It's not a choice, it's a child.
Posted on 04/06/2007 9:44:30 AM PDT by veronica
COLUMBIA, S.C. - Presidential hopeful Rudy Giuliani ventured to conservative South Carolina yesterday hoping to talk about terrorism and the economy, but instead got hit at every stop with another topic - abortion.
A day after the former mayor said he supports public funding of abortion - sparking a firestorm among conservatives - local media here forced him to elaborate on the issue at events intended to underscore new endorsements.
And although Giuliani, who is seeking the Republican presidential nomination, did not waiver from his central belief that abortion is a woman's right, he responded with some of his most strident comments to date on the divisive topic.
"I'm against abortion. I hate it. I wish there never was an abortion and I would counsel a woman to have an adoption instead of an abortion," Giuliani said at the state Capitol in Columbia. "But ultimately I believe it is an individual right, and the woman can make that choice."
When pressed, Giuliani said he would not change the so-called Hyde amendment, which restricts federal funding for abortion to cases of rape, incest and to save the life of the mother. But he said he would support the right of states to make their own decisions about providing taxpayer-funded abortions, just as New York and 16 other states do now.
His preference to let states decide how they want to restrict certain rights is increasingly becoming Giuliani's favorite way around sticky issues, among them abortion and gun control.
Yesterday's discussion also included a proposed South Carolina law that would require women seeking abortions to first view ultrasound images of their fetus - a first in the nation if approved.
"The legislature of South Carolina should make its decision about that," Giuliani said when asked whether he would support the idea.
He got a much friendlier reception when he headed into the streets of Charleston, where he was mobbed by well-wishers eager to have their picture taken with the man some believe led the nation through 9/11.
"He is strong, he is determined and he does what he says," said Marsha Tokarczyk, 51, when asked why she was seeking Giuliani's autograph.
Tokarczyk, a Republican, added that she typically does not vote for politicians who favor abortion, but of Giuliani she said, "I respect his position."
Isn’t that like saying “I’m opposed to murder but if others choose it who am I to try to stop it?”
“but the Feds should pay for it”
- Rudy
that is a far cry from his previous “it’s a constitutional right” stance. Saying it is up to the states means Roe v. Wade being overturned. Is that what he really means?
He only hates that he has to answer this question.
It’s a civil rights issue. Therefore, it is a federal matter
If RINO Rudy believes the issue is up to the states, why did he just state to CNN two days ago that he didn’t feel obligated to nominate judges to the Supreme Court willing to overturn Roe?
Giuliani "hates" abortion so much that he has been quoted as saying that he would pay to have his own grandchild aborted.
He's using Clintonesque parsing of language to try to appeal to the pro-life Republican Party (see the platform) while not revealing his true pro-abortion position. It is clearly deception and lies.
The Artful Dodger.
Not only have the wheels fallen off the Rudy Wagon, there is no wagon. It’s just Rudy holding the reigns, sitting in the desert by himself.
It’s too late for me, Rudy.
The most shocking sound byte I’ve heard these past few days has been Rudy’s rather firm assertion that welfare types DESERVE free abortions...that it is their constitutional right.
Now perhaps he didn’t mean it quite as outrageous as it sounded to my ears or hey, sure, we understand Rudy that you’d rather NOT have abortion at all.
Besides the abortion clinics, I daresay most of us feel as if NO unwanted pregnancy was preferable to abortion.
But the way he said that...”Let me make it clear that those of limited means are entitled to a “choice” as well as those with more means....” I paraphrase but I’m close.
HOW ABOUT WE GIVE THEM FREE BIRTH CONTROL AND LET THEM FUND THEIR OWN ABORTIONS, RUDY?
You gonna make taxpayers pay for a procedure that kills unborn babies? But of course! An abortion is every American female’s constitutional right!
What he said, how he said it, how revolted I was by the whole concept.....go with me....Rudy’s OFF my list.
Maybe the loss of my vote and others thinking like me will be offset by all the votes he gets from welfare moms looking for free state paid abortions. It has to be why he said it....surely Rudy had to know he would turn off conservatives of even a mild pursuasion with those words.
Turn it over, Rudy....yer done.
“Is that what he really means?”
No, what he is trying to do is get people opposed to his pro-abortion belief to vote for him by clouding the issue...
The president doesn't have the power to change the Hyde amendment.
Here's the real question Giuliani should be asked:
"If you were president and a Democratic Congress passed a bill overturning the Hyde Amendment, would you veto it?"
This is the question that needs to be asked because Giuliani has never -- in all of his years in politics -- been able to muster up the strength to say these simple words: "I support the Hype Amendment."
He’s lying. He supports NARAL and Planned Paretnhood. NARAL and Planned Parenthood most certainly DO NOT want it left up to the states.
In addition, it was left up to the states prior to RvW. Rudy supports RvW as “constitutional” and “good law”.
Rudy will lie at anytime to support his incoherent leftists positions, while trying to paint himself as a conservative.
If abortion is a states right issue to him, then how is it really a constitutional guarantee worthy of federal funding that he only supports because it’s (abortion) a constitutional right? Seems like circular reasoning. Unless he means it’s a constitutional right now.
What he’s saying is “up to the states” is to decide whether or not to publicly fund the abortions of poor women.
He’s repeatedly stated that abortion is a constitutional “right,” so obviously, in his mind, the legality of abortion isn’t “up to the states.”
As well, his view is that even if it should be up to the states to fund abortions for poor women, nonetheless, states should do so. He believes in public funding of abortions generally. While Mayor of New York City, he was quite adamant in continuing the funding of all abortions for poor women.
sitetest
Not at all. Murder is a crime that is defined, prosecuted and punished at the state level. If abortion is murder, it certainly should be defined as such at the state level as well. That is the appropriate position for a presidential candidate, and if the SCOTUS were to adopt that position, it would be the end of Roe v. Wade.
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.
# # #
http://www.nyc.gov/html/rwg/html/2001b/champlunch.html
Freep-mail me to get on or off my pro-life and Catholic Ping List:
Please ping me to all note-worthy Pro-Life or Catholic threads, or other threads of interest.
Indeed ... Rudy is getting a lot of credit for being a straight shooter and sticking to his beliefs on abortion, but there are a ton of inconsistencies there.
If it is a constitutional right, why does he want to leave it up to the states?
How can he view abortion as a constitutional right (a position anathema to strict constructionists) and still claim that he wants to appoint strict constructionists?
Why does he "hate" abortion if it is not the taking of a human life? No one hates appendectomies.
Etc., etc.
Someone needs to ask Rudy what other “Constitutional Rights” are up to the states.
EXACTLY! If yes I would still consider supporting him. If no not only won’t I support him, I would consider him my political enemy.
Giuliani finds himself trapped in a box of his own making -- because he's trying to create the appearance that he's softening his stance on an issue where he has been an unabashed hard-core leftist for his entire political career. He's never even considered abortion an issue of little or no importance (as Romney probably has), so his gyrations look ridiculous and desperate. Because of this, he will always come across as completely phony and/or Clintonesque as he twists himself into these philosophical knots.
Ironically, this is the price he's paying for running as a Republican instead of a Democrat.
This article sounds an awful lot like damage control in that he’s trying to obscure the statements he made in his CNN interview.
I also sympathize with all the posters' strong feelings on this issue, however, for me, the main issues in the upcoming election are fiscal responsibility, lower taxes and the war on terror. Having just rendered unto Caesar, it makes me sick to know that the Democrats are trying to raise my taxes in every little way they can.
Latest data from my home city, Pittsburgh PA, shows we lost another 50,000 people since 2002. High taxes, entrenched Democratic administrations, all have contributed to this malaise. We'll all face higher taxes across the board if a Democrat takes the White House, therefore I will not do anything to contribute to the destruction of Rudy's campaign. He's the best crossover hope we have.
You are correct. ALL criminal matters, except a few in the Constitution, are STATE concerns.
Perhaps he ought to let Judith sit in on his next answer.
Not without spinning like a SCSI hard disk.
Now we find out what, according to St. Rudy, the meaning of 'strict constructionism' is:
http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/04/04/giuliani.interview/
Giuliani told Bash that "a strict constructionist judge can come to either conclusion about Roe against Wade. They can look at it and say, 'Wrongly decided. ... We will overturn it.' 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.'
In other words, just as "is" meant to Bill Clinton whatever it needed to mean, so does 'strict constructionism' mean to Rudy whatever he needs to to mean.
I'm sure the Rudy boosters will be falling over themselves to apologize to the skeptics.
Not.
And rounding out the list at Number Ten we have “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved for the States respectively, or to the people.”
Remember Bill Clinton’s infamous Executive Order #13083?
I’m wondering if Rudy Giuliani thinks it was a good idea.
http://www.eagleforum.org/column/1998/aug98/98-08-05.html
“that is a far cry from his previous “it’s a constitutional right” stance. Saying it is up to the states means Roe v. Wade being overturned. Is that what he really means?”
I think what Rudy is saying is that he’ll say anything to try to get votes.
Regardless of where one stands on the abortion issue, Roe is bad law. It is a complete usurption of states rights and, as such, should be overturned. Let the states decide, as was the case pre-Roe.
As for Rudy, again, he’ll say anything to try to get votes. Hopefully, the GOP is smart enough to see through his cynical and ridiculous attempts at pandering. Rudy is a pro-choicer who now claims abortion is an issue that should be left up to the states? He’s a gun grabber who now claims he’d support the genuine constitutional right to Keep and Bear Arms as President? Get real.
He is starting to sound like Kerry. I was for abortion before I was against it.
I'll let the lawyers here argue this, but I think he is wrong. The above is the 5th amendment that I believe says that no one can be deprived of life without due process. I know the argument will be that the framers were talking about punishment for criminal acts, but what does Public Domain have to do with criminal cases? If they are including private property protection in the same sentence, cannot not be also said that they were protecting life and liberty in all contexts as well?
If that is the case, then life in the womb must be protected until that life can defend itself from being terminated in a civil court. Then the US Government must protect that life and that overrides any state law.
I’m so sick and tired of this one issue being played like it’s the only issue!! WE ARE AT WAR WITH PEOPLE WHO WANT US ALL DEAD.
Drugs are illegal now. How do you enforce the current drug laws?
I’m not sure what your point is. Is it; if we can’t enforce the law, then it should be legal?
Don't be a one-issue voter!
He won’t get elected if the people this is important to stay home. Let’s get this out early so we can find someone who will fight the war AND get elected.
I guess this puts slavery back into play.
Who is being a one issue voter now? As I recall almost all the men running for the rep nomination ahve as good or better qualifications to run the war as Rino Rudy.
**************
No. What he really means is that he'll say whatever it takes to be elected president.
It’s not the only issue, but it is the subject of the article in question. For other issues involving Giuliani, there are other threads.
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.