Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Spinning for Rudy? Just look at the numbers. Abortions in NY City Went DOWN under Giuliani's term.
National Review ^ | 10/15/2007 | Deroy Murdock

Posted on 10/15/2007 8:21:39 AM PDT by SirLinksalot







Spinning for Rudy?
Just look at the numbers.

By Deroy Murdock

Ramesh Ponnuru responded Friday to my piece on Rudolph W. Giuliani and the Religious Right by accusing me of performing “spin for the mayor.” My dreidel impersonation, Ramesh wrote, includes “cherry-picking” data to advance my arguments.

It hardly is “cherry-picking” to analyze Giuliani’s abortion record by documenting the decreases during his tenure in New York City’s total abortions, its abortion ratio (abortions per 1,000 live births), local-taxpayer-financed Medicaid abortions, and local-Medicaid-abortion spending. I suppose it also would be “cherry-picking” to invoke GDP growth, the unemployment rate, the Dow Jones Industrial Average, and rising tax revenues to prove that President Bush’s tax cuts are working.

Ramesh complained that I failed to tell readers that abortions “remained extremely high…”

Yes, abortions remained extremely high in New York City, a liberal metropolis that some have dubbed America’s abortion capitol. In this environment, it is incredibly unfair to flog Giuliani because abortions dropped “just” 17 percent on his watch, while America managed only a 13 percent simultaneous decline in abortions. Even more impressive, Medicaid abortions tumbled 23 percent. (Because the 1976 Hyde Amendment prohibits nearly all federal abortion spending, no equivalent federal datum exists.) So, apparently scorn is the appropriate reaction to a nearly one-quarter cut in taxpayer-funded abortions.

Damn you, Rudy! Why didn’t you slash Medicaid abortions by 50 percent?

What’s important is that these numbers not only did not rise; they fell significantly, and much more than they did nationally. If Rudy really were the pom-pom-waving abortion monger his critics claim he is (“Gotham, Gotham, Sis-Boom-Bah...Get an abortion, Rah-Rah-Rah!”), abortions should have increased during his term, or at least not slid more quickly than they did from sea to shining sea.

Ramesh also posited that I did not mention that under Giuliani, abortions in New York City “declined less than the statewide average.”

Here are the facts: Between 1993 and 2001, abortions waned 26.9 percent in New York State, excluding the five boroughs; 20.1 percent in New York State overall (including Gotham); and 16.9 percent in New York City.

Giuliani was mayor of New York City, not governor of New York State. Thus, he should be judged according to data relevant to his jurisdiction. Still, these figures are no surprise. Syracuse tends to be more socially conservative than the socially liberal South Bronx. Upstate abortion figures naturally reflect a generally more pro-life culture north of Yonkers, just as Illinois’ incidence of abortion most likely decreases the further one drives south of Chicago.

That said, between 1993 and 2001, taxpayer-funded Medicaid abortions in upstate New York slipped 21.7 percent, slid 22.6 percent statewide, and sank 22.9 percent in New York City. So, when it came to government-subsidized abortions, Gotham was more pro-life during Giuliani Time than was the rest of the Empire State.

Speaking of cherry-picking, Ramesh scoured the website of Social Conservatives for Rudy (which I cited), located its list of Rudy-friendly public officials, selected Rep. Judy Biggert (R., Ill.), then highlighted a few of her anti-life votes, presumably to associate Giuliani with several dreadful public policies. This is like picking one cherry from atop a tree, peeling it, and triumphantly waving its pit in the air.

Without such acrobatics, here a dozen members of Congress who have endorsed Giuliani, not just praised him, along with their National Right to Life Committee ratings for the 109th Congress:

Rep. Charles Boustany (R., La.) — NRLC rating: 100 percent

Rep. Phil English (R., Pa.) — NRLC rating: 100 percent

Rep. Peter King (R., N.Y.) — NRLC rating: 100 percent

Rep. Frank LoBiondo (R., N.J.) — NRLC rating: 100 percent

Rep. Candice Miller (R., Mich.) — NRLC rating: 100 percent

Rep. Devin Nunes (R., Calif.) — NRLC rating: 100 percent

Rep. George Radanovich (R., Calif.) — NRLC rating: 100 percent

Rep. Ed Royce (R-CA) — NRLC rating: 100 percent

Rep. Pete Sessions (R-TX) — NRLC rating: 100 percent

Sen. David Vitter (R-LA) — NRLC rating: 100 percent

Rep. Jim Walsh (R-NY) — NRLC rating: 100 percent

Rep. Jerry Weller (R-IL) — NRLC rating: 100 percent

Among Giuliani’s nine other congressional endorsers, five enjoy 82 ratings, three range between 70 and 44, while one (Biggert) earned a mere 9. However, Rudy’s congressional team averages an 84 NRLC rating. This is not a bad collective score for those on Capitol Hill who support a man smeared by his adversaries as “Mr. Abortion.” (For details click here.)

These members of Congress grasp what seems to escape Ramesh and other Rudy foes: Giuliani is no social liberal. The impressive abortion reductions during his mayoralty should be counted among the socially conservative advances that Giuliani either engineered or witnessed on his watch. (Adoption hikes, crime cuts, welfare reform, charter schools, and racial-quota elimination were among many others he enacted.) Were Giuliani as energetically pro-choice as his detractors claim, he would have presided over smaller — or even nonexistent — declines in abortion.

Finally, independent of Ramesh Ponnuru’s comments, any third-party bid by pro-lifers if Giuliani were nominated almost certainly would catapult today’s Democratic frontrunner into the Oval Office. That would empower Mrs. William Jefferson Clinton to pursue a proudly pro-abortion agenda, which would increase, not decrease, the number of fetuses killed in America. If that, bafflingly, is what some Religious Right activists would consider a pro-life triumph, the sun rises in the west, Niagara Falls flows upstream, and I have long, blond hair.

— Deroy Murdock is a New York-based columnist with the Scripps
Howard News Service and a media fellow with the Hoover Institution.

Deroy Murdock is a New York-based columnist with the Scripps Howard News Service and a media fellow with the Hoover Institution.


National Review Online - http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=MWIxNDA1Y2ExMmZkNzA3ODFkN2JjN2E1MmIwYzFiZjI=


TOPICS: Culture/Society; Editorial; News/Current Events; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: abortion; deroymurdock; giuliani; spin
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 101-105 next last

1 posted on 10/15/2007 8:21:48 AM PDT by SirLinksalot
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: George W. Bush; TitansAFC; Clemenza; Alberta's Child; fieldmarshaldj; Clintonfatigued; Liz; ...

Deroy Murdock still shilling for Giuliani.

If he continues to use the NYC abortion rate lowering under Giuliani, Hillary could easily out do that propoganda by saying the country’s abortion rate went at a faster rate than NYC. Therefore implying that the Clinton’s are more “pro-life” than Giuliani.


2 posted on 10/15/2007 8:28:02 AM PDT by Kuksool
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SirLinksalot

Did Rudy do anything that caused a decrease in the number of abortions in New York City, or was he lucky enough to be there at the right time?


3 posted on 10/15/2007 8:29:19 AM PDT by PhilCollins
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SirLinksalot
Exactly what Rudy do to accomplish the reduction abortion (which, BTW, was occurring nationwide while he was in office)?

Was it his support for taxpayer-funding of abortion? His opposition to a ban on partial-birth infanticide? His office's commemoration of the 25th anniversary of Roe? His appearance promoting abortion rights before a gathering of NARAL?

Did Giuliani really push for adoption as mayor of New York? Un, no, he didn't:

If Giuliani had an aggressive plan to reduce abortions in New York City -- long considered the abortion capital of America because it has more abortions than most states -- Fordham University political science professor Bruce Berg has never seen it. That's surprising considering Berg has DVD copies of every mayoral news conference in the city dating back to 1996. "They don't exist," berg told the St. Petersburg Times of potential news conferences showing former Mayor Giuliani touting adoption over abortion.

This COLUMN is idiotic and insult to any thinking person's intelligence.

4 posted on 10/15/2007 8:29:30 AM PDT by Ol' Sparky
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SirLinksalot

***1976 Hyde Amendment prohibits nearly all federal abortion spending, no equivalent federal datum exists.) So, apparently scorn is the appropriate reaction to a nearly one-quarter cut in taxpayer-funded abortions.***

Okay. How about this question for Giuliani. If the Dems decide to forward a bill to repeal the Hyde Amendement would he sign it or veto it? Giuliani avoids this question in the same matter that he avoided the Vietnam Draft.


5 posted on 10/15/2007 8:31:25 AM PDT by Kuksool
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SirLinksalot
I won’t vote for Rudy in the primary but I’ll be damned if I do anything to support Hillary’s efforts to return to the WH. If that means voting Rudy in the national election then so be it.

Remember, he has to play ball with the Senate on justices. If the Senate is Republican with Conservative leaders then we will have more Roberts and Alitos than Souters and O’Conners.

6 posted on 10/15/2007 8:31:30 AM PDT by misterrob (Six down, 13 more til the Pats win the SB again.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SirLinksalot

I won’t vote for him, but I like Rudy personally. He is the most articulate Republican and not afraid to fight. A lost art amongst our leaders.

Pray for W and Our Troops


7 posted on 10/15/2007 8:31:38 AM PDT by bray (Think "Betray U.S." Think Democrat)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SirLinksalot
Rep. Charles Boustany (R., La.) — NRLC rating: 100 percent
Rudy Giuliani’s NARAL rating——100%

If that isn't the definition of cognitive dissonance...

8 posted on 10/15/2007 8:33:18 AM PDT by DManA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SirLinksalot
With all due respect to Mr. Murdock, let me explain this plainly:

The numbers of abortions, whether statistically increased or decreased, in NYC under Guliani, are irrelevant. As president, Guiliani would have an entirely different role in the battle against abortion, a role, mind you, that would directly call into play his pro-choice stance. Namely, his nomination of SC Justice(s). As Mayor he didn't nominate SC justices; as president he would.

It's a pretty big "duh", Mr. Murdock. But I'll repeat it again for clarity: The role Guiliani played as mayor is NOT the same as one he would as president, vis a vis the abortion battle.

9 posted on 10/15/2007 8:35:00 AM PDT by FourtySeven (47)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SirLinksalot

The bottom line is that the battle over abortion will be won or lost based on whether the next President appoints conservative Supreme Court Justices. I’m not betting that Hillary will not do so.


10 posted on 10/15/2007 8:36:59 AM PDT by Brilliant
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SirLinksalot

Abortion numbers went down NATIONWIDE in the 1990s, so this has NOTHING to do with Rooty Toot.

http://www.nrlc.org/abortion/facts/abortionstats.html


11 posted on 10/15/2007 8:41:08 AM PDT by wagglebee ("A political party cannot be all things to all people." -- Ronald Reagan, 3/1/75)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SirLinksalot

Doesn’t matter what happened, Rudy is still for abortions. What a crazy article.


12 posted on 10/15/2007 8:43:29 AM PDT by Cedar (Forever pro-life)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Kuksool

You’re starting to see more of this “shilling.” It looks like the GOP pundits are beginning to realize that it’s Rudy or Romney, and they are choosing Rudy. If Rudy steals NH from Romney, that’s going to set off a flood of endorsements for Rudy, I predict. And if Rudy then wins in Florida, that will pretty much decide the nomination.


13 posted on 10/15/2007 8:45:47 AM PDT by Brilliant
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: SirLinksalot; FreeInWV; 383rr; abishai; Afronaut; airborne; Alberta's Child; Antonious; azhenfud; ..
Kuksool is quite right.

The problem here is that Deroy’s logic works against him. During the Clinton years, Abortions went down in America. There is not one credible Pro-Lifer who would then credit Bill Clinton for presiding over that decrease. Niether do we credit NARAL’s “Champion of Choice,” Rudy911, for presiding over an Abortion rate decrease while holding the same radical Pro-Abortion positions (in some cases, even more radical).

Yet Deroy is persistent in trying to prove that correlation proves causation in regards to Rudy911. IOW - because there were more sunny days during Rudy911’s tenure as Mayor, we must deduce that he somehow deserves credit for the increase in the number of sunny days. Now how could a sun-tanner object to him based on his constant push for a Monty-Burns-Like sun-shield over NYC, when clearly the numbers show that NY had more sunny days under Rudy911? How could they possibly doubt that as President, Rudy911 would bring more sunny days to all of America, like he did to NY?

The fatal flaw is that by Deroy’s own measure - reduction in the Abortion rate - the Clintons deserve credit from the Right-To-Life movement, and no Pro-Life voter should withhold their vote from Hillary based on her unabashed Pro-Choice stance.

Every possible defense of Rudy on Abortion falls flat with even the most parochial look at the logic that the con-man making the defense tries to use.

14 posted on 10/15/2007 8:46:11 AM PDT by TitansAFC ("My 80% enemy is not my 20% friend" -- Common Sense)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SirLinksalot

Oral Sex went up in the 90’s, too, remember?

So did birth control

And the numbers of teenagers in the cencus went down in that period, too, so there would have been less kids out there fooling around, too.


15 posted on 10/15/2007 8:48:24 AM PDT by RaceBannon (Innocent until proven guilty; The Pendleton 8: We are not going down without a fight)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Brilliant
I’m not betting that Hillary will not do so.

No prize for betting correctly. Just look at history -- Hillary actually had a hand in the appointment of Ruth Ginsberg for the Supreme Court.

You'll win everytime if you bet that she'll appoint someone similar should she become POTUS.

Giuliani is different though. He promised to appoint strict constructionists in the mould of Scalia to the SCOUTUS. Whether he do what he says he'll do once elected remains to be seen.

The choice as I see it for conservatives if (worse comes to worst) he had a Giuliani vs Hillary contest next year is this --- are you going to support Rudy with the hope that he'll keep his promise ( with no guarantees ), or sit this out and let Hillary win, which will guarantee 100% that ALL of your social issues will go down the toilet.

The choice ain't going to be pretty, but that's what we might face next year.

For me, I'd rather gamble on the chance that Giuliani will do what he says he'll do rather than gamble on a Hillary who WILL DO what we all fear and KNOW she'll do.
16 posted on 10/15/2007 8:51:58 AM PDT by SirLinksalot
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: misterrob
My primary goal is to prevent a Two Liberal Party system - the inevitable result of a Rudy911 Presidency.

No amount of howling about Hillary, or bogus attempts to terrorize us into supporting a candidate we find an anathema (Rudy911), will make us suddenly want a GOP and country run by Rudy911.

And in case you have not noticed, most Freepers are far to saavy to buy into the idea that Rudy will give us Conservative justices, against all of his history and expressed worldview. I would no more expect President Ron Paul to declare war on Iran than to expect that Rudy911 would give us a Conservative Justice.

17 posted on 10/15/2007 8:52:17 AM PDT by TitansAFC ("My 80% enemy is not my 20% friend" -- Common Sense)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: misterrob
If the Senate is Republican with Conservative leaders then we will have more Roberts and Alitos than Souters and O’Conners.

That assumes that Rudy would prefer a Roberts or an Alito over a Souter and an O'Connor, and I don't see how you can possibly make that argument given his stances on social issues, and given his long history of appointing liberal judges.

Rudy is himself just another Sandra Day O'Connor... in a dress.

18 posted on 10/15/2007 8:52:57 AM PDT by Alter Kaker (Gravitation is a theory, not a fact. It should be approached with an open mind...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: SirLinksalot
In that we differ.

I won’t gamble on Rudy911. I’ll gamble on 2012.

19 posted on 10/15/2007 8:53:21 AM PDT by TitansAFC ("My 80% enemy is not my 20% friend" -- Common Sense)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: SirLinksalot

NOTHING, IS MORE IMPORTANT THAN LIFE

Don't Cut and Run, vote pro-life always.


20 posted on 10/15/2007 8:55:46 AM PDT by ex-snook ("But above all things, truth beareth away the victory.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 101-105 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson