Posted on 01/29/2007 1:36:27 PM PST by Dark Skies
Several Rudy posters have claimed that he wants the abortion issue returned to the states, but have never provided any statement to prove it. I've searched extensively and can't find any source where he discussed his support for overturning Roe. He has been quoted opposing a ban on partial birth abortion which would indicate he has no desire to change the status quo.
Thanks for posting! Received that in email before heading off to a County Executive Meeting to help plan our County GOP Convention in a few weeks.
I had to go to a meeting and just got home about 20 minutes ago. We had to plan the County Convention and I had to chair the meeting. For a change the meeting went great!
I find it amuzing that Elizabeth Dole united us on one thing -- we all think she did a louzy job. :) I was chuckling about that as I drove to the meeting.
It's telling that we are united by Tom Coburn, Jim Inhofe and Lizzy Dole. But for very different reasons.
Love my two Senators! Have already signed on to the Inhofe campaign if he decides to run again -- waiting to hear. Our State Committee Meeting is this Saturday and our State Convention is April so I would think one of those two dates we were hear officially and I will let everyone know that he is running.
Well, THAT I can heartily endorse.
"I've searched extensively and can't find any source where he discussed his support for overturning Roe."
Why would he say that? He would be immediately labeled as an extremist. If you want to actually win an election you have to speak in political jargon. Diction is very important when considering a run for POTUS. Joe Public doesn't understand the nuanced argument that Roe v. Wade is unconstitutional on states rights ground and he would be pigeon holed into a position that is not actually his. So if Rudy wants to express that he is pro-choice but against Roe v. Wade, he has to say that he's for strict construction of the constitution.
"He has been quoted opposing a ban on partial birth abortion which would indicate he has no desire to change the status quo."
It could just as likely mean he doesn't believe the federal government has the authority to pass such a law.
Wish he would hurry up and announce! I need a new Inhofe for Senate bumperstrip for my SUV. Bought it new last January and right now it is free of bumperstrips. Want Inhofe's to be prominently displayed as I drive around!
"That article has been dissected several times on the Rudy threads and it is highly dubious. The national abortion rate declined twice as much as NYC during that period."
The point of the article is not to suggest that Rudy is pro-life. The point of the article is that his portrayal by all his nay-sayers that he is staunchly pro-choice and is ready to vigorously defend "a woman's right to choose" is inaccurate. Remember strict constructionism goes far deeper than Roe v. Wade; it affects every Constitutional case that faces the Supreme Court.
If I had to guess, I would say that Rudy's position on abortion is that he really doesn't care about it too much and he only talks about it because people ask him questions about it all the time. He certainly hasn't tried to convince Republicans to agree with him. In fact every quote I've seen on Rudy's stance on abortion is in response to a specific question on the issue.
In short, it seems that Rudy's conviction for strict constructionist interpretation of the Constitution far out stripes the importance of his pro-choice views.
So how does the abortion rate in NYC declining at half the national average - when pro-choice Bill Clinton was president - make Rudy anti-abort? That is absurd.
Opposing a ban on partial birth abortion, a position in opposition to 75% of the population, is much more likely to be based on his openly pro-abortion beliefs than a legal view of the federal government power.
I never said he's anti-abort. I said he probably doesn't care about the issue very much.
"Newt Gingrich, John McCain, Mitt Romney, Sam Brownback, Duncan Hunter and Mike Huckabee are all on record supporting the overturning of Roe. They obviously don't think the issue is quite as nuanced as Rudy."
Well that would be one of the reasons I support Rudy. He was US Attorney for many years and understands the law in a nuanced fashion.
"Opposing a ban on partial birth abortion, a position in opposition to 75% of the population, is much more likely to be based on his openly pro-abortion beliefs than a legal view of the federal government power."
Well then find me a quote that says so. Otherwise either interpretation is equally plausible. I would go so far as to say that my interpretation is more consistent with what we've seen from him. Look at the quotes on him on this issue. He seems reluctant to say he's pro-choice at best. While on the other hand he is rather passionate about his stance on strict construction and the qualities of Alito, Roberts and Scalia.
Opening Remarks to the N.A.R.A.L. "Champions of Choice" Lunch
The Yale Club, Thursday, April 5th, 2001
As Delivered
Thank you very much for inviting me to say a few words of welcome. This event shows that people of different political parties and different political thinking can unite in support of choice. In doing so, we are upholding a distinguished tradition that began in our city starting with the work of Margaret Sanger and the movement for reproductive freedom that began in the early decades of the 20th century.
As a Republican who supports a woman's right to choose, it is particularly an honor to be here. And I would like to explain, just for one moment, why I believe being in favor of choice is consistent with the philosophy of the Republican Party. In fact, it might be more consistent with the philosophy of the Republican Party. Because the Republican Party stands for the idea that you have to restore more freedom of choice, more opportunity, more opportunity for people to make their own choices rather than the government dictating those choices. Republicans stand for lower taxation because we believe that people can make better choices with their money than the government will make for them, and that ultimately frees the economy and produces more political freedom. We believe that, yes, government is important, but that the private sector is actually more important in solving our problems.
So it is consistent with that philosophy to believe that in the most personal and difficult choices that a woman has to make with regard to a pregnancy, those choices should be made based on that person's conscience and that person's way of thinking and feeling. The government shouldn't dictate that choice by making it a crime or making it illegal.
I think that's actually a much more consistent position. Many Republicans support that position, but you don't hear that as often. For example, in a recent poll by American Viewpoint, 65 percent of Republicans supported changing the plank in the Republican platform that calls for a constitutional ban on abortion. That's 6.5 out of every 10 Republicans. And over 80 percent of Republicans believe that the decision with regard to an abortion should be made by a woman, her doctor, and her family rather than dictated by the government.
[Applause]
In any case, I just wanted you to know that many of my fellow Republicans stand with you on this issue. So I thank you, I thank NARAL for taking the lead in establishing freedom of choice for all of us, and as the Mayor of New York City, I thank you for being here in New York City.
"That article has been dissected several times on the Rudy threads and it is highly dubious. The national abortion rate declined twice as much as NYC during that period."
I just re-read the article and you completely misrepresented what it said. The article mention that California, the largest state in the country (and one likely having the most abortions) stopped reporting it's abortion numbers in 1997. This falsely inflated the percentage at which abortions decreased nation wide. When California was accounted for in these studies, New York's abortion decreased slightly more than the national average. Therefore, at worst all that can be said is that he had no effect on the number of abortions in New York.
I value Free Republic for our adherence to facts and truth. Getting an article to say what you want it to say and not what it says is neither factual or truthful. If you cannot prove the merits of your position on facts and truth, then you should either find facts to support your position, not post anything or change your beliefs. Distortion and misrepresention is the domain of the left.
I never said he wasn't pro-life.
All I am saying is that his pro-life position is:
1) Merely part of a larger libertarian view of the law and an individuals relationship to the government which is a GOOD thing on just about every other issue. The emphasis of the speech was on personal responsibility and limited government.
2) That he is in favor of strict constructionist judges when it is abundantly clear that a strict constructionist majority on the SCOTUS would necessarily overturn Roe v. Wade. (A strict constructionist interpretation of the Constitution does not allow Roe v. Wade to stand; the only answer would be that it is a political question for the states.) This makes his personal stand on abortion completely and utterly irrelevant as POTUS.
Notice how he devotes a large part of his speech to topics such as privatization and lowering taxes. That doesn't strike you as weird at a speech to a pro-choice group giving him an award(who is clearly giving him the award solely because he is a Republican)?
The short of the matter (for me at least) is this: a) yes he's pro-choice b) it is unlikely, however, that his pro-choice views will ever affect anything he does as POTUS c) I think the abortion debate is intractable anyway so it doesn't affect my vote d)he wants to crush the Islamofascists and seal our boarder e) he is for taxes cuts and limited government f) he is a proven leader in tough times. To me the negatives pale in comparison to the positives.
That version of the piece did not contain the information on reporting discrepancies in the national data. Perhaps Murdock revised the piece for NRO after his attention was called to it.
In any case, I was not trying to distort factual information, I was merely too lazy to read something I already read. Obviously, the new data paints a more favorable picture for Giuliani, although I must confess I still find it meaningless.
Giuliani's own statements are clear on the issue and until he modifies, revises or repudiates them there is no softening his position.
Very well then, I withdraw my criticism. Other than that, I think we can only agree to disagree.
Perhaps we can continue this another time, but let me briefly respond to your last post
Abortion is a major issue to me, a deal breaker, for me Giuliani is going to have to specifically address his position on Roe and judges and not in a vague passing reference. I mean directly answer. He will also have to repudiate his position on gun control, gay rights, and immigration (he supports the Senate plan).
If he did those things I would consider him, but I doubt that will happen.
I have to turn in so please don't take a nonresponse as rude. On a lighter note, as a former New Yorker who lived in the city while Giuliani was Mayor I have to say you may be the first person who ever used the words "Giuliani" and "libertarian" together in a sentence.
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.