Ed Team

Quote of the Day

Filed By Ed Team | April 05, 2007 6:02 AM | comments

Filed in: Quote of the Day
Tags: rudy giuliani

Yes. If it would deprive someone of a constitutional right. If that's the status of the law, yes.
--GOP presidential hopeful Rudy Giuliani on whether the federal government should fund abortion

Recent Entries Filed under Quote of the Day:

Leave a comment

We want to know your opinion on this issue! While arguing about an opinion or idea is encouraged, personal attacks will not be tolerated. Please be respectful of others.

The editorial team will delete a comment that is off-topic, abusive, exceptionally incoherent, includes a slur or is soliciting and/or advertising. Repeated violations of the policy will result in revocation of your user account. Please keep in mind that this is our online home; ill-mannered house guests will be shown the door.

Jen Jorczak | April 5, 2007 8:47 AM

Gee, Rudy, would you mind giving us a complete sentence? I like the "yes" part, but if your "yes" is qualified by "yes, if that's what the law says," poor women are still screwed. Currently, the Bush administration is operating under the Hyde Amendment, which says federal funds cannot cover abortion.

The real question, which it seems Rudy didn't quite answer, is "if elected President, would you call for the repeal of the Hyde Amendment so that poor women can exercise their constitutional right to an abortion, should they so choose?"

David Wene | April 5, 2007 9:29 AM

I am not sure what the bigger story is around this but the little I have seen, the question is "should goverment fund abortions".

Rudy's response seems to be if society says that a woman has a choice (which it currently does, and his view is that she should), then for those women who cannot afford it, the government should fund it, otherwise, the woman does not have a choice. That seems pretty clear.

For a Republican to be saying that at a time when candidates of both parties are fundraising and trying to shore up their party's base (which his party's base is pro-life) seems to reinforce the clarity of his view on a woman's choice.

Again, I do not know the bigger context of this. I did not see that he was asked about the Hyde Amendment or that he is aware of the Hyde Amendment.

I also think we need to be careful about making assumptions about Republicans based on Bush. I know I do make assumptions about Evan Bayh or Hillary Clinton positions based on the actions and words from Nancy Pelosi or Ted Kennedy.

To answer your question, it was from an oral interview and I snipped it down here. Maybe I cut too much. The definite implication was that if that's the law, as in Roe and the right to privacy, etc., then women should have access to abortions and money shouldn't prevent them from getting it. I wouldn't expect him to even know what the Hyde Amendment is, he impresses me as kind of a dingbat on federal politics.

His position here is good, but I don't see the Moral Majority or Focus on the Family folks getting over it in time for the primary when abortion has become their bread and butter issue. And I don't even know a Democrat who's taken such a strong pro-choice stand. I think that since Romney hired Alex Costellanos to make his TV ads, we're going to see this quotation in some pretty funny TV spots in Iowa.