Posted on 01/18/2007 9:27:26 AM PST by Dark Skies
As pro-lifers prepare to mark Monday’s 34th anniversary of the Supreme Court’s Roe vs. Wade decision, many wonder whether they could support former New York mayor Rudolph W. Giuliani for president despite his pro-choice views. While some of Giuliani’s statements on abortion make pro-lifers fret, they should find his record surprisingly reassuring.
“I don’t like abortion,” Giuliani said in South Carolina’s The State newspaper last November 21. “I don’t think abortion is a good thing. I think we ought to find some alternative to abortion, and that there ought to be as few as possible.”
Nevertheless, Giuliani’s pro-life critics point to his April 5, 2001 address to the National Abortion Rights Action League’s “Champions of Choice” luncheon in Manhattan.
“As a Republican who supports a woman’s right to choose, it is particularly an honor to be here,” Giuliani said. He added: “The government shouldn’t dictate that choice by making it a crime or making it illegal.”
“I have a daughter now,” Giuliani told TV’s Phil Donahue during his unsuccessful 1989 mayoral campaign. Giuliani continued: “I would give my personal advice, my religious and moral views…I would help her with taking care of the baby. But if the ultimate choice of the woman -- my daughter or any other woman -- would be that in this particular circumstance, to have an abortion, I’d support that. I’d give my daughter the money for it.”
But did Giuliani’s mayoral deeds match such words?
According to the state Office of Vital Statistics, total abortions performed in New York City between 1993 (just before Giuliani arrived) and 2001 (as he departed) fell from 103,997 to 86,466 -- a 16.86 percent decrease. This upended a 10.32 percent increase compared to eight years before Giuliani, when 1985 witnessed 94,270 abortions.
What about Medicaid-financed abortions? Under Giuliani, such taxpayer-funded feticides dropped 22.85 percent, from 45,006 in 1993 to 34,722 in 2001.
The abortion ratio also slid from 890 terminations per 1,000 live births in 1993 to 767 in 2001, a 13.82 percent tail-off. This far outpaced the 2.84 percent reduction from 1985’s ratio of 916 to 1993’s 890. While abortions remained far more common in Gotham than across America (2001’s U.S. abortion ratio was 246), they diminished during Giuliani’s tenure, as they did nationally.
Giuliani essentially verbalized his pro-choice beliefs while avoiding policies that would have impeded abortion’s generally downward trajectory.
New York pro-lifers concede that Giuliani never attempted anything like what current Mayor Michael Bloomberg promulgated in July 2002. Eight city-run hospitals added abortion instruction to the training expected of their OB-GYN medical residents. Only those with moral objections may refuse this requirement.
Giuliani could have issued such rules, but never did.
Interestingly enough, after Giuliani left, Medicaid abortions under Bloomberg increased 5.19 percent from 34,722 in 2001 to 36,523 in 2003.
Asked if he could cite any Giuliani initiative that advanced abortion, New York State Conservative Party Chairman Mike Long told me, “I don’t remember, and I don’t think so.” He added: “I never remember seeing him promote the issue, to my knowledge.”
“I like him a lot -- although he doesn’t share my particular point of view on social issues,” televangelist Pat Robertson said May 1, 2005 on ABC’s “This Week.” “He did a super job running the city of New York and I think he’d make a good president.”
If Giuliani can sway Pat Robertson, can he attract other pro-lifers? Short of dizzying himself and others with a 180-degree reversal from a pro-choice to a pro-life posture, Giuliani should embrace parental-notification rules, so minors who seek abortions need their folks’ permission, as they now do for ear piercing. He should oppose partial-birth abortion, which even Democrats such as Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada and liberal stalwart Sen. Patrick Leahy of Vermont have voted to prohibit.
Similarly, Giuliani should propose that Uncle Sam exit embryonic-stem-cell research laboratories and instead let drug companies -- not government -- finance such embryocidal experiments, if they must. He also could pledge to nominate constitutionalist judges skeptical of penumbras emanating outside Planned Parenthood clinics.
And, of course, Rudolph W. Giuliani should remind Republican primary voters that on his watch, total abortions, taxpayer-funded Medicaid abortions, and the abortion ratio all went the right way: down.
Mr. Murdock, a New York-based commentator to HUMAN EVENTS, is a columnist with the Scripps Howard News Service and a media fellow with the Hoover Institution on War, Revolution and Peace at Stanford University.
Most Republicans/Conservatives in polls are pro-life.
I'm starting to wonder how many Republican Conservatives are really left.
Which alternate universe?
Just you Hildy. Lock the door on the way out.
WOW! Its about time you woke up! Social conservatives constitute 50%-60% of the GOP voting block. The old Reagan coalition he formed back in the late 1970`s of social and fiscal conservatives, gave the GOP historic election victories in 80, 84, 94 and even 2000. Without that coalition staying united, and without the majority base of social conservatives, the Republican Party is dead!
Exactly. This was Bill Clinton's line about making abortion "safe, legal, and rare."
I think all Republicans tempted by Giuliani should take a good hard look at California. I was here on FR four years when a lot of good pro-life conservatives voted for Arnold, disdaining those that claimed they could not compromise their principles so far as to support the winning candidate.
Today Arnold is hawking tax increases (or whatever he calls them) and government healthcare. Where are these California conservatives now? Whatever is left of the conservative wing of the Cali GOP has been placed on the shelf, and will be weakened politically because the head of their party ignores them.
So let's remember this example when we talk about being "practical enough" to support Giuuliani over Clinton or Obama.
Brand New Rasmussion.....
Rudy nailing down the lead ....McCaine slipping...surprising strength by Newt.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1769775/posts
I don't necessarily agree. Please produce some polling data that shows this. I;ve seen data that shows a significant percentage of Dems (not a majority) are pro-life. You should also define your terms. What is "pro-choice" in your opinion?
"That's a fine sentiment, but it certainly doesn't apply to Rudy Giuliani. He's a "conservative" on about 15% of the issues -- and probably on less then 5% of the issues that define the soul of this nation."
He's anti-tax, pro-fiscal responsibility, pro economic growth policies, not an environmental wacko, pro school choice, cut 600,000 of welfare as Mayor of NYC, pro strict constructionist judges, pro law and and order, pro American foreign policy, strong on national defense, a supporter of the WOT, a supporter of the War in Iraq and pro Israel. I believe this is more than 15% of the issues. Probably close to 80%. You anti-Rudy people ignore so many facts.
Shame, Shame that you ignore electability and have an all or nothing mindset.
It's a famous statement by Rudy, on the public record.
“I’m pro-choice. I’m pro-gay rights,” Giuliani said. He was then asked whether he supports a ban on what critics call partial-birth abortions. “No, I have not supported that, and I don’t see my position on that changing,” he responded.
--- Source: CNN.com, “Inside Politics” Dec 2, 1999
Rudy`s words are good enough for me. How about you?
As to Reagan. He was President. Reagan didn't sit on the SCOTUS. The last time I looked, the Judicial Branch and the Execuitve Branch of government are divided by the Constitution. After Roe V Wade in 1973, the next major decision on the abortion issue didn't arise until the early 1990`s.
If you posted Rudy Giuliani's track record in an objective manner -- including his public statements, official acts in office, etc. -- and didn't tell anyone who he was, most people would swear he was a Democrat.
And if a Democrat with Rudy Giuliani's track record ever ran for the White House, most people here would say it'll be a cold day in hell before they ever vote for him.
"The BS is so deep around here that I have to wear hip waders."
Its mostly from the anti-Rudy crowd. I know Sean Hannity has said he likes and would support Rudy and he's no liberal Democrat. Its because he's a smart, pragmatic conservative that understands political realities.
OK, Cuz. I'll try to reserve judgement next time. :)
False assertion belied by my many posts here on FR. Got anything else to avoid answering direct questions?
In the 2006 Congressional election, Hannity was too dumb to see the handwriting on the wall. Hannity supporting Rudy will be another dumba$$ move on his part.
There isn't very much evidence out there to support this statement.
He will not abandon Iraq and will continue to aggressively fight the WOT.
Someone has to explain to me how a candidate who is 100% committed to the establishment of an Islamic state -- and a Marxist one at that -- in the Middle East is a "conservative" by definition.
For abortion to be a major issue for me in choosing a President, I would have to believe that Roe be overturned and every single state would pass laws outlawing all abortions with the exception to save the mother's life or in cases of rape. I don't know how many abortions that would cover but I do know it will never happen. And no, I honestly believe Rudy and McCain are the only Republicans that can win in 2008, ignoring electability is very stupid and many on here have an ignorant all or nothing mindset.
TAXES: Giuliani did cut the marginal city income tax rates, reducing taxes by some $2.0-billion from 1996-2001, but those cuts only offset the $1.8-billion increase in city income tax rates put in place by Mayor Dinkins a few years earlier. In the end, taxes were actually cut by a modest $200-million. Freezing the 12.5% surcharge on high wage earners was good, but Giuliani didn't attempt to abolish that surcharge. Nor did Giuliani abolish the city income tax. The primary reason Rudy and the City Council agreed to cut taxes, was to make NYCity more appealing to new businesses thinking about locating/relocating to the Big Apple. A smart move, however, overall, Rudy left office with NYCity the highest taxed big city in America, with some of the highest income taxes, property taxes and ultility rates in the nation.
GOVT SPENDING: From 1997 to 2001, spending under Giuliani went up 32%. More then double the rate of inflation. Rudy left NYCity with a $2.0 billion deficit and a $42-billion debt. Second largest debt after the federal government. Giuliani also added 15,000 new teachers to the city employment rolls. Increasing the membership of two major liberal organizations, the National Education Association (NEA) and the American Federation of Teachers (AFT).
From the Manhattan Institute:
"The scope of government was not reduced at all. The mayor abandoned his most visible initiative in this sphere—the proposed sale of the city hospital system—after a struggle with the unions and defeats in the courts. He did cut costs in social services; even before the new federal welfare reforms took effect in 1997, the city had begun to significantly reduce caseloads. But money saved on social services has only helped to subsidize big increases in other categories. Today the array of social services sponsored and partially funded by the city—from day care to virtually guaranteed housing—is as wide as ever.
"In the final analysis, Mayor Giuliani sought to make the city deliver services more efficiently—not to make the city deliver fewer services. Gains in efficiency were offset, however, by a spike in the costs of outsourced contracts (see point 2 below). Thus, in two areas where inroads might have been made, the city instead failed to reduce spending."
"1. Personnel Increases. In 1995–96, the city entered into a series of collective bargaining agreements with its public-employee unions. In addition to granting pay increases that ended up roughly equaling inflation, the city promised not to lay off any workers for the life of the contracts. These agreements were expected to add $2.2 billion to the budget by fiscal 2001. But that estimate didn’t reckon with renewed growth in the number of city employees. After dipping in Giuliani’s first two years, the full-time headcount rose from 235,069, in June 1996 to over 253,000 by November 2000. Thanks largely to this growth in the workforce, the total increase in personnel service costs since 1995 has been $4 billion.
2. "Outsourced Services. The failure to shrink the scope of city government made it all the more imperative that Mayor Giuliani vastly increase its efficiency. In the attempt to increase productivity, the mayor farmed out some city services to private contractors. But as the number of outsourced contracts doubled under Giuliani, contractual expenses also nearly doubled—from $3 billion to $5.8 billion. While it may be argued that the city saved money by outsourcing these services, the net savings turned out to be marginal at best. In practice, outsourcing proved to be more of a bargaining chip in negotiations with unions than a serious means of pruning expenses."
1) Considering that I posted what I said about the GOP/Evangelicals THREE previous times on this thread, while you were ON the thread, yes, I think you're dense that you didn't/don't get it.
2) And clearly you don't read carefully, because the evidence of Evangelicals aligning themselves with the global warming hysterics has already been posted by areafiftyone in post 350. Why don't you go all those links.
3) So tell me, if those article are true, what's the GOP going to do? Ignore what a large block of their voters want? Or find other voters?
I've stated my opinion. I think they'll ignore the global warning hysterics, tick off a goodly number of Evangelicals who are buying into the hype and the GOP will be forced to find other voters which means moderates.
And now, since I find you obnoxiously dense, I'm going to go do some other things and pretend that I didn't have to repeat myself for the FIFTH time so that some dimwit can still pretend he's brilliant.
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.