But, this is an accurate statement from the article:
The mayor’s rationale for abortion funding is bizarre. Putting his statements together and reading them as charitably as possible, his argument is that so long as the Supreme Court says abortion is a constitutional right state governments have an obligation to help poor women afford it...
There are so many problems with Mr. Giuliani's statements I don't know where to begin....
It is my right under the constitution to own firearms. Therefore, a Rudy administration is going to cancel all gun control laws and give me vouchers that I can use at my local sporting goods store for ammunition. Right?
(That’s the sound of crickets you hear).
Rudy made two statements that just defy belief - that anyone both serious about winning the GOP nomination and saavy enough to win the nomination would make such utterances. The first was the reference to public funding of abortions as some kind of right. And the second was Rudy's interpretation of strict constructionism:
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.'
So a strict constructionist can look at precedent ... even if that precedent was NOT based on strict constructionism? If that is the case, the term has lost any meaning and constraint on the judicial process.
Rudy just shattered his carefully-crafted illusion that he could be palpable to pro-lifers.
His handlers better hope he stays away from gun-rights issues.
I wonder why the folks at National Review have taken such a strong position on this right now.
Quite right. For consistency’s sake, I’m still waiting for him to apply that same rationale to a right that is actually enumerated in the Constitution: the right to keep and bear arms.