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.
As mayor of NYC, Rudy cut taxes 22 times, turned a deficit into a surplus, NYC's economy grew greatly, his tough stance on crime led to a 60% drop in crime, he cut welfare rolls in NYC by over 600,000, he supports school choice, is very pro Israel, is strong on national defense, supports a pro American foreign policy, he is a strong supporter of the WOT(as Mayor he threw out Arafat before 9/11), supports the war in Iraq. Yes, there is evidence, you just ignore it. You're not a conservative either. You are a far right wing extremeist nut job.
Current NYC mayor Michael Bloomberg fits the bill on all these, and he's about as far to the left as anyone in politics today.
0 . . . cut 600,000 of welfare as Mayor of NYC . . .
No, he didn't. The welfare case load in New York City dropped by 600,000 in the 1990s as a result of the welfare reform imposed by the Federal government -- a welfare reform policy that Rudy Giuliani adamantly opposed and even tried to overturn in Federal court. This basically put Rudy Giuliani to the LEFT of BILL CLINTON on this specific issue, which makes me seriously question the intelligence and/or the agenda of anyone on FreeRepublic who holds Giuliani up as a "conservative" on this issue.
. . . pro strict constructionist judges . . .
There's no evidence of this other than his own pandering statements on this issue.
. . . pro law and and order . . .
The Daley administration in Chicago is about as "pro law and order" as you can get, and there's nothing conservative about that administration.
. . . pro American foreign policy, strong on national defense, a supporter of the WOT, a supporter of the War in Iraq and pro Israel.
There's nothing in Rudy Giuliani's background to suggest that he even knows what a "pro-American foreign policy" is, and there's nothing you can cite from his background to support your statement that he's "strong on national defense." And can you please explain to me what the heck it means for someone to be a "supporter of the war on terror," and explain what the heck is so conservative about being "pro-Israel?"
I believe this is more than 15% of the issues. Probably close to 80%. You anti-Rudy people ignore so many facts.
You have hand-picked a bunch of issues and decided that this comprises 80% of them -- even to the point of making up talking points for him that have no basis in fact.
Having lived and worked in the New York City area for years, I can assure you of two things: 1) Rudy Giuliani is an effective, no-nonsense leader, and 2) Rudy Giuliani is a big-government liberal. Dancing around these issues and whitewashing Giuliani's well-established liberal track record isn't going to make #2 go away.
"Sean Hannity supported Ahnold Schwarzenegger in the 2003 recall election, and again in 2006."
Smart move considering no other Republican could win in either situation. Proof of Sean's pragmatic thinking. Sean also realizes that Rudy is a conservative on more issues than he's not, social issues are least important especially in a Presidential election where the President has less influence on these issues than any other, and he values electability. IMO only Rudy and McCain can beat Hillary/Obama in 2008. Better to take 80%, the most important 80% and the 80% where the President has the most influence than take Hillary/Obama. Yep, Sean and I think with our heads and not just our hearts. We are pragmatic and understand reality.
P.S. New York City had a sizeable budget deficit when Rudy Giuliani left office.
"P.S. New York City had a sizeable budget deficit when Rudy Giuliani left office."
That was because of 9/11. In the late 1990s they had a surplus after having a deficit for many many years.
Problem. Giuliani will not win the GOP nomination.
Now, how about responding to my post to you, at #439.
And before you go trashing the Manhattan Institute, be warned. The MI was very favorbale to Rudy Giuliani during his time as Mayor of NYCity. After Rudy left office, the MI also said:
"Even with the tax cuts of the last several years, New York remains by far the most heavily taxed big city in the country."
PS- The $2.0 billion plus deficit that Rudy`s admin projected, was pre 9-11. After 9-11 was factored in, the deficit rose to $4.8-billion.
Hannity would support Hillary Clinton for President if she ran as a Republican and showed up a few times on his show on Fox.
I'll vote for Rudy if he's the GOP nominee. I'm pretty close to being a one issue voter but I don't see a lot of other candidates I'm fond of. I'm looking for leadership. I don't believe he'll lead us to expanding abortion. I'm glad to find this out about him.
All or nothing mindset? What a pity.
I don't know how many abortions that would cover but I do know it will never happen.
Roe WILL be overturned with one more conservative justice on the SCOTUS. I know that and Rudy knows that. Perhaps you don't? So tell me friend, why would Rudy appoint a justice who will overturn Roe when he is foursquare behind abortion rights? Short answer is he won't. Roe is terrible law and there are 4 votes to send it to the dustbin.
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.
Look, I've heard for many years how this guy or that guy can win and the other guy can't. Remeber a man named Ronald Reagan? The Rockefeller Republicans assured us that RR was unelectable, the rest is history.
Well, tie me up and drag me out....
Total and complete bullsh!t (I'll explain this below). The Federal government dumped a massive pile of cash on the City of New York after 9/11, which means 9/11 probably had a positive effect on the city's economy from a purely financial standpoint.
In the late 1990s they had a surplus after having a deficit for many many years.
That's exactly right. Because New York City has a municipal income tax, the deficits and surpluses track almost perfectly with the performance of the economic sector in which most of the city's high-income taxpayers work: financial services. New York City typically has surpluses when tax collections are high (i.e., when the U.S. stock market is doing well, and when merger/acquisition activity among major U.S. corporations is high), and has deficits when the stock market is doing poorly and when M&A activity is low. New York City didn't have a steep deficit at the end of 2001 because of 9/11 . . . it had a steep deficit because the stock market had declined in 2000 and 2001. And NYC didn't have a huge surplus in the late 1990s because of any kind of exceptional fiscal management by Rudy Giuliani -- but because the U.S. stock market was climbing on a near-constant basis from 1995-2000.
"That was because of 9/11.
Total and complete bullsh!t (I'll explain this below). The Federal government dumped a massive pile of cash on the City of New York after 9/11, which means 9/11 probably had a positive effect on the city's economy from a purely financial standpoint."
I meant 9/11 caused the cities economy to come to a stand still, not expensives related to clean up, rescue, ect.
Freep-mail me to get on or off my pro-life and Catholic Ping List:
Please ping me to all note-worthy threads on Pro-Life or Catholic threads.
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
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
If you read the linked articles you'll notice that, surprise, the same names keep reappearing over and over. You'll also notice that there is widespread opposition to some evangelical leaders embrace of global warming from many other prominent evangelicals.
Finally, you'll see this: Such ferment matters because evangelicals are politically active. Nearly four out of five white evangelical Christians voted last year for President Bush, constituting more than a third of all votes cast for him, according to the Pew Research Center. The analysis found that the political clout of evangelicals has increased as their cohesiveness in backing the Republican Party has grown. Republicans outnumber Democrats within the group by more than 2 to 1. There is little to suggest in recent elections that environmental concerns influenced the evangelical vote -- indeed, many members of Congress who receive 100 percent approval ratings from Christian advocacy groups get failing grades from environmental groups. But the latest statements and polls have caught the eye of established environmental organizations.
Do you honestly believe that gobal warming will become more important to evangelical's than abortion, gay marriage, regious freedom and the host of other issues that have charecterized the movement? I find that hard to believe so why don't you drop the red herrings.
I share your opinion 100% and this thread is a fine example of the arrogance and the 'my way or no way' types!
See, far too many freepers just can't read these days.
I said upthread, repeatedly, that:
a) I hadn't read the articles themselves but had seen headlines on this forum repeatedly about the Evangelicals/global warming; and
b) that if someone wanted to tell me the press was spinning, I'd buy that and it wouldn't surprise me.
But no. Half of you have to go off half cocked and not read at all and then get all snotty when you're called on it. Well take a hike.
I see since we have a regular "Reagan was God" freeper on this thread (not you) who is, gasp, trashing Rudy, I thought I'd post a few facts:
If President Reagan were able to eschew the Media/Democrats by speaking directly to the country, why did he post sub-par job approval ratings for much of his presidency (Gallup):
1981: despite a major bump after the assassination attempt, President Reagan ended the year with a JA rating below 50%
1982: averaged a JA rating of 41% for the year
1983: after beginning the year with a JA rating of 35%, averaged 44% for the year
1984: averaged JA ratings in the low 50s yet still won re-election in a landslide
1985: averaged JA ratings in the 50s/low 60s
1986: averaged JA ratings in the low 60s until December when the Iran-Contra scandal broke -- within one month, President Reagan's JA rating dropped double digits (a record) to the mid-40s
1987: averaged JA ratings in the 40s
1988: averaged JA ratings in the 40s/low 50s . . . And even though only 40% of Republicans would have voted to re-elect him, Reagan recovered enough to help get his Vice President elected
1992: According to Gallup, President Reagan received a 47% approve/49% disapprove JA rating while Jimmy Carter received a 49.5% approve/43% disapprove -- UNBELIEVABLE!
1993: According to Gallup, 28% of Americans considered Reagan's economic policies a FAILURE
2004: President Reagan is lauded by Republicans and Democrats alike . . . now considered one of the best presidents of all time! . . . I predict the same result for President George W Bush, the most transformational president of modern times!
For more insight (and a major REALITY CHECK), please read the following commentary from COMMENTARY magazine:
IS CONSERVATISM FINISHED?
By Wilfred M. McClay
. . . We also forget that the Reagan administration itself, far from being happily unified, was driven by internal battles between “pragmatists” and “ideologues,” conflicts that prefigured many of the policy battles of the present. And we forget that, outside the administration, Reagan got plenty of grief from his own Right as well.
The querulous Richard Viguerie, for example, an influential but notably unhappy camper in those halcyon days, began hectoring the Reagan presidency almost from the beginning, complaining to the Associated Press in January 1981 that with his cabinet appointments Reagan had given conservatives “the back of his hand.” A July 1981 op-ed by Viguerie in the Washington Post, entitled “For Reagan and the New Right, the Honeymoon Is Over,” was thoughtfully timed less than four months after the President had nearly been killed by an assassin’s bullet. By December 1987, Viguerie was declaring that Reagan had actually “changed sides” and was “now allied with his former adversaries, the liberals, the Democrats, and the Soviets.” A year later, in the final months of his presidency, when it was clear to all that Reagan had fundamentally changed the terms of debate in American politics, Viguerie announced that, thanks to his tenure in office, “the conservative movement is directionless.”
It is especially pertinent to recall such statements when one opens Viguerie’s current book, a catalog of Bush-administration horrors whose pages are replete with inspirational Reagan quotations and the highest praise for Reagan and his appointees. For a movement that claims to rest upon long perspectives and deep cultural sources, American conservatism can be remarkably short-sighted, impatient, brittle, fractious, and downright petulant. Indeed, conservatism has been found by its adherents to have “cracked up” or “lost its soul” more times than are worth counting in the years since 1980 (at least as many times as America has “lost its innocence”).
You can read this entire MUST READ commentary at
http://www.commentarymagazine.com/cm/main/viewArticle.aip?id=10812&page=all
Ronald Reagan on compromise:
When I began entering into the give and take of legislative bargaining in Sacramento, a lot of the most radical conservatives who had supported me during the election didn't like it. "Compromise" was a dirty word to them and they wouldn't face the fact that we couldn't get all of what we wanted today. They wanted all or nothing and they wanted it all at once. If you don't get it all, some said, don't take anything.
I'd learned while negotiating union contracts that you seldom got everything you asked for. And I agreed with FDR, who said in 1933: 'I have no expectations of making a hit every time I come to bat. What I seek is the highest possible batting average.'
If you got seventy-five or eighty percent of what you were asking for, I say, you take it and fight for the rest later, and that's what I told these radical conservatives who never got used to it.
~~ Ronald Reagan, in his autobiography, An American Life .
After all, this is the internets premier conservative website. Your remarks continue to show a total disregard for supporting the conservative agenda. You're either acting out of pure stupidity, pure ignorance or a pure liberal mindset. Never would have expected you, of all FReepers, to take such a hard shift towards the liberal leftwing.
What happened to you, PKM?
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.