Rudy Giuliani on federal funding for abortions

Just as people were shaking their heads over Rudy's statement that he might invite his wife to sit in on cabinet meetings, he's dismayed conservatives again by endorsing the idea of public funding of abortions. When asked yesterday by CNN's Dana Bash if he still held the same position that he had had in earlier in his career of supporting public funding of abortions, Rudy repeated his position as well as his personal opposition to abortion.

"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."

While abortion is not a top issue for me, his approach to interpreting the Constitution is of concern. And I find several implications of his statement troubling. There are lots of rights that are Constitutional but we don't provide public funding to support. For example, freedom of speech and the press is guaranteed, but we don't say that the government should have to fund it. As Ed Morrissey points out, Rudy's logic would lead to the argument that the federal government should start subsidizing citizens' purchases of guns under the Second Amendment's protection.

And what does this statement say about Rudy's approach to government provided health care? There are lots of medical procedures that people have the right to get but that insurance companies don't necessarily pay for. Under his approach, the government could start picking up the slack for cosmetic surgery, chiropractic care, or experimental treatments that insurance companies don't want to pay for. Is that the approach that Giuiliani really recommends for federal health care provisions?

Giuliani also expressed his lack of position on whether or not Roe v. Wade should be overturned.

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."

Does this mean that he is agnostic on whether or not any Supreme Court decision should or should not be overturned? What about the Kelo decision allowing local governments to take private property and award it to private enterprises if they think it would be in the ultimate public interest? Or the recent decisions on affirmative action? Does Giuliani have the same indifference as to whether or not those decisions should be overturned? Even Ruth Bader Ginsburg has an opinion on the weakness in the Constitutional arguments used in the Roe decision. Rudy has stated his support for leaving such issues to elected legislators rather than appointed judges. Is he backing away from that position? I like Giuliani and have been happy that he's thrown his hat into the ring, but he's raising doubts now. Not that I am thrilled with either John McCain or Mitt Romney and I'm still waiting to see that Fred Thompson is more than the parts he's played and the interviews he's given on TV. Oh well, I've always thought that our decision-making on whom to vote for is usually based on picking the least-bad choice. And all of the Republican possibilities are still less bad, in my personal opinion, than all the Democratic choices. I guess it's lucky for me that North Carolina's primaries are so late that it won't make much difference where my personal predilections are among the Republicans.