Rudy's Adoption Agenda and Proven Effectiveness

Townhall ^ | June 11, 2007 | By David Vitter & Theodore B. Olson

[Ooh-Ah]

We are conservatives who are proud to support Rudy Giuliani for president. We support Rudy because he is a strong leader -- a man of action and a man of his word. And a big part of that is his proven effectiveness -- his record of actually changing things for the better in concrete, measurable ways.

A perfect example of his leadership and proven effectiveness is Rudy's record on adoption.

Rudy Giuliani dramatically increased the number of adoptions in the New York City system as mayor. Adoptions skyrocketed 133% over his eight year tenure compared to the eight years before he took office. It was a clear priority of his administration, beginning with the establishment of the Administration for Children's Services, the first child protection agency in New York City history that reported directly to the mayor. He streamlined the adoption process, slashing red tape and promoting adoptions through innovative initiatives such as "Adoption Saturdays" where family courts held special sessions dedicated to matching children with loving homes.

We are badly in need of such leadership as a nation today. It shouldn't be easier to fly around the world to adopt a child in China than it is to adopt a child in your own hometown. Rudy is committed to this as a national priority. If he is able to match the increases he achieved as Mayor, as many as 125,000 additional children would be adopted. That's a more hopeful, family-oriented America.

Now this doesn't erase important differences with Rudy on abortion. And this doesn't remove that issue as one social conservatives deeply care about. But Rudy's adoption agenda is an effective, concrete method to promote positive values we share.

Rudy promoted a culture of personal responsibility as Mayor of New York. Under Rudy's watch, abortions decreased by 16.8% in New York City. That outpaced the nationwide decline by 30%. If Rudy achieves a similar reduction in the number of abortions as President -- a goal he has stated publicly -- it would amount to about 200,000 fewer abortions in the United States during his time in the White House.

We also have confidence in Rudy's commitment to appoint strict constructionist judges who will interpret the Constitution, not legislate from the bench. Rudy Giuliani spent most of his career in law enforcement. He was a leader in Ronald Reagan's Justice Department. As President, he will work to continue the Reagan Revolution by appointing judges like Chief Justice Roberts and Justices Scalia, Thomas, and Alito. We believe he would appoint the best judges of any of the major candidates and obviously, judges fundamentally different than those Hillary Clinton or any of the other Democrats would appoint as President.

The bottom line is that Rudy Giuliani can win the Republican nomination and then win the general election. (Which other Republican can put blue states like California, New York and New Jersey in play.) He shares our strong commitment to winning the war on terror, promoting bold conservative fiscal policy, and appointing strict constructionist judges. And he’s proven his effectiveness in promoting positive values we all share by achieving real results.

He'll do all of this as President. And that's sure worth working and voting for.

David Vitter is a senator for the state of Louisiana and serves on the Committees on Commerce, Science and Transportation; Environment and Public Works; and Small Business and Entrepreneurship.

Theodore B. Olson is a partner in Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher's Washington, D.C. office and served as Solicitor General of the United States from 2001-2004.

[Chunga]

The bogus adoption claims have been repeatedly exposed as nothing but fabrications by Rudi and his campaign bots.

You need only read the article to see that Vitter and Olsen have blown the "exposed bogus adoption" claims out of the water.

Ted Olsen has an excellent mind and a conscience tried by hellfire. His endorsement should call any conservative into a period of humble introspection.

I like Fred Thompson far better...but ANY REPUBLICAN OVER HILLARY CLINTON.

[Chunga]

When one has nothing to say, the polite thing is to keep one’s opinion to oneself.

[misterrob]

And instead says that it is a state’s rights issue.

[misterrob]

He doesn’t have cankles

[Fawn]

LOL...I love to see these Love and Hate Rudy threads....such a hot topic...raw emotion....

[Fawn]

I’ve seen people post that having HIllary will be better than Rudy because then that will spawn a Reagan in 4 years. Meanwhile, Israel is gone, the Mexicans can vote, taxes are more than take home pay and Social Security won’t be for retired people anymore....only immigrants.

[George W. Bush]

You need only read the article to see that Vitter and Olsen have blown the "exposed bogus adoption" claims out of the water.

By no means. What a shabby mealy-mouthed ducking of the facts.

Olson should know better if he has any shame at all. And David "Dial-A-Whore" Vitter should consider keeping his advice on social conservative issues to himself for a while.

This little apologia is simply pathetic.

[azhenfud]

"If Rudy achieves...."

If frogs had wings...

[SoConPubbie]

"Right. Ted Olsen knows nothing about conservatism, he isn't a conservative by any standard, he sure as heck isn't as conservative as you, and as Solicitor General he didn't do more to advance conservative causes than you will in your lifetime. (And for the record, Ted Olsen isn't endorsing Hillary Clinton. Your attempted point is moot.) Your loss of respect for Ted Olsen, who might just be the next SCOTUS nominee should Rudy become president, tells me volumes more about you than it does about this fine, upstanding, upright and orthodox conservative. It is to laugh."

Wow, where do I start....

1. First of all let's deal with the straw man that you set up:

Ted Olsen knows nothing about conservatism, he isn't a conservative by any standard, he sure as heck isn't as conservative as you, and as Solicitor General he didn't do more to advance conservative causes than you will in your lifetime."

Where did I say that?
Where did I imply that?

What a man has done in the past is admirable, however, what he is doing right now, endorsing the most liberal Republican candidate ever for President is what is important and what is on the table, so to speak.

When you endorse somebody who is not conservative, Rudy, as is a known fact by his actions and choices during the last 20 years, you lose crediability.

This is what defines whether or not Ted Olson is CONSERVATIVE RIGHT NOW.

This is what will tell you if you can trust Ted Olson or not.

Not what he has done in the past (though I applaud him where he has done the right thing with respect to conservative ideals).

2. With respect to this statement:

"(And for the record, Ted Olsen isn't endorsing Hillary Clinton. Your attempted point is moot.)"

Huh? We both know he isn't endorsing Hillary. That was not the point. The original poster tried to use ole Ted's endorsement as a primary point of why we should accept Rudy.

3. WIth regards to Rudy's SCOTUS appointments, you apparently have not been paying attention to Rudy's own statements as follows (and I paraphrase a bit since I don't have the originals handy in front of me)

a.) That his policies/positions in the issues were almost exactly the same as Clinton's.
b.) That he believed that Ruth Bader Ginsburg has the same great qualities that makes Alito and Roberts good SCOTUS judges.

With statements like that, why should I believe him or Ted that somehow we would get a conservative Judge out of a Liberal turd like Rudy?

[SoConPubbie]

"The Pub Purists simply have a death wish and it is not abortion. It is a wish to so narrow the Pubs that they could never win a national election unless the Resurrected Ronaldus Magnus is on the ticket. The issue of abortion is important to our national conscience but on polls, even Pub polls, it ranks 11th in importance to likely voters. I know people do not like that but most voters nowadays do not rank it higher except the Purists. There are not enough of them to defeat the socialist-pacifists that are the Democrat Party and the Hildabeast. That is just a fact."

Garbage!

You one-issue Rudy voters (WOT because that is all he has got on GOP issues) are amazing in calling the rest of the GOP (75% of the party) purists.

Give us a candidate that is right on more than 1 or 2 issues and we will jump up and down and get on your band wagon.

And your idea that abortion is not important is going to come back and bite you amoralists in the butt when it comes around to the general election.

IF your boy Rudy is nominated, you will get Hillary.

Rudy is unelectable as a Republican, as a Democrat he would have a great chance. But with only 25% support in the primaries and the rest of the GOP electorate divided among actual conservatives, he doesn't have a chance in the general. He will demoralize the base, and force a third-party.

Rudy is the only candidate who guarantees a Hillary Presidency.

[Liz]

Chalk this nonsense up to campaign desperation----lusting after federal power to advance a global agenda makes the Tooty Team say nutsy-cuckoo things.

The little Rudester even fantasizes he's a conservative at times.

The abortion savages would be VERY surprised to hear the lisping little Rudeseter was decreasing abortions AT THE SAME TIME he was pocketing NARAL contributions and donating to PPhood.

Amazing legerdermain.

Rooty's "Come to Jesus" moments---when he thinks he "decreased" abortions---are temporary blackouts.

NARAL's campaign contributions usually snap Rooty back to reality.

I suggest Rooty get into a good 12-step program---preferably with basket-weaving and regular doses of behavior modification drugs to help him overcome his obsession to hit on helpless unborn babies.

[calcowgirl]

Ted Olsen knows nothing about conservatism, he isn't a conservative by any standard, he sure as heck isn't as conservative as you, and as Solicitor General he didn't do more to advance conservative causes than you will in your lifetime.

I will assume you omitted a sarcasm tag but were trying to make a point.

What conservative causes did Olson advance in his three years as Solicitor General? What cases did he argue in front of the Supreme Court? What was the outcome (that you say is more than Soconpubbie will do in their lifetime)?

[wagglebee]

The abortion savages would be VERY surprised to hear the lisping little Rudeseter was decreasing abortions AT THE SAME TIME he was pocketing NARAL contributions and donating to PPhood.

Rooty Toot CLAIMS that abortion dropped 17% in NYC while he was mayor; however, abortion dropped by over 20% nationwide during the same time period. So, this would actually mean that the Clintons have a better claim to reducing abortions than Rooty Toot.

[wagglebee]

There have been a number of posts and reposts of articles trying to discredit Giuliani's record on adoption. Hopefully this article will give a better insight into the truth.

WRONG!

Adoptions were up nationwide during the 1990s, this was almost entirely due to the increase in adoption of foreign babies.
Adoption Statistics

IMMIGRANT VISAS ISSUED TO ORPHANS COMING TO THE U.S.

You and the other Rooty Rooters CANNOT cite a single policy or speech in which Rooty Toot advocates adoption and you certainly cannot cite anywhere he pushed to lower the abortion rate.

[TitansAFC]

-—”Rooty Toot CLAIMS that abortion dropped 17% in NYC while he was mayor; however, abortion dropped by over 20% nationwide during the same time period. So, this would actually mean that the Clintons have a better claim to reducing abortions than Rooty Toot.”-—

Therein lies the biggest problem the Rudophiles have. EVERY single tired, recycled, Liberal argument based on adoptions or whatever they throw out from the old Democrat playbook in the GOP race - EVERy one of them can be used to credit the Clinton administration in the same way. And the Clintons were the first to use these arguments against Pro-Lifers, now Rudy is copying their playbook. He pretty much copies everything the Clinton do though, so it’s not really surprising.

The Clintons were friends of the Pro-Life movement after all!!! Adoptions went up under their administration, so they deserve credit — so SHUT THE HELL UP Pro-Lifers, the stats don’t lie (rolling eyes).

Same Liberal argument we never swallowed from the Democrats - now being offered up in whoring for Rudy911.

[MamaB]

I already know more than enough about Rudy the liberal to know that I will never vote for him. He should be running as a democrat.

[ridge]

How do you credit or discredit a nonexistent record on adoption? He has done a fine job celebrating with NARAL and CUOMO.

---

Mary Alice Carr, vice president for Communications at NARAL Pro-Choice New York, still has a proclamation signed by Giuliani that made Jan. 22, 1998 “Roe v. Wade Anniversary Day” in the city. She also provided a copy of a NARAL questionnaire from 1997, signed by Giuliani.

Would he support unrestricted Medicaid funding for abortions? Would he oppose legislation that made minors get parental or court approval before getting an abortion? Did he agree with the Roe v. Wade decision?
Giuliani circled Yes, Yes and Yes.

---

[ridge]

Rudy is wrong on every issue. He was wrong campaigning against the fiscal policy of Pataki. He even had an opportunity to support the declination of a President to spend. Instead, Rudy sued Contract with America for his special interests.

Rudy is pure. He is purely wrong. And these outlandish claims that he puts NY, CA or NJ in play is pure rubbish.

[Jim Robinson]

Rudy Giuliani’s Mayoral Backing of Adoption Over Abortion Never Existed

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1920293/posts

[Ooh-Ah]

Jim,

I did some more checking and found the following:
From this fact sheet (http://www.joinrudy2008.com/article/pr/828):

During Mayor Giuliani's Tenure In New York, Adoptions Increased 133% While Abortions Decreased 16.8%. (City Of New York Office Of Operations, Reengineering Municipal Services 1994-2001, p. 98; City of New York Administration of Children's Services Website, FY2003 Year End Report, http://www.nyc.gov/html/acs/downloads/pdf/stats_yearend_review03.pdf, Accessed 5/6/07; City Of New York, Human Resources Administration, "Executive Management Plan Fiscal Year 1988," 1988, p. xxi; City Of New York, Human Resources Administration, "Executive Management Plan Fiscal Year 1989," 1989, p. ix; Lisa M. Koonin, et al., "Abortion Surveillance – United States, 1993 And 1994," Centers For Disease Control And Prevention, http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/00049084.htm, 8/8/97; Lilo T. Strauss, et al., "Abortion Surveillance — United States, 2001," Centers For Disease Control And Prevention, http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/ss5309a1.htm, 11/26/04)

During Same Time Period, Abortions Nationwide Decreased 12.8%. (Lawrence Finer and Stanley Henshaw, "Estimates Of US Abortion Incidence, 2001-2003," Guttmacher Institute, www.guttmacher.org, 8/3/06)

Also, I found these articles about the author of the article you cited:

False Reporting By Steve Ertelt’s ‘LifeNews.com’ - Repeated By ‘World’ Magazine - Misled Christians To Think Bush Would Name Pro-Life Judges

AND,

LifeNews.com is Not LifeSiteNews.com.

I know it's to hard to know what to believe but I hope these links help us find the truth.

Best,
Ooh-Ah