Skip to comments.Giuliani stands by support of publicly-funded abortions
Posted on 04/04/2007 7:07:11 PM PDT by Ol' Sparky
TALLAHASSEE, Florida (CNN) -- Former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani told CNN Wednesday he supports public funding for some abortions, a position he advocated as mayor and one that will likely put the GOP presidential candidate at odds with social conservatives in his party.
"Ultimately, it's a constitutional right, and therefore if it's a constitutional right, ultimately, even if you do it on a state by state basis, you have to make sure people are protected," Giuliani said in an interview with CNN's Dana Bash in Florida's capital city.
Giuliani also vowed to appoint conservative judges to the bench, though denied such a promise was a "wink and a nod" to conservatives in support of overturning Roe v. Wade, the landmark Supreme Court decision on abortion.
"A strict constructionist judge can come to either conclusion about Roe against Wade," he said. "They can look at it and say, 'Wrongly decided thirty years ago, whatever it is, we'll over turn it.' [Or] they can look at it and say, 'It has been the law for this period of time, therefore we are going to respect the precedent.' Conservatives can come to that conclusion as well. I would leave it up to them. I would not have a litmus test on that."
(Excerpt) Read more at cnn.com ...
It's time the charade ended that Giuliani is anything but a radical social liberal and time those supporting stopped claiming they care about such issues.
Very bad move by Giuliani.
Yes, it is.
At least he’s being honest.
Unbelievable. Simply unbelievable. Any glint of hope I had that Rudy at least understood the Constitution has now disappeared. Sounds like another, 'that depends on what the definition of is, is' moment to me.
Rudy is correct in his analysis. In fact Scalia has said the same thing, that Roe was a lousy decision but very well could be rationally regarded as precedent if a judge is inclined to do so.
Rudy was penciled in for me but he has just been erased. Abortion is a Constitutional right? Giuliani must also believe the Constitution is a “living” thing? He is becoming less a Republican and more like a RINO every day and I’ve has my fill of RINOs.
I’m liking Mitt more and more these days.
I wonder if he’ll feel the same way when his poll numbers start dropping. I respected his leadership in regard to 9/11 and managing NYC, but I’m very disappointed in Rudy now.
At least hes being honest.
As I have said before — Guliani is a pragmatist. No respect for life. Using government funds to attack the defenseless is a gross distortion of the power to tax.
Some of us pointed out months ago that Rudy’s pledge to appoint “strict constructionists” should not be taken seriously by conservatives. After all, this is a guy who thought Ruth Bader Ginsburg was a fine lawyer deserving of a Supreme Court position. He’s just another liberal elitist who admires others of the legal profession. He has no fixed principles. He is not a conservative by any definition.
I’ll support Fred Thompson if he gets in the race, but he’s got to tear himself away from the tv filming first. Barring Fred, I see no other realistic candidates to beat Hillary other than Rudy.
I hope this is the butter on that piece of toast.
At least he has evolved in the right direction, unlike Rudy.
I doubt it.
He and his supporters dangle President Hillary in front of pro-life conservatives and dare us not to support him, should he win.
I, for one, hold my Christian pro-life values before I hold any party affiliation and will work for the defeat of any active pro-death politician, regardless of whom "might" be elected in their stead.
I value God when He says "Fear the Lord."
A damn shame that Rudy’s mother wasn’t pro-choice...
In his own words: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ALDfwXIYUX0
Does he desire the Presidency enough to pretend to have changed his life long position on "womens' right to choose", "womens' right to decide what is or is not good for their own bodies?"
Unlike Ronald Reagan, it has taken 30 years and more than the slaughter of 40 million babies in America, and now the desire to become President to "wake up Mitt's sensitivities. You may believe in that fairy tale but not me.
Sorry, that just doesn't wash here.
KING: Our guest is the former governor of Massachusetts, Mitt Romney.
His hat is in the ring for the Republican nomination for the presidency.
In 2002, on a NARAL — N-A-R-A-L — questionnaire, you said: “I respect and will protect a woman’s right to choose.”
You also told Planned Parenthood you supported the substance of “Roe v. Wade.”
M. ROMNEY: Well, you know, I’ve always been personally pro-life. But I’ve questioned what the role of government should be with regards to abortion. And in our state, we were having a debate about cloning, the creation of new embryos for purposes of harvesting stem cells. And as part of that discussion, I came to believe that if the people of a state want to enact pro-life, reasonable legislation, they ought to have the right to do so.
So my view is the right course is to allow states to make their own choice in this regard. And that makes me pro-life and I’m proud to be pro-life. I followed the same course in this regard and had the same education that both Ronald Reagan and George Herbert Walker Bush had. They were pro-choice. They became pro-life. As they became leaders and they saw the impact of these decisions, they decided that life was the right course.
KING: But what — what changed you from the total right of a woman’s right to choose to let a state decide whether she has the right to choose?
M. ROMNEY: Well, I’d let each state make its own decision in that regard.
KING: Yes, but why should Mississippi tell its women you can’t choose?
M. ROMNEY: Well, there are two lives involved. There’s the life of the mom and there’s also the life of the unborn child. So there are two lives involved and it’s a real balance, as you look at the very difficult decision a mom has to make and, of course, a society has to make.
And I was sitting there in my office and I had the provost of Harvard University and the head of stem cell research telling me that creating these new embryos was not a moral issue because they destroyed them at 14 days.
And I imagined row after row of human embryos being destroyed at 14 days. And I said look, something is wrong in a society where we have so cheapened the value of human life that we think destroying human embryos at 14 days isn’t a moral issue.
And I came out — that was about two, two-and-a-half years ago. I wrote an op-ed piece in my paper and said look, I’m going to honor my promise that I made to you, but I’m going to come down on the side of life. And every decision I made as governor, I made on the side of protecting human life.
Very bad move by Giuliani.
Don’t worry, he’ll say something else next week.
Unbelievable. Simply unbelievable. Any glint of hope I had that Rudy at least understood the Constitution has now disappeared.
At least he’s consistently wrong on Constitutional issues. Ask him what he thinks about the Kelo decision.
If you want to drink the koolaid, go for it. I won’t. This is a a guy who just finished a term as Governor in which more of the radical Left’s agenda was passed in MA than in any other place at any other time. I think he’s a complete phony and a dangerous liar.
It no longer matters to me one whit whom Republicans (and believe me, I do not say this lightly as I am a Republican County Officer) but I will NOT support a Republican candidate who has been on planet earth more than 30 years and witnessed (no matter how pc everyone is on the matter) that America would have 40 million more people today, were it not for Roe v. Wade, and the slaughter continues at more than 4,000 per month.......!
Their agenda was passed because they control 85% of the state congress and overrode his vetoes.
The bottom line is Romney vetoed legislation to expand stem cell research, vetoed the emergency contraception measure (requiring hospital emergency room doctors to offer the medication to rape victims, and make it available without prescription from pharmacies), and he fought for parental consent on abortions.
Is it his fault that the liberal congress up there overrode his vetoes?
So too was Hitler.
Barry Goldwater would be too liberal for the current republican party. Isnt that a sad thing ?
Garry Trudeau, creator of the Doonesbury cartoon strip, agrees with you.
Count them up, that was merely in one Planned Parenthood "Clinic" in the metro Kansas City area (your U.S. tax dollars at work and Congress won't change that one bit.)
Note to Rudy:
Tax dollars are already paying for abortions, do we Americans now need to make personal donations?
FED UP AMERICAN
The “state congress”? Okey dokey...
Romney supported abortion publically for over 35 years. Now he wants pro-life votes, so he says he’s had a “conversion.”
Sorry, but, like the murderer on death row who lays claim to a conversion, that’s between him and God. But he has to pay the earthly price for his crime anyway.
We need to all get behind Hillary and when elected, she can appoint judges to counteract the evil scoundrel Scalia. Who would have ever thought SCALIA agreed with Rudy on Roe v Wade. SCALIA is EVIL. Too bad SCALIA's mother was Pro-Life, etc./sarc/
You have no slime left. Your fangs are empty.
Bravo to you, EternalVigilance (I love your tagline.)
It's always someone else's fault with Romney and his minions.
Sorry, but Romney held radically liberal views of his own for many years, without any help from Democrats.
Like Reagan said. If someone only agrees with you 80%, they are definately not against you.
Are you EV’s other screen name? I don’t anybody who would praise such a demented idjit so openly but himself.
No doubt. However people tend to go with someone they agree with 90% of the time rather than the one they agree with 80% of the time.
What, Duncan Hunter's going leap out from behind his asterisk and give Romney a wedgie?
Romney campaigned from the left, but governed from the right despite an opposition party with an overwhelming majority.
I had a client in my office today who described himself as a liberal Democrat from Massachusetts who ended up working for Paul Cellucci’s adminstration. He said he had a high opinion of Romney in his first year in office, but soon became disenchanted with him when he started governing as a social conservative.
If Romney was disappointing social liberals in Massachusetts while he served as governor, then that ought to tell you something about the man’s political ideology. He’s a fiscal conservative, and social conservative...no matter how he portrayed himself in 2002 during a campaign.
He’s smart, articulate, good-looking, and has high morals and ethics. He is also incredibly accomplished in life, and would make an excellent President.
So, those fifty million dead American babies mean nothing to you I take it. Four thousand more of them died today, their killers empowered by politicians like Romney and Giuliani.
I am pro-life. but here we are in the middle of a struggle in Iraq. The War on terror is just beginning. The Dems are proposing tax increases.
I want a strong leader. I see Rudy as “THE GUY”
Baloney. On Romney's watch, MA got gay marriage, the homosexualization of the public schools, socialized medicine, an "assault weapons" ban, and more Dems and Independents appointed to the bench than Republicans...including radical gay activists.
You’re deceived. Liberals may talk tough on national defense, but they always end up as appeasers in the end. Never fails.
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.