Fox's Cameron relayed Giuliani's implausible explanation of "partial-birth" abortion flip-flop
On the February 6 edition of Fox News' Special Report with Brit Hume, chief political correspondent Carl Cameron uncritically reported Republican presidential candidate Rudy Giuliani's explanation of why he changed his position and now supports a ban on so-called "partial birth" abortions. Cameron said the former New York mayor "opposed a ban on partial-birth abortion in 2000, saying, quote, 'I would vote to preserve the option for women.' Now, he says, because the current law banning partial-birth abortion contains an exception to save the mother's life, he supports it." However, Giuliani's explanation of his change of position is not credible because both the current federal ban and several federal bans proposed in 1997 through 2000 -- including the one vetoed in 1997 by then-President Clinton -- have "an exception to save the mother's life."
Blogger and media critic Greg Sargent has also documented Giuliani's reversal on the ban and has also pointed out the life-of-the-pregnant-woman exception in the bill that Clinton vetoed.
The quote Cameron presented as showing Giuliani's previous opposition to a ban came from his February 6, 2000, appearance on NBC's Meet the Press:
TIM RUSSERT (host): A banning of late-term abortions, so-called partial-birth abortions -- you're against that?
GIULIANI: I'm against it in New York, because in New York --
RUSSERT: Well, if you were a senator, would you vote with the president or against the president?
GIULIANI: I would vote to preserve the option for women. I think that choice is a very difficult one. It's a very, very -- it's one in which people of conscience have very, very different opinions. I think the better thing for America to do is to leave that choice to the woman, because it affects her probably more than anyone else.
Russert appeared to be asking Giuliani -- who was then reportedly contemplating a run for the U.S. Senate -- whether, if elected, he would support or oppose Clinton if he were to again veto a "partial-birth" abortion ban. In October 1997, Clinton had vetoed the proposed "Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act of 1997," which explicitly allowed the procedure if it was necessary to save the life of the pregnant woman when endangered by "physical disorder, illness or injury":
Any physician who, in or affecting interstate or foreign commerce, knowingly performs a partial-birth abortion and thereby kills a human fetus shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than two years, or both. This paragraph shall not apply to a partial-birth abortion that is necessary to save the life of a mother whose life is endangered by a physical disorder, illness, or injury. This paragraph shall become effective one day after enactment.
Three separate "partial birth" abortion bans passed either the House or Senate in 1999 or 2000, but none passed both. All three (HR 3660, S.1692, and S.1692 as amended by the House) had identical life-of-the-pregnant-woman exceptions.
On June 15, 2000, the Supreme Court ruled in Stenberg v. Carhart that a Nebraska ban on the procedure was unconstitutional. According to the text of the Nebraska statute presented in the court's decision, that law also had a life-of-the-pregnant-woman exception when her life is endangered by "physical disorder, physical illness, or physical injury":
"No partial birth abortion shall be performed in this state, unless such procedure is necessary to save the life of the mother whose life is endangered by a physical disorder, physical illness, or physical injury, including a life-endangering physical condition caused by or arising from the pregnancy itself." Neb. Rev. Stat. Ann. §28--328(1) (Supp. 1999).
Likewise, the "current law banning partial-birth abortion" that Giuliani now says he supports -- the "Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2003" -- contains the same exception as the law struck down in Stenberg:
Any physician who, in or affecting interstate or foreign commerce, knowingly performs a partial-birth abortion and thereby kills a human fetus shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 2 years, or both. This subsection does not apply to a partial-birth abortion that is necessary to save the life of a mother whose life is endangered by a physical disorder, physical illness, or physical injury, including a life-endangering physical condition caused by or arising from the pregnancy itself. This subsection takes effect 1 day after the enactment.
From the February 5 edition of Fox News' Hannity & Colmes:
HANNITY: Is Roe [v. Wade] bad law?
GIULIANI: I think that's up to the [Supreme] Court to decide. I think that it's been precedent for a very, very long time. There are questions about the way it was decided and some of the bases for it. At this point, it's precedent. It's going to be very interesting to see what Chief Justice Roberts and what Judge -- Justice Scalia do -- Justices Scalia and Alito do with it. I think probably they're going to limit it rather than overturn it. In other words, they'll accept some of the limitations that different states have placed on it or the federal government has placed on it.
HANNITY: Partial birth?
GIULIANI: Partial-birth abortion: I think that's going to be upheld. I think that ban's going to be upheld. I think it should be. And I think, as long as there's provision for the life of the mother, then that's something that should be done.
HANNITY: There's a misconception that you supported partial-birth abortion.
GIULIANI: Yeah, well, if it doesn't have provision for the life of the mother, then I wouldn't support the legislation. If it has provision for the life of the mother, then I would support it.
From the February 6 edition of Fox News' Special Report with Brit Hume:
HUME: Former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani comes to the 2008 presidential race with considerable public recognition as a result of his actions during and after 9-11. But Giuliani also comes with a fair amount of what could be called baggage, some of it particularly problematic for a Republican candidate. Chief political correspondent Carl Cameron joins me now for a closer look. Hello, Carl.
CAMERON: Hiya, Brit. Well, he is the national front-runner in the polls and though his campaign is just getting started, it's already becoming clear that Republican Rudy Giuliani's presidential campaign will be, among other things, entertaining.
[begin video clip]
He gets a big smooch from wife Judith Nathan on the cover of today's New York Post. She calls him a "macho romantic." As a pro-choice Republican in the officially pro-life GOP, Giuliani's begun trying to quell conservative doubts about his social views. He opposed a ban on partial-birth abortion in 2000, saying, quote, "I would vote to preserve the option for women." Now, he says, because the current law banning partial-birth abortion contains an exception to save the mother's life, he supports it.
GIULIANI: As long as there's provision for the life of the mother, then that's something that should be done.
CAMERON: When it comes to abortion and the Supreme Court, Giuliani told Republicans in South Carolina recently that he would tap, quote, "strict constructionists," such as Bush nominees John Roberts and Samuel Alito, to interpret the constitution, not make new law. Still, conservatives worry that this comment from the socially liberal Giuliani, just a year and a half ago, raises concerns.
GIULIANI: Presidents, going back to the beginning of the republic, generally appoint people to the Supreme Court that they believe agree with them.
This is the issue that will keep Rudy off the ticket. The Repubs cannot tolerate any deviation from the orthodoxy.
Much like a pro-choice candidate would never be on any national Democratic ticket. That orthodoxy thing knows no party boundaries.
Oops, meant pro-life.
True enough. Dems are less antsy than Repubs to stamp "Property of the State" on every woman's uterus.
I'm a libertarian who is against partial birth abortion. Why?? How is that possible?
Well, in the third-trimester...if you reach inside a woman, pull a baby from the uterus into the vaginal canal, and then rip the baby to shreds w/in the mothers vaginal canal...well, that's infanticide.
There is nothing so magical about a woman's vagina that make the baby a human or not a human based on the difference between a few inches of skin.
Moreover, there is no constitutional right to infanticide. This has nothing to do with the right to privacy. States can say you can rip up the baby if you pull it completely outside the mother...therefore...States can say that they have an interest in preventing this sort of procedure.
*meant to say can't rip up a baby"
I like pieces like this... cuz you can't argue with past transcripts.
and this is why i reaaaaallly like hillary. she didnt cheat but was cheated on, she is a feminist, two things i like about her. and even though i dont like abortion at least she is HONEST about her feminist position on it and about her calls for universal healthcare which i also don't like. bush on the other hand played off of the patriotism of conservative christians in order to propel him to office so he could use it for $$$ gain while laughing at us behind our back. id rather have someone like clinton who isn't really that religious and doesn't try to pretend she is.
you will also see barack hussein obama implode soon, he is running away from his name and muslim heritage so fast he is bound to trip.
You reeeaally like Hillary? That's a surprise.
well since voting D or R doesnt seem to make a difference (see midterm elections and the fact the war is STILL being escalated and the dems arent stopping it), why not vote in a woman, bring back ol bill, and at least have someone in office who doesnt pretend to be a far right conservative in public?
Colonel Campbell, you often reinforce my feeling that many of the "conservatives" who post here are progressives attempting to post things in order reinforce the troglodyte stereotype of many people who are on your supposed side of the aisle.
THANK YOU.
njguy93@yahoo.com
ehh you are confusing that with disgruntled conservatives who just want an honest politician and want to punish the repube party for lying. bush campaigned on right to life, protection of marriage, etc etc etc and is now pushing a pro amnesty, big liberal spender agenda. basically we are tired of being played for fools so you will see that most conservatives are going to either sit out the election like in 2006 or vote for mickey mouse, we arent going to listen to sean hannity. i actually think hillary got a raw deal with her husband and i like most of her feminist views so she gets my voooote.
Col,
Off topic, but I just can't understand this anger that those who voted for Bush now have for him? You say you got a big spending liberal, pro amnesty guy - but he absolutely campaigned on those very premises. He has always been a big business, corporatist Republican, open borders guy - nothing new. And he ran on many expanded government programs, i.e. No child left Behind, etc.
So this disguist that many who voted for him now have is puzzling to me?
listen to michael savage if you want to understand his take on it, he hates his guts too. Bush campaigned on "compassionate conservatism" but he really wasn't a conservative at all was he? All we got were 2 judges and the signing of a partial birth abortion bill that hasn't even gone into affect yet (thought that isn't his fault). I am still young and I didn't realize he was just a big business pro corporate tax breaks business man until after 2004. I admit he tricked me but it shan't happen again. I don't remember him campaigning on spending trillions in iraq, increasing the size of the govt 1000x, shifting too much power to the executive branch, etc...i also dont remember him picking ALITO first, our legislators had to twist his arm to get that one in (luckily). We also hate him for pretending to be some big Christian guy when it is apparent he only cares about $ and power. I'd rather vote for someone who only cares about $ and power but at least is up front about it.
"Listen to Savage?"
Savage is a grandstanding, racist pig who used to sell vitamin concoctions on infomercials, until he decided he could make more money pandering to racists, homophobes and women haters.
at least he isnt a single celled organism *cough*
What???!!!???
Archae (aka Archaea)
" All we got were 2 judges and the signing of a partial birth abortion bill that hasn't even gone into affect yet (thought that isn't his fault). "
Which is the reason I voted for him. I absolutely hate partial birth abortion and cannot fathom ANY reason for having the procedure available. Any person that says the procedure is necassary in ANY circumstance knows nothing about the procedure! Only a moron could say the procedure is needed under certain circumstances and actually believe it. Which fully explains the support it gets from the liberal.
As for judges, that is the other reason I wanted him in office. The country does not need any more aclu employees on the bench. The supreme court is supposed to be a court of law not the court of independant sponsorship of political ideals. So, getting 2 fresh judges was a key to the success of Bush's presidency.
The next person that will run on those issues and agree with my position will again get my vote. I certainly don't want the country to go back into the stoneages where doctors only know how to murder babies instead of saving them, and becomes a country where murdering babies isn't a birth control option. Perhaps if abortion was actually used for saving the women's life, instead of birth control more people would actually support having it legal. But, since the proponants of abortion simply want it available for all to use for any reason I'll continue to think the supporters are idiots who simply follow what they are told to follow. Imagine that, a liberal (who is supposed to be an independant thinking) is only a robot doing what they are told to do. I guess evidence of that is so overwhelming that it isn't really that hard to imagine.
Excuse me doctor, but how many partial-birth abortions are performed each year? And under what circumstances? Just curious, since you are the expert.
Well, gee, concerned citizen perhaps we could look that up together. Since none are actually required (to save a womans life) perhaps we should not have any. Then if you get into all abortions, if you only count the ones that are needed to save a woman's life, you should find about 100. Get back with me and tell me how many you find that are actually required to save the woman's life.
Then tell me how proponants of abortion can correlate their belief that woman won't be getting the medical care they need without having unregulated abortions available. Abortion for the reason of birth control is a bad thing. Abortion to save a woman's life is not. When you liberals can seperate the two, then we can have a normal dialogue, otherwise you're just posting strawman arguements trying to convince each other that abortion is good.
Thanks for not answering the question.
When you said this you were speaking as if you had some medical expertise: "Any person that says the procedure is necassary in ANY circumstance knows nothing about the procedure! Only a moron could say the procedure is needed under certain circumstances and actually believe it."
But it seems you have only a policy argument.
Now, I personally don't have a stake in PBA. I believe that a lot of pro-choice people are against it. As I understand it, however, the PBA ban has been held up because it would criminalize more procedures than just the one commonly known as PBA. (Kind of like how the "Marriage Protection Amendments" outlaw not only gay marriage, but also civil unions.) It seems like your side just needs to get better at drafting legislation.
Here's what I don't understand about those who would want to criminalize abortion. I suppose the ultimate end game would be to pass legislation that would make the performing of an abortion equal to murder since the belief is that a fetus is a human being. Would it not then follow that a woman who performs an abortion on herself is guilty of murder? How would that be enforced? Would all miscarriages have to be investigated as a potential crime? Would women have to register their pregnancies with law enforcement officials and then from time to time be examined to ensure that they are still pregnant? If, in fact, a fetus is a human being, when a pregnant woman passes blood and tissue into the toilet and doesn't report it, wouldn't that be akin to a woman finding her 1 year old dead and not reporting it? What if the woman doesn't know she's pregant? What if a fetus miscarries or is still born because a woman smoked during preganancy- is she guilty of involuntary manslaughter? Birth defects because of drinking alcohol during pregnancy - assault and battery?
See if the true reason for wanting to ban abortion is because the fetus is a human being and it is murder, then you have to take it beyond just making it illegal for doctors to perform abortions.
" See if the true reason for wanting to ban abortion is because the fetus is a human being and it is murder, then you have to take it beyond just making it illegal for doctors to perform abortions. "
Well, matt, you certainly fit the 'typical liberal' mentality. I did not say ban all abortion. I expressed that I am against all abortion that is used as birth control. There are instances that an abortion is necassary to save the woman's life and, just like removing cancer, it needs to be done. Do I need to repeat it again for you? It seems you have trouble reading past the 'no abortion' part of my statement. There inlies the problem that pro-abortionists have with pro-lifers. You people don't listen to whats actually said. Concerned citizen couldn't even understand what was said and complained that I needed to provide proof. Then worried because I didn't, while not providing any for the rest of us, either. The problem is he/she knows perfectly well how to get the information, but when doing so realized how often abortion isn't "needed" and decided to denounce my position a different way. I stand by what I said and challenge ANY liberal to post the numbers that show exactly how often a woman's life is endangered by her pregnacy and requires an abortion to save it.
- cannot fathom ANY reason for having the procedure available. - proud christian
Surgeon General Koop agrees completely with your position on PBA.
I also agree with your position that using abortion for birth control is digusting...and yes..the number of abortions performed for the mother's convenience is well documented.
We also hate him for pretending to be some big Christian guy when it is apparent he only cares about $ and power.
As compared to the t.v. Christian shills who only care about money and power.
Carl Cameron carries more water than the Mississippi. As long as you are with the GOP, he'll carry the H20.
THANK YOU.
njguy93@yahoo.com
Isn't Cameron the Fox "news" guy that ran over another reporter with his car?
That would be Shepard Smith. He was arguing over a parking space with a reporter during the 2000 Election mess in Florida, and apparently the reporter wouldn't move from the space or something like that so he ran his car into the reporter. I think he was arrested for it. There is a picture of him that appears to be a mugshot which is on www.smokinggun.com. He used to whore A LOT for George Bush until Katrina. I think he might whore even now, but probably less. He's not as bad, or doesn't appear to be, as Cameron, Hume, and the others, especially the idiots on FOX AND FRIENDS in the morning.
THANK YOU.
njguy93@yahoo.com
Thanks for the info.
OT. Cameron looks a lot like the song and dance actor Fred Astaire. He must be the song and dance guy for FAUX News. Most of the news FNC give us is ficton anyway, so it makes sense that they would have a Fred Astaire look alike also.
I think Rudy has a much larger shot than people are saying right now, for two reasons:
1. Economic conservatives who really don't care about social issues or are liberal on them are upset with how the GOP has been overrun by religious zealots like George W. Bush, Sam Brownback, Mitch McConnell, and others. This may be their little rebellion (myself included!).
2. According to insider reports from conservatives, many party activists who are strongly anti-gay marriage and anti-abortion are more open to supporting Giuliani than one may expect, because Giuliani believes in appointing strict constructionist judges -- and really, they're the only ones with power over the abortion issue.
3. Giuliani the only GOP candidate who can beat Hillary Clinton. McCain is imploding and is looking like a crusty old establishment figure, Condi's not running (she may have had a chance), and the rest of the pack is absolutely hopeless (Tancredo, Brownback, Romney -- whom I absolutely loathe -- Gingrich, etc).
Giuliani's got the charmisa to go up against Obama's, too.
So, yeah, basically ... he's got a big chance. The GOP is realizing that Rudy's their best shot in 2008.
Interesting. I thought the reason the Partial Birth abortion ban never went into effect was because the "Militant" Pro-lifers wouldn't allow the "exception" for the life of the mother clause, and the "Reasonable" Pro-choicers wouldn't pass it without the clause. Now MMFA tells me that the clause was actually in there and the bill didn't pass anyway. So really, who's militant and who's reasonable in this case?