If you are talking about the same interview I read, that is not what he said. Paraphrasing, what he said was that as long as the Supreme Court holds it to be a constitutional right, he felt it appropriate for govt to step in and assist those who could not afford the service. However, he later made clear he would make no effort to change current laws that prohibit use of federal funds for abortion.
The demagoguery around here on this topic has gotten a bit out of hand. You'd think Rudy were running on a platform that has promoting abortion as its top priority.
And on a side note, if he thinks a "strict constructionist" judge can come down either way on Roe v. Wade...why the heck should we trust him to appoint ORIGINALIST judges?
Paraphrasing, what he said was that as long as the Supreme Court holds it to be a constitutional right, he felt it appropriate for govt to step in and assist those who could not afford the service.
Okay. Can the government buy me a Remington pump-action shotgun? After all, it's my constitutional right to keep and bear arms, and I can't afford one right now.
Doesn't work out, does it? There's a difference between recognizing Constitutional rights and forcing the taxpayers to fund the exercising of those rights.