Posted on 04/05/2007 9:14:04 AM PDT by Barney Gumble
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.
A video clip of the then-mayoral candidate issuing a similar declaration in 1989 in a speech to the "Women's Coalition" appeared recently on the Internet. "There must be public funding for abortions for poor women," Giuliani says in the speech that is posted on the video sharing site YouTube. "We cannot deny any woman the right to make her own decisions about abortion."
When asked directly Wednesday if he still supported the use of public funding for abortions, Giuliani said "Yes." "If it would deprive someone of a constitutional right," he explained....
(Excerpt) Read more at cnn.com ...
See full text here
In Rudy's mind "well regulated" means GUN CONTROL LAWS. He doesn't understand the words in the context of the time the 2nd amendment was written. "Well regulated" meant "well practiced" at the time the words were penned.
I stand by my position that Rudy will sign any gun control law that crosses his desk. He has been consistent in his position for over 10 years. The Democrats will be happy to send him all the new gun control laws he desires.
What relaxation of the Hyde Amendment? It's pretty strict. You are trying to muddy the waters by saying there is no different for a taxpayer funded Medicaid abortion as a result of rape versus because of someone's whims. Even the Catholic church sanctions abortions in case of the life of the mother.
From a liberal pro-abortion website: "Before the Hyde Amendment, federal Medicaid covered over one-third of all abortions. Since 1977 it has paid for virtually none." http://www.hyde30years.nnaf.org/
That's where Rudy wants to go. Rudy says he doesn't want to overturn Hyde, but he also says that taxpayers should fund abortion on demand for those who cannot pay.... which is exactly what Hyde restricts. He talks out of both sides of his mouth. In spite of overwhelming evidence, you don't seem to believe when he talks out of the other side.
You said he would sign ANY anti-gun legislation. Prove it. As I said before, he has indicated that what is good for a large urban area like NYC may not be good for the midwest or south. In addition, the facts don’t lie. Gun violence dropped markedly when he was mayor of NYC.
The Hyde amendment - originally passed in 1977 - was relaxed in 1993 to include rape, incest and the life of the mother. That’s a relaxation of the original law whether you want to admit it or not. Under current law, those abortions are paid for with taxpayer funds under the Medicaid program. My point is, taxpayers are already funding certain abortions. So those who are crying that Rudy wants to fund abortions should look at the current law if they don’t want to pay for it. I have not heard Rudy say he would overturn the current law, have u?
“I would want to see it decided on a state by state basis,” Giuliani said. “And what that means is I would leave the Hyde Amendment in place.”
“It’s been the law now, 17, 18 years, it’s part of the constitutional balance that I talked about yesterday and the Hyde Amendment leaves the funding issue largely to the states,” he added. “They have to decide how they’re going to do it.”
My CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS do not end at the New York city limits!
I’ve read the links and I’m not moved whatsoever. The bottom line: murders and gun violence plummeted dramatically in NYC during Rudy’s tenure. I guess the ends don’t justify the means in your mind. In my mind, people’s lives were saved and that’s a good thing. Your mind is closed and made up. So be it.
The ends NEVER justify the means...especially if the means require trampling on individual rights. Apparently that doesn't bother you. Executing criminal suspects immediately upon arrest would also result in dramatic reductions in crime. That's how they keep the drunk driving problem under control in Peru. Very effective. No repeat offenders.
It's quite telling that even in the face of these statements you keep pushing for Rudy--almost a year before the first primary. No thank you. Until the primaries are settled, I'll be backing the most conservative candidate. I'll deal with after the primaries after the primaries. Sorry, character not electability, is my benchmark.
If you are capable of a more rational debate than schoolyard taunts, I'm open to discussing this with you...
>>Just think, if Abraham Lincoln had thought that way, we would still have slavery.
That's a very ignorant retort.
You called Area Fifty One to this thread for many reasons... the least of them is the one you state in your post. You aren't interested in what Area Fifty-One has to say.
I believe if you check my posting history, you will find that I am supporting Duncan Hunter, but why take time to do that... it's too much fun and a whole lot easier to go off half-cocked.
I am more than capable of having a "rational debate" but with all your benchmarks in place, (and, oh, aren't you so very proud of them) it would be a waste of time.
Therefore there is a right to privacy and other non listed, non enumerated rights.
Article IX, Bill of Rights: "The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."
You read this and see a right to privacy as paramount. I read it an see the right to life as first (as noted in Article V by the way). Why? Because the same people who wrote that all other rights are retained by the people wrote that our first unalienable right is the right to life (Declaration of Independence). Reagan observed that without this right secured, no other right is exercisable.
I think I made myself clear in the remainder of my post where I explained that it is certainly within the rights of a president to openly disagree with court rulings that he sees as unconstitutional.
I see a very clear distinction between “upholding” the law and “supporting” that same law. While a president must uphold the law, he need not support it.
You are a very bitter person. You lashed out at me in your first post to me even though Fitty and I had already discussed the issues. You go on to say that I really don't care what he thinks... who the hell do you think you are? Finally, no insult was given except what was received... there is a great deal of projection and conjecture in your posting to this thread.
I am more than capable of having a "rational debate"...
After reading your posts to this thread, I'm not convinced.
Your ASSumption has made an ASS out of you.
You inserted yourself into a conversation uninvited and ended up making foolish ASSumptions that put you in the position of being an ignorant poster.
You are just simply wrong with your ASSupmtion.
who the hell do you think you are...
If you look at the bottom of my post, you will see that I am carton253.
Finally, no insult was given except what was received... there is a great deal of projection and conjecture in your posting to this thread.
Pot meet kettle.
After reading your posts to this thread, I'm not convinced.
Well, I can't help stupid.
Where did you get the idea that I ever said, or even implied, that he ran for Senate using 9/11 credentials?
Sorry, bub, but I simply stated that his actions following 9/11 put him on the national political map.
He worked within the system, not around it. Relevance? If liberals actually used the systems in place to change laws, we wouldn't be in the boat we're in.
I read all of your posts before commenting. You brought up the right to privacy as being an unenumerated right. I simply pointed out that the right to life was a paramount right in the minds of the men who wrote about unenumerated rights. It is dishonest to see a right to privacy and not see a right to life.
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.