50,000 people since 2002. High taxes, entrenched Democratic administrations, all have contributed to this malaise. We'll all face higher taxes across the board if a Democrat takes the White House, therefore I will not do anything to contribute to the destruction of Rudy's campaign. He's the best crossover hope we have.
You are correct. ALL criminal matters, except a few in the Constitution, are STATE concerns.
Perhaps he ought to let Judith sit in on his next answer.
Not without spinning like a SCSI hard disk.
Now we find out what, according to St. Rudy, the meaning of 'strict constructionism' is:
http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/04/04/giuliani.interview/
Giuliani told Bash that "a strict constructionist judge can come to either conclusion about Roe against Wade. They can look at it and say, 'Wrongly decided. ... We will overturn it.' They can look at it and say, 'It has been the law for this period of time, therefore we are going to respect the precedent.'
In other words, just as "is" meant to Bill Clinton whatever it needed to mean, so does 'strict constructionism' mean to Rudy whatever he needs to to mean.
I'm sure the Rudy boosters will be falling over themselves to apologize to the skeptics.
Not.
And rounding out the list at Number Ten we have “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved for the States respectively, or to the people.”
Remember Bill Clinton’s infamous Executive Order #13083?
I’m wondering if Rudy Giuliani thinks it was a good idea.
http://www.eagleforum.org/column/1998/aug98/98-08-05.html
“that is a far cry from his previous “it’s a constitutional right” stance. Saying it is up to the states means Roe v. Wade being overturned. Is that what he really means?”
I think what Rudy is saying is that he’ll say anything to try to get votes.
Regardless of where one stands on the abortion issue, Roe is bad law. It is a complete usurption of states rights and, as such, should be overturned. Let the states decide, as was the case pre-Roe.
As for Rudy, again, he’ll say anything to try to get votes. Hopefully, the GOP is smart enough to see through his cynical and ridiculous attempts at pandering. Rudy is a pro-choicer who now claims abortion is an issue that should be left up to the states? He’s a gun grabber who now claims he’d support the genuine constitutional right to Keep and Bear Arms as President? Get real.
He is starting to sound like Kerry. I was for abortion before I was against it.
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.