Rudy Guiliani is not flip-flopping on public funding of abortion. On the other hand, he has no plans to change the law as it now stands.
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.
I’m not sure what to make of this. Maybe this can help me decide.
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.”
I think this makes him an ‘Arlen Specter’ pro-choice Republican. I actually hope a Republican can win the nomination with this kind of mealy-mouthed have-it-both-ways rhetoric. It would mean the country (and specifically, the Republicans) isn’t quite as screwed up as I thought. On the other hand, it hardly inspires confidence that Guiliani would protect a woman’s right to choose, let alone provide any public funding for the reproductive health care of the poor.
