Join the Discussion
AP, Newsday uncritically report Giuliani assertion that 2003 and 1997 abortion ban exceptions were substantively different
An April 25 Newsday article uncritically reported that former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani (R) "insisted his recent support for the Supreme Court decision upholding a ban on" the abortion procedure that critics call partial-birth abortion "was consistent with his past opposition because the law changed in 2003 to include more scientific language about protecting the life of the mother." Similarly, an April 25 Associated Press article uncritically reported that Giuliani said there was no "inconsistency" between "his long-standing support of abortion rights and his affirmation last week of the Supreme Court's decision to uphold a ban on what critics call partial-birth abortion," adding that Giuliani "said he opposed" such a ban "when it was discussed during the Clinton administration because he didn't feel it made an exception when a mother's life was in danger." The AP noted that "Giuliani supported" President Bill Clinton when Clinton vetoed a ban of the procedure. However, neither article noted that the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act of 1997 that Clinton vetoed also included a similar "exception when a mother's life was in danger" or challenged Giuliani's reported assertion that the 2003 ban "include[d] more scientific language about protecting the life of the mother."
Read more
Threaded Comments: on / off
Posted by HuntingtonBeachLefty
I think Rudy's being perfectly consistent. In the past he stated a position that was OK with New York, and now he's after the Bible belt.
He's politician, for Pete's sake.
Hey, nobody's here,after 6 hours. I can say whatever I want.
I think the Death Tax should be hiked up 100%, and half of the money should go to performing partial birth abortions on illegal aliens who don't even want them. Discuss.
Posted Wednesday April 25, 2007 11:50:26 PM EDT / Flag this comment
Posted by bruce1ace
HBL - Nobody's here because the far left is sick of getting beat up on the PBO issue when mainstream Dems agree it should go away. Discuss.
Posted Thursday April 26, 2007 7:59:26 AM EDT / Flag this comment
Posted by HuntingtonBeachLefty in reply to bruce1ace
Hey Bruce, You couldhave a point that people are uncomfortable with the issue. I think it's equally possible that the lack of comments also shows that reports of Liberals "love of abortion" are highly exaggerated.
I personally believe in limits for when abortions should be performed, although I confess to posting on abortion related threads as they tend to bring out some of the more "colorful" conservative posters.
I'd bet most pro-choice people would be pretty agreeable with eliminating late-term abortions,except in extreme cases,f they saw any indication that compromise would not be seen as precedent setting towards defining a fetus as a person, or encouraging the anti-abortion activists to push even further.
Remember, many on the pro-life side of the aisle are the ones who see compromise as weakness, and diplomacy as appeasement. ;0)
I think the issue only exists as a bulwark, and I'm glad there are people enthusiastic on both sides of the issue.
I'd also guess that many Americans fall into the "safe, legal, and rare" camp.
Posted Thursday April 26, 2007 11:16:47 AM EDT / Flag this comment
Posted by Easy to refute wingnuts in reply to HuntingtonBeachLefty
"I personally believe in limits for when abortions should be performed"
-----
And those limits should be determined by highly-trained physicians and their patients, not by legislators and judges who are almost totally ignorant about medicine.
Posted Thursday April 26, 2007 11:59:23 AM EDT / Flag this comment
Posted by Easy to refute wingnuts in reply to bruce1ace
OK. Let's start with the fact that there is no such thing as "partial birth abortion."
Posted Thursday April 26, 2007 11:56:55 AM EDT / Flag this comment