Posted on 02/09/2007 12:05:09 PM PST by GulfBreeze
Washington, DC (LifeNews.com) -- Most of the potential GOP candidates for president fall somewhere along the scale ranging from reliably pro-life to opposing abortion but supporting embryonic stem cell research. Rudy Giuliani falls squarely in the pro-abortion camp but he's now trying to reassure pro-life voters he's not that bad. Giuliani has always been in favor of legalized abortion -- even supporting the grisly partial-birth abortion procedure that kills an unborn child halfway through the birthing process.
On the Fox news program Hannity & Colmes on Monday night he used some pretty strong language against abortion, though he admitted he still is pro-abortion when it comes to whether it should be legal.
"Where I stand on abortion is, I oppose it. I don't like it. I hate it. I think abortion is something that, as a personal matter, I would advise somebody against," he said.
"However, I believe in a woman's right to choose," Giuliani admitted. "I think ultimately you have to leave that to a disagreement of conscience and you have to respect the choice that somebody makes."
The former mayor tried to reassure pro-life advocates by saying he would appoint judges in the mold of the ones President Bush nominated and pro-life advocates supported.
"I think the appointment of judges that I would make would be very similar to, if not exactly the same as, the last two judges that were appointed," Giuliani said.
"If I had been president over the last four years, I can't think of any, you know, that I'd do anything different with that," he said, referring to Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Samuel Alito.
"I would appoint judges that interpreted the Constitution rather than invented it, understood the difference between being a judge and being a legislator," he said. "I do think you have sort of a general philosophical approach that you want from a justice, and I think a strict constructionist would be probably the way I'd describe it."
On the program, Giuliani was asked about partial-birth abortions. He previously told CNN's Inside Politics in a 1999 interview, that he does not support even a modest ban on the gruesome partial-birth abortion procedure saying, "No, I have not supported that, and I don't see my position on that changing."
Yet, on Monday, Giuliani said that he supports a ban on partial-birth abortion as long as there is a provision to protect the life of the mother.
"If it has provision for the life of the mother, then I would support it," he told the Fox News program.
Giuliani also said he supported parental notification laws as long as their is a judicial bypass for cases when a teenager is abused by her parents.
"I think you have to have a judicial bypass. If you do, you can have parental notification," he said.
Will these concessions and apparent flip-flop on partial-birth abortion be enough to gain the support of pro-life advocates?
Connie Mackey, senior vice president of the legislative arm of the Family Research Council says no.
There are some who say, ‘Well, all we need from Giuliani, for instance, is a promise that he’ll put in a judge that will be a good constitutionalist,’" she told Congressional Quarterly on Friday. "And we would disagree with that.”
Tony Perkins, the president of the Family Research Council, was more blunt.
He says he thinks Giuliani is too pro-abortion to deserve support form the overwhelming majority of Republican voters who are pro-life. Perkins also says he doesn't think he will be able to capture the party's nod.
Should Giuliani get the party's nod for president, Perkins said it would likely hand the White House over to the Democratic candidate because pro-life voters would have no one to support.
The last several elections have been between pro-life Republican and pro-abortion Democratic candidates and a Giuliani nomination would change that dynamic.
"If by some chance Giuliani were to gain the Republican nomination it would set up a very similar scenario that we had last November," Perkins told CBN. "An unenthusiastic Republican base which will suppress turnout and set up a Democratic victory."
Republican voters have previously turned away pro-abortion candidates from capturing the primary nod, including former California Gov. Pete Wilson and Pennsylvania Sen. Arlen Specter. Republicans haven't had a pro-abortion nominee since Gerald Ford in 1976.
Arizona Sen. John McCain and former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney are the top two candidates in the polls apart from Giuliani.
Kansas Sen. Sam Brownback and former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee are also running and drawing significant support from the pro-life community.
Other potential Republican candidates include pro-life former House Speaker Newt Gingrich, pro-life Sen. Chuck Hagel of Nebraska, pro-life Reps. Duncan Hunter of California and Tom Tancredo of Colorado, Rep. Ron Paul of Texas, and former Wisconsin Gov. Tommy Thompson.
If they did, that's too, too bad.
Conservatives are merely treating Rudy EXACTLY the way Rudy's treated countless unborn children.........as a disposable nuisance
He is fortunate that there are no laws allowing for late term/retro-active abortion...or the only people someone like him could turn to for safety and protection would be GENUINE conservative pro-lifers.
Sad state of affairs. His Liberal friends have shown where their moral boundaries are...if their 'progressive' agenda and legislation continues to move forward, RUDY could find himself on the wrong side of the abortion knife someday.
I can swallow his stance on abortion if he is the only good candidate on the ticket and he stands a really good chance of getting elected. Who else do we have that has a chance?
Duncan Hunter
That's exactly what Clinton said. Yeah, I can see how effective THAT promise was...
"Sure...here's a few...."
"War on Islamic Scum." With the assistance of GOP Senators Hagel and Warner? The Appeasement Caucus is strong in both parties.
"Hillary Clinton" You're right on that. But saying that "our guy" is better than Sen. Clinton is not exactly setting the bar very high.
"Supreme Court" Sorry. Justices Souter and O'Connor are shining examples in this area. The two recent appointments are largely an anomaly in my view; remember that Harriet Miers was the first choice. Conservatives protested loudly enough to win one here.
"Taxes" Sorry. Tax revenues are increasing at the Federal level. In Virginia, the biggest tax increase in our recent history was a joint effort between our Democratic Governor (Warner) and the GOP General Assembly. The GOP has it's snout as firmly wedged in the public trough as the Democrats.
And I am still hopeful that some of our friends on this board will come to the same conclusion...
I have heard of him somewhere but he must not have stood out as having a chance.
I'm really don't understand what your comments have to do with Rudy.
Your issues seem to be more with the GOP than with Rudy.
There is absolutely no doubt in my mind that Rudy will be a magnificent leader in the War.
With regards to the SCOTUS, he will appoint strict constructionists similar to those he admires, Scalia and Roberts.
Rudy has a record of lowering taxes and will support GWB's tax cuts.
I share your disdain with those in the GOP who for political reasons folded under the pressure of the polls and waivered in the support of the war.
Rudy has never waivered and will never waiver.
Why fear him? He's practically one of them, except on war, so not only is he alienating many voters in his own party, Democrats would have no reason to vote for him...since he's almost a carbon copy of their own candidates. It would be like saying General Mills fears storebrand cheerios. The majority of people are still going to buy brandname Cheerios because they taste exactly how Cheerios should taste. A few people who don't like Cheerios might prefer the cheap alternative, but people who don't like Cheerios in general aren't going to buy either the brandname or the storebrand, they'll buy a different cereal entirely.
Wow that was confusing. Point is, why do they fear him, when he's just like them except lacking in one or two areas?
I wonder if Rudy would respect my choice if I chose to drive over to the nearest kindergarten and shoot down a couple of dozen kids on the playground? After all, if we have a Constitutional right to kill other human beings as they are in the process of being born why stop there?
Are human beings any less human or any less alive one minute before traversing the birth canal than one minute after? By what twisted logic can a judge say that abortionists have a constitutional right to kill a baby if it's body has not yet passed a certain point in the birth process, but he or she would be committing a murder if the baby is killed after it's body has passed that point?
The courts have become so eager to cater to the pro-abortion lobby that they're willing to turn common sense on it's head.
Very important point, Van. Once the killing starts, where it stops is anybody's guess. Holland is a prime example of ultra-liberalism gone berserk. I belive the killing spree there has now segued to "legal" euthanasia of the sick and elderly. With more to come, no doubt.
How someone like Sean Hannity could believe this guy would nominate originalists to the court is beyond me.
We have yet to see where the "kill mentality" unleashed by the court will lead.
Reading the infamous 1973 Roe v Wade court decision---one gets a glimpse of the radical pro-abortion agenda---wherein abortionists consider the rights of the woman over the unborn child to be inviolate, up to and including the ninth month of pregnancy.
Simply b/c if the court limited the right to abortion to the first six weeks, or first three months, they would have had to admit to the existence of life in the womb.
This is a concept abortionists will not countenance.
The Court effectively wrote off hundreds of millions of unborn children by declaring that the unborn are not "persons" under the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment.
It is not personal about Rudy. It's about those babies. But speaking of personal, can't we get a candidate without so much personal baggage? Whatever happened to Republicans thinking character matters?
Three little words happened, blind party loyalty.
I would add the phrase "win at any cost" but that applies to all political parties everywhere.
"I'm really don't understand what your comments have to do with Rudy."
You often judge people by the company they keep. Sometimes it's fair, sometimes it isn't. It would appear that Mayor Giuliani is trying to backpeddle from his previous statements on abortion. Very typical behavior for a politician of the Republican stripe. Or Democrat for that matter.
"Rudy has never waivered and will never waiver."
I'm not familiar enough with his personal character to say one way or the other. So far what I've seen is waffling on abortion in a very Kerry-esque manner. Perhaps that's just a reflection of an evolution of his personal views. People's minds do change.
However, given that he is running for political office and needs the help of political conservatives in order to achieve his objectives...let's just say that that it has the aroma of opportunism.
I will be much more than merely unenthusiastic, I will be so disgusted with the GOP that I will either vote for a pro-life 3rd party nominee in protest or just skip over the presidential portion of the ballot altogether. One thing I will never, ever do is knowingly vote for any candidate for any office at any level who demonstrates such a total lack of character and respect for human life that he or she will support allowing the American holocaust to continue, a holocaust that has already murdered 8 times more innocent human beings than were killed in Hitler's death camps.
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.