This is a risky position for even democrats to take..but one of the leaders for the Republican nomination?

 

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, "If that's the status of the law, yes."

 

But the presidential candidate reiterated his personal opposition to the practice.

 

"I'm in the same position now that I was 12 years ago when I ran for mayor -- which is, personally opposed to abortion, don't like it, hate it, would advise that woman to have an adoption rather than abortion, hope to find the money for it," he said. "But it is your choice, an individual right. You get to make that choice, and I don't think society should be putting you in jail."

 

 

And the Giuliani campaign noted later in the day that the former mayor would not seek to make any changes to current law, which restricts federal funding to cases of rape, incest and the life of the mother.

 

Giuliani also vowed to appoint conservative judges to the bench, though denied such a promise was a "wink and a nod" to conservatives in support of overturning Roe v. Wade, the landmark Supreme Court decision on abortion.

 

"A strict constructionist judge can come to either conclusion about Roe against Wade," he said. "They can look at it and say, 'Wrongly decided thirty years ago, whatever it is, we'll over turn it.' [Or] 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.' Conservatives can come to that conclusion as well. I would leave it up to them. I would not have a litmus test on that."

 

Giuliani's support of publicly funded abortions is one of several issues that are likely to put him at odds with social conservatives in his party.

 

Regarding Southern Baptist Convention leader Richard Land's recent criticisms of Giuliani's three marriages, the former New York City Mayor said, "I've made mistakes. I've had a rocky road. I regret them. But they are between me, God, my conscience and the people involved. I wish I had led a perfect life. I keep striving, I keep trying to learn, I keep praying for help.

 

Watch Dana Bash's complete wide-ranging interview with Giuliani tonight at 7 p.m. ET on "The Situation Room." The presidential candidate also discusses his opponents for the GOP nomination, his views on Iraq, his relationship with his son and his fight with cancer.

 

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

you can hear the plane the is the Giuliani for Republican President campaign crashing even right now if you listen closely.

 

He just killed the south for him.

lol @ Guliani's presidential hopes before this.

Guiliani's done. Damnit, and I liked him.

Fred. Dalton. Thompson.

I never understood why he was a Republican in the first place...

 

But I knew from Day One that he would have zero chance at the GOP nomination with his stances (which he shouldn't have to change anyway).

I never understood why he was a Republican in the first place...

 

But I knew from Day One that he would have zero chance at the GOP nomination with his stances (which he shouldn't have to change anyway).

 

NYC mayoral election-I think it was his way to beat Dinkins.

 

 

I figured it would eventually catch up to him once the scrutiny starts. But he did bring a conservative(fiscal and law and order at least) approach to a democratic stronghold. He had an angle.

In a day and age of flip-floppers in politics, it's refreshing to see a guy who sticks to his beliefs. It probably also helps that I agree with him 100% on the abortion issue. I mean, personally I would hope that someone could find another way beside abortion, but politically speaking? A women has the right and should be allowed to obtain a safe medical procedure to abort a fetus.

Yeah, I'm glad I have to foot the bill for someone not wanting to deal with the consequences of their mistake or not taking the precautions before to prevent it from happening.

Yeah, I'm glad I have to foot the bill for someone not wanting to deal with the consequences of their mistake or not taking the precautions before to prevent it from happening.

I'd rather foot the bill for one procedure than for the food stamps and wellfare checks in the many years that follow... :mischief

 

In all seriousness, like it or not an abortion is a medical procedure. The main crux of this bill is to prevent states from having the option to decline medical treatment because of their moral issues with it. Imagine if you were denied treatment for AIDS because it could have been prevented with a condom and people had a moral objection to treating you.

I don't think the public should fund my AIDS treatment either.

 

I'm just tired of the idea that tax payers should have to pay for others mistakes and messups which will continue to occur at higher rates when people know that the government has their figurative backs. Its why people that get wellfare money and such have no drive to make something of their lives or to try and earn a living themselves. It creates more and more problems when on the surface it looks like it is 'helps'.

I'm just tired of the idea that tax payers should have to pay for others mistakes and messups which will continue to occur at higher rates when people know that the government has their figurative backs. Its why people that get wellfare money and such have no drive to make something of their lives or to try and earn a living themselves. It creates more and more problems when on the surface it looks like it is 'helps'.

So what do you do about recent college graduates with no immediate job position? Or what do you do with people that are between jobs? Or what do you do with people who get laid off due to plant closings or corporate shake ups? My sister-in-law, for example, is losing her job as an ad exec because Brooks Pharmacy was recently bought out. She live in Boston and pays the crazy high rent as a result. Now, if she gets sick between her last day and when her medical coverage kicks in on her new job, are you saying that she doesn't deserve coverage? What if she has symptoms of VD or OBGYN issues? What if access to the local Planned Parenthood is blocked due to legislation?

 

Fundamentally, I agree with you. Our wellfare system needs a lot of help. We need to find a way to curtail the abuse. However, I believe that we do have a legitimate NEED for programs like this. I am certainly not an advocate of socialism, but I think that we bear some responsibility for keeping our nation from slipping in to a 3rd world attitude towards their denziens.

Your sister-in-law's dilemma is not a mistake, or the result of something she could control. That is something unfortunate that is out of her hands...totally different from what I am talking about.

 

A pregnancy is not something life threatening (wait for it) or something that is forced upon someone or out of their control (again, wait lol). That said, I do support the need for abortions in times of potenital harm or death to the mother by having the child, incest, rape, etc. Not for people who just f*** carelessly and will continue to do something when they can get rid of a living thing without thought or care.

Your sister-in-law's dilemma is not a mistake, or the result of something she could control. That is something unfortunate that is out of her hands...totally different from what I am talking about.

 

A pregnancy is not something life threatening...

Okay, so what if she got pregnant the day before finding out and had some pregnancy complications [there are a lot of complications that can come up that threaten both the mother and the baby - incompatable blood types, for example]? I mean, this is only one example because it happens to be the combination of 3 real life situations I know of. So, how do you legislate for something like this? The point is, I think that we need to be able to offer SOME type of support to people in situations like this and in the million other varied situations that could come up.

 

Giuliani actually makes specific reference to wanting to cover rape and incest victims, so you guys are on the same page there. I think, however, that he sees a need to make the law more wide reaching in order to cover legitimate scenarios. Unfortunately, there will always be people who take advantage of any system. You just want to mitigate the damage caused by them.

You must have missed this:

That said, I do support the need for abortions in times of potenital harm or death to the mother by having the child

That is different then things like someone not wanting the 'shame' or not having the monetary means to support the child - then you give it up for adoption.

You must have missed this:

That said, I do support the need for abortions in times of potenital harm or death to the mother by having the child

That is different then things like someone not wanting the 'shame' or not having the monetary means to support the child - then you give it up for adoption.

No I got that. I was mentioning the "rape and incest" portion because I don't remember reading it in this excerpt but it is something he has added in many interviews.

 

Also, I think the three of us are in agreement from a philosophical perspective. I don?t think anyone, mothers included, look at abortion as some insignificant medical procedure they need to go through because they got ?knocked up.? The disconnect comes when you try to apply our philosophical perspective to a law that governs everyone. Our moral objections should have no bearing on legal issues when it does not concern us. I don?t think you or I or the government should have the ability to tell a woman, ?oh well, you screwed up. Now you have to carry a baby for 9 months and give birth to it.? I can?t even think of a male equivalent. Forcing a guy to pass a series of kidney stones for 9 months with no treatment because of their poor diet??

Boo to public funding for abortions.

 

Hurray for teaching stuff besides abstinence in schools.

Wow, he could've waited until after securing the primary for saying this. This could single handedly destroy him the GOP primary.

Boo to public funding for abortions.

 

Hurray for teaching stuff besides abstinence in schools.

If contraceptives are 99% effective, you still have a 1 in 100 shot of knocking your gf up. If you have frequent sex, what does that do to your odds of conception even while taking preventative measures? :mischief

It just doens't have to be the man either. The woman should take some responsibility and if you are having sex frequently, she should be on the pill. Even when me and my now fiancee were going steady, I still often wore rubbers and she was on the pill and I pulled out. Its not that hard people.

 

Also, I think the three of us are in agreement from a philosophical perspective. I don?t think anyone, mothers included, look at abortion as some insignificant medical procedure they need to go through because they got ?knocked up.? The disconnect comes when you try to apply our philosophical perspective to a law that governs everyone. Our moral objections should have no bearing on legal issues when it does not concern us. I don?t think you or I or the government should have the ability to tell a woman, ?oh well, you screwed up. Now you have to carry a baby for 9 months and give birth to it.? I can?t even think of a male equivalent. Forcing a guy to pass a series of kidney stones for 9 months with no treatment because of their poor diet??

Thats the thing. I agree that my moral stance should not dictate public policy or what goes on across the country. Totally agree. Abortions will never affect me because a. My soon to be wife will never have one and b. When I have a child, it will be thought out and well prepared.

 

The disconnect occurs when a potential president says he wants to make me pay for someone else's procedure. I will never ever agree or support that idea.

 

Let there be legal abortions forever for all I care, just don't force me to pay for it.

Let there be legal abortions forever for all I care, just don't force me to pay for it.

 

Exactly how I feel about this. I don't care one way or the other about abortions, but I don't think the public should have to pay for someone else's "mistake". In cases of health issues, yes fine I can see allowing the person to recieve monetary help, but really, other than that I don't see any reason for it.

It just doens't have to be the man either. The woman should take some responsibility and if you are having sex frequently, she should be on the pill. Even when me and my now fiancee were going steady, I still often wore rubbers and she was on the pill and I pulled out. Its not that hard people.

 

Also, I think the three of us are in agreement from a philosophical perspective. I don?t think anyone, mothers included, look at abortion as some insignificant medical procedure they need to go through because they got ?knocked up.? The disconnect comes when you try to apply our philosophical perspective to a law that governs everyone. Our moral objections should have no bearing on legal issues when it does not concern us. I don?t think you or I or the government should have the ability to tell a woman, ?oh well, you screwed up. Now you have to carry a baby for 9 months and give birth to it.? I can?t even think of a male equivalent. Forcing a guy to pass a series of kidney stones for 9 months with no treatment because of their poor diet??

Thats the thing. I agree that my moral stance should not dictate public policy or what goes on across the country. Totally agree. Abortions will never affect me because a. My soon to be wife will never have one and b. When I have a child, it will be thought out and well prepared.

 

The disconnect occurs when a potential president says he wants to make me pay for someone else's procedure. I will never ever agree or support that idea.

 

Let there be legal abortions forever for all I care, just don't force me to pay for it.

 

Condoms and pulling out sucks. It's better not to use a condom and not pull out. :lol

If contraceptives are 99% effective, you still have a 1 in 100 shot of knocking your gf up. If you have frequent sex, what does that do to your odds of conception even while taking preventative measures? :mischief

1) Your odds don't multiply just because you have sex more frequently. You maintain the same 1 in 100 shot, just play those odds more more often. And of course, those odds are based on what type of contraception you use. The odds can be better or worse.

2) Wasn't it my choice to have sex with my girlfriend? I forget.

Guiliani is a republican b/c he was extrenely fiscally conservative compared to the other mayors and mayor hopefuls in NYC at the time. He was also for greater criminal penalties and the death penalty which are for the most part traditionally republican stances. I still like guiliani, and if people thought he had no chance before this they were sadly mistaken. All the polls say otherwise.

Hmm, if Giuliani doesn't get the nomination, I'm probably voting Democratic for a third straight year.