Put a fork in Rudy?

[TexasTiger 12,949]

Wednesday, April 04, 2007

Giuliani stands by support of publicly-funded abortions

Watch Giuliani on abortion in an interview with CNN's Dana Bash.

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."

http://www.cnn.com/POLITICS/blogs/politicalticker/

Would this keep you for voting from him?

[TitanTiger 20,499]

Wednesday, April 04, 2007

Giuliani stands by support of publicly-funded abortions

Watch Giuliani on abortion in an interview with CNN's Dana Bash.

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."

http://www.cnn.com/POLITICS/blogs/politicalticker/

Would this keep you for voting from him?

Without question. If he holds to this position and he somehow got the GOP nomination, I would vote for a third party candidate or stay home in protest. I can not in good conscience support him or allow the GOP to begin thinking that I'll vote for them simply because they have an "R" next to a person's name.

[MDM4AU 332]

Yes, were I considering him, this would keep me from voting for him.

[CCTAU 3,327]

Where is Fred Thompson when you need him?

[quietfan 233]

Never was considering him in the first place and still won't...but then, I'm a bed-wetting liberal D.

I do think this significantly reduces his chances of getting the Republican nomination, however.

[TexasTiger 12,949]

Never was considering him in the first place and still won't...but then, I'm a bed-wetting liberal D.

I do think this significantly reduces his chances of getting the Republican nomination, however.

I don't see how he gets there from here.

Where is Fred Thompson when you need him?

Hollywood!

[bigsixfive 327]

Not that I agree with him, but he has said in the past its a matter for the states to decide... therefore he shouldn't be messing with it in office. He's also said that about gun control. The bigger picture in my mind is what other issues does he stand for that oppose common conservative beliefs, and will we find those out before or after he's elected?

[AURaptor 1,125]

Rudi is still above any Democrat , and even John McCain , in my book.

[GalensGhost 0]

Wednesday, April 04, 2007

Giuliani stands by support of publicly-funded abortions

Watch Giuliani on abortion in an interview with CNN's Dana Bash.

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."

http://www.cnn.com/POLITICS/blogs/politicalticker/

Would this keep you for voting from him?

No.

I don't agree with his position but he's not the ultimate decision maker here. He can support this personally, but it won't ever get through Congress. And there's no guarantee that he still believes this. The clip is nearly 20 years old. I look at a lot of things differently now than I did 20 years ago.

[TitanTiger 20,499]

Wednesday, April 04, 2007

When asked directly Wednesday if he still supported the use of public funding for abortions, Giuliani said "Yes."

Sounds like it's still his view.

Sorry, I can't support someone who has so little regard for society's weakest members.

[GalensGhost 0]

Wednesday, April 04, 2007

When asked directly Wednesday if he still supported the use of public funding for abortions, Giuliani said "Yes."

Sounds like it's still his view.

Sorry, I can't support someone who has so little regard for society's weakest members.

Maybe he ddn't understand the question. Or maybe he changed his mind since Wednesday.

While I don't agree with him here, you can't rule out a candidate based on a single issue.

Of course I would vote for a chicken with syphillis before I would support Hillary.

[TitanTiger 20,499]

Wednesday, April 04, 2007

When asked directly Wednesday if he still supported the use of public funding for abortions, Giuliani said "Yes."

Sounds like it's still his view.

Sorry, I can't support someone who has so little regard for society's weakest members.

Maybe he ddn't understand the question. Or maybe he changed his mind since Wednesday.

While I don't agree with him here, you can't rule out a candidate based on a single issue.

Of course I would vote for a chicken with syphillis before I would support Hillary.

On this issue, I can. And when he compounds the original error (supporting abortion rights) with supporting public funding of said abortions, it slams the door shut for me.

If you have something that indicates he's changed his mind since yesterday, I'm all ears. If he repudiates this stance sometime before the primary and general election, I'll reconsider him.

I guess I should be realistic and say that if I were faced with the prospect of it being him or Hillary, such that my only viable choices both hold the same position on the subject, I'd have to think long and hard before sitting out or going third party. It would also likely hinge on whether the polls indicated he had a good lead or whether it was neck and neck.

That said, if this truly is his position, I will not support him for the GOP nomination.

[GalensGhost 0]

That said, if this truly is his position, I will not support him for the GOP nomination.

From his website:

Abortion

Rudy Giuliani supports reasonable restrictions on abortion such as parental notification with a judicial bypass and a ban on partial birth abortion – except when the life of the mother is at stake. He’s proud that adoptions increased 66% while abortions decreased over 16% in New York City when he was Mayor. But Rudy understands that this is a deeply personal moral dilemma, and people of good conscience can disagree respectfully. Ultimately he believes that it is a decision between a woman, her doctor, her family, and her God.

http://www.joinrudy2008.com/index.php?section=2

[AURaptor 1,125]

The President can apoint judges, and not much more. Rudi seems to be a costitutional constructionist. His personal views on the matter of abortion aren't so important to me as how he operates in the position as President. The Chief Execuitive only can do so much on this matter. And to be honest, there are more important issues the President should worry about.

[TitanTiger 20,499]

That said, if this truly is his position, I will not support him for the GOP nomination.

From his website:

Abortion

Rudy Giuliani supports reasonable restrictions on abortion such as parental notification with a judicial bypass and a ban on partial birth abortion – except when the life of the mother is at stake. He’s proud that adoptions increased 66% while abortions decreased over 16% in New York City when he was Mayor. But Rudy understands that this is a deeply personal moral dilemma, and people of good conscience can disagree respectfully. Ultimately he believes that it is a decision between a woman, her doctor, her family, and her God.

http://www.joinrudy2008.com/index.php?section=2

Well, as of right now, he won't get my vote for the nomination. Should he win it anyway and be running against Hillary in the general election, I'll reconsider.

[TitanTiger 20,499]

The President can apoint judges, and not much more. Rudi seems to be a costitutional constructionist. His personal views on the matter of abortion aren't so important to me as how he operates in the position as President. The Chief Execuitive only can do so much on this matter. And to be honest, there are more important issues the President should worry about.

Yes, there probably are. I wouldn't support a pro-life nutbag who states intentions to start World War III, so I guess I view certain critical foreign policy decisions as more important. But this is important enough that if I have another choice in the primary who respects the value of innocent human life, I will support that person all other things being roughly equal.

[GalensGhost 0]

The President can apoint judges, and not much more. Rudi seems to be a costitutional constructionist. His personal views on the matter of abortion aren't so important to me as how he operates in the position as President. The Chief Execuitive only can do so much on this matter. And to be honest, there are more important issues the President should worry about.

Yes, there probably are. I wouldn't support a pro-life nutbag who states intentions to start World War III, so I guess I view certain critical foreign policy decisions as more important. But this is important enough that if I have another choice in the primary who respects the value of innocent human life, I will support that person all other things being roughly equal.

Rudy is personally opposed to abortion. He does respect the sanctity of innocent human life. But he also recognizes that as president his duty is to respect the laws that have been made and the decisions that are reached as a result of constitutional interpretation.

So long as abortion is legal, Rudy understands that as president he is bound to honor its legality. Should the Supreme Court overturn Roe, he would be just as clear in his support of that decision. Since he is personally opposed to abortion, it follows that he would appoint justices who share his view -- IF he believes that is what is what the majority of the people in this country desire.

Rudy isn't like other politicians -- that dreadful hag Clinton, for instance -- who promise to do things with no regard for the fact that they do not have the power or authority to accomplish those promises.

I don't agree with the law. Abortion should be illegal. But I do agree with Rudy. The law is the law until it is changed.

[TitanTiger 20,499]

Rudy is personally opposed to abortion. He does respect the sanctity of innocent human life. But he also recognizes that as president his duty is to respect the laws that have been made and the decisions that are reached as a result of constitutional interpretation.

So long as abortion is legal, Rudy understands that as president he is bound to honor its legality. Should the Supreme Court overturn Roe, he would be just as clear in his support of that decision. Since he is personally opposed to abortion, it follows that he would appoint justices who share his view -- IF he believes that is what is what the majority of the people in this country desire.

Yet he also is willing to take it a step further beyond the law and support public funding of abortions. That is something that he is not bound by the law to do yet chooses to support anyway. That is not something someone "personally opposed" to abortion would do in my opinion.

Rudy isn't like other politicians -- that dreadful hag Clinton, for instance -- who promise to do things with no regard for the fact that they do not have the power or authority to accomplish those promises.

I don't agree with the law. Abortion should be illegal. But I do agree with Rudy. The law is the law until it is changed.

Obeying the law should be a given. I'm not expecting him to break the law. I do expect him not to go out of his way to make abortions easier for people to get.

And frankly, when someone invokes the "I'm personally opposed to abortion" line, it normally means that they support Roe v. Wade remaining the law of the land but that they wouldn't personally have an abortion (if they are a woman) or encourage someone to get one...but they don't think it should be illegal. Rudy has given me no indications from his recent statements to the ones he's made over the years at the NYC mayor that his stance is any different from what I just described.

[GalensGhost 0]

Rudy is personally opposed to abortion. He does respect the sanctity of innocent human life. But he also recognizes that as president his duty is to respect the laws that have been made and the decisions that are reached as a result of constitutional interpretation.

So long as abortion is legal, Rudy understands that as president he is bound to honor its legality. Should the Supreme Court overturn Roe, he would be just as clear in his support of that decision. Since he is personally opposed to abortion, it follows that he would appoint justices who share his view -- IF he believes that is what is what the majority of the people in this country desire.

Yet he also is willing to take it a step further beyond the law and support public funding of abortions. That is something that he is not bound by the law to do yet chooses to support anyway. That is not something someone "personally opposed" to abortion would do in my opinion.

Rudy isn't like other politicians -- that dreadful hag Clinton, for instance -- who promise to do things with no regard for the fact that they do not have the power or authority to accomplish those promises.

I don't agree with the law. Abortion should be illegal. But I do agree with Rudy. The law is the law until it is changed.

Obeying the law should be a given. I'm not expecting him to break the law. I do expect him not to go out of his way to make abortions easier for people to get.

And frankly, when someone invokes the "I'm personally opposed to abortion" line, it normally means that they support Roe v. Wade remaining the law of the land but that they wouldn't personally have an abortion (if they are a woman) or encourage someone to get one...but they don't think it should be illegal. Rudy has given me no indications from his recent statements to the ones he's made over the years at the NYC mayor that his stance is any different from what I just described.

Not his decision whether it's illegal or not.

I don't see anything from his statements where he says he's going to make abortions easier, all he says he intends to do is follow the law -- and if the law can be interpreted to mean that abortions can be "publically funded" then that's what we're requied to do. My question is, however, what does "public funding" truly mean? That people on medicaid can use this "coverage" to pay for the procedure? It's not like he supports a bill that will provide each woman in the U.S. with an earmarked abortion fund.

He also supports parental notification. I don't agree with or support abortion. In fact, if I were in control of the government, I'd endorse measures that would make it illegal -- combined with laws that would require prospective parents to pass a parental fitness exam (we make people prove their responsible enough to drive a car, but not have a child?) including proof of financial ability to support the child. Those who father or bear children without permission would be warned the first time and sterilized the second....

What's that Heinrich? Sorry, I've got to take off for a while. I'll be back later to provide more information.

[TitanTiger 20,499]

There is a marked difference between acknowledging Roe as the law of the land and following the letter of it as long as it remains so, but doing whatever is within your power to see that law changed...whether that's appointing judges, using executive orders or just using the bully pulpit.

The law does not require us to pay for poor women to have abortions if they can't afford it. That is a decision that can be made by the president via executive order or by Congress. So if he supports public funding, he is going out of his way to help women procure abortions that otherwise would not get them.