Posted on 11/02/2007 5:14:27 PM PDT by Sun
Rudy Giuliani's Mayoral Backing of Adoption Over Abortion Never Existed
by Steven Ertelt LifeNews.com Editor October 1, 2007
New York, NY (LifeNews.com) -- Over the last several months, pro-abortion Republican presidential candidate Rudy Giuliani has made adoption a hallmark of his campaign. He says adoption is his plan to combat abortions as president and that he reduced abortions as mayor, but a college professor says his archives show Giuliani never pushed it.
If Giuliani had an aggressive plan to reduce abortions in New York City -- long considered the abortion capital of America because it has more abortions than most states -- Fordham University political science professor Bruce Berg has never seen it.
That's surprising considering Berg has DVD copies of every mayoral news conference in the city dating back to 1996.
"They don't exist," Berg told the St. Petersburg Times of potential news conferences showing former Mayor Giuliani touting adoption over abortion.
In August, Giuliani made adoption one of his "12 Commitments to the American People" and claimed to have promoted it enough that it lowered abortions in the Big Apple.
"I would like to do that for America," he said. "I would like to see adoptions increase dramatically and I would like to see women considering abortion have that option available to them."
But Berg says the mayoral conference transcripts show repeated statements by Giuliani in 1997 and 1998 supporting abortion, saying abortions should be legal and criticizing the Republican Party for officially opposing abortion.
There's nothing on adoption in those news conferences or others.
"He had the aura of a pro-choice mayor in New York and he milked that for all it was worth," Berg told the Times. "He certainly made that part of his persona as mayor."
Mary Alice Carr, vice president for communications at NARAL's New York affiliate told the newspaper she can't ever recall Giuliani promoting adoptions either. Instead, she says he gave her group candidate surveys showing a 100% pro-abortion view.
Statistics show he didn't necessarily do much to promote them as mayor.
The mayor has previously claimed that adoptions went up 67 percent during his mayoral tenure, but the nonpartisan political watchdog Web site FactCheck said that number is inflated and put the rise at only 17 percent during his terms in office.
Although there were more adoptions during Giuliani's time in office than that of his predecessor David Dinkins, adoptions under Giuliani decreased five out of his final six years in office.
Tom McClusky, vice president of the Family Research Council's legislative branch, says “I think he’s taking credit for something he had very little to do with. Abortion did go down in the 90s, and it’s not really through any of his efforts.”
http://www.lifenews.com/nat3355.html
Ping!
More on Rudy.
There has been a nationwide surge in adoption during the past fifteen years or so; however, nearly all of the babies are from Eastern Europe or China. It has NOTHING to do with anything Rooty Toot or any other American politician has done. Essentially, there are no American babies to adopt.
Oh yeah, and the 17% drop in abortion in NYC during Rooty’s term was 50% LOWER than the drop in abortion in the rest of the country during the same time period.
If they are safe and legal why should they be rare?
If abortion is legal, why should we waste money storing kids for adoption.
The abortion industry is a true quagmire. I have always found it the least bit insincere that polititians who identify themselves as pro abortion are always trying to distance themselves from that fact. Do they consider their stance unclean?
“Oh yeah, and the 17% drop in abortion in NYC during Rooty’s term was 50% LOWER than the drop in abortion in the rest of the country during the same time period.”
Interesting. It’s worse than I thought.
And would a pro-abort be above lying? I wish people who support Rudy would ask themselves that when they tell us Rudy SAID he would pick strict Constructionalists.
“I have always found it the least bit insincere that polititians who identify themselves as pro abortion are always trying to distance themselves from that fact. Do they consider their stance unclean?”
Good point, and why do they call abortion “choice?”
No president has EVER KNOWINGLY appointed a Supreme Court justice with a judicial philosophy that is the polar opposite of their own. Why should we expect Rooty to?
Cute pix.
Let’s hear it from Rudy:
“Presidents, going back to the beginning of the republic, generally appoint people on the Supreme Court that they believe agree with them.”
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,163223,00.html
And here are some quotes that Rooty and others have made on abortion:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/1817764/posts
What the Rooty Rooters don’t seem to accept is that EVERY pro-abortion politician has made some sort of statement about how the “personally oppose” abortion and believe it should be “safe, legal and rare.”
Ultimately, it’s the same as saying, “I would never murder anyone, but I don’t think it’s my right to tell someone else they shouldn’t murder anyone or try to stop them from committing murder.”
Freepmail wagglebee or little jeremiah to subscribe or unsubscribe from the moral absolutes ping list.
FreeRepublic moral absolutes keyword search
Rudy is a liar?
Color me shocked!
Good info about the quotes, and I bumped the thread.
Here’s a recent one from Rudy from the thread:
“However, I believe in a woman’s right to choose.”
- Hannity & Colmes, Feb 5, 2007
“And would a pro-abort be above lying? I wish people who support Rudy would ask themselves that when they tell us Rudy SAID he would pick strict Constructionalists.”
NO!
That is why it is a disqualifying factor.
If someone can sleep at night while they advocate, pay for, endorse, or otherwise facilitate the deaths of innocent human beings, why should anyone believe anything they say?
“Rudy is a liar?
Color me shocked!”
It’s sad that so many are buying his lies, even pro-lifers. We need to tell everyone we know, and write editors’ letters.
“If someone can sleep at night while they advocate, pay for, endorse, or otherwise facilitate the deaths of innocent human beings, why should anyone believe anything they say?”
Exactly.
I rest my case. All Rudy has to do is SAY he will pick Constructionalist judges, or whatever, and too many people are believing him.
We have our work cut out for us.
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.