Reports by NY Times, others on Giuliani reaction to abortion decision did not mention apparent flip-flop
Several reports immediately following the Supreme Court's 5-4 decision upholding the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2003 noted Republican presidential candidate Rudy Giuliani's statement applauding the decision, but did not note the apparent inconsistency between his April 18 statement and the position he took in 2000 against the "partial-birth abortion" ban passed by Congress in 1997. Reports by Fox News and the Associated Press and posts on the political weblogs of The New York Times and The Wall Street Journal all noted Giuliani's statement praising the court's decision while omitting reference to his previously expressed opposition to the ban.
Giuliani stated on April 18: "The Supreme Court reached the correct conclusion in upholding the congressional ban on partial birth abortion. I agree with it." But in 2000, Giuliani said he agreed with President Clinton's veto of the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act of 1997, saying then -- in response to a question about whether if he, as a senator, would have "vote[d] with the president or against the president" -- that he would have "vote[d] to preserve the option for women." On the February 5 edition of Fox News' Hannity & Colmes, when Giuliani expressed support for the current law banning "partial-birth abortion," co-host Sean Hannity pressed him about the apparent reversal. Giuliani attempted to reconcile his two positions by stating that he supports such bans only when they contain a "provision for the life of the mother." But as Media Matters noted, several federal bills banning "partial-birth abortion" proposed from 1997 through 2000 -- including the one Clinton vetoed in 1997 -- also provided "an exception to save a mother's life who is endangered by a physical disorder, illness, or injury." So, while the presence of a life-of-the-woman exception was previously not enough to win Giuliani's support for a ban, such an exception is apparently now sufficient.
As media critic and blogger Greg Sargent wrote: "[I]t's worth noting yet again that Rudy's current opposition to late term abortion is a new addition to his repertoire. ...We'll see if these inconvenient facts make it into any of the press coverage carrying his statement." These facts were omitted from several April 18 reports that included Giuliani's statement after the decision.
- In an entry on the New York Times weblog The Caucus, Sarah Wheaton told readers to "[n]otice the differences between comments by Senator John McCain, a Republican who has said he opposes abortion except in cases of rape or incest, and Rudolph W. Giuliani, a Republican who has said he is personally anti-abortion but believes women should have the right to receive one." Later in the post, The Caucus reprinted Giuliani's statement without further explanation.
- A Fox News article stated simply that, like 2008 presidential candidate Mitt Romney, "Former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani also said he agreed with the decision."
- An Associated Press article reported that Giuliani has said he "favors abortion rights" and "support[s] public funding of some abortions." But while the article suggested that his April 18 statement and his pledge to appoint judges like those in the majority in the "partial-birth abortion" ban decision might be in tension with his professed pro-choice views, it did not note that he appears to have reversed himself on the specific question of a "partial-birth abortion" ban:
In a statement issued by his campaign, [Sen. John] McCain [R-AZ] said, "It is critically important that our party continues to stand on the side of life."
The admonition seemed aimed at former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani and former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney, other leading contenders for the GOP nomination.
Giuliani favors abortion rights and has drawn criticism for supporting public funding of some abortions. But he says he would appoint justices very similar to Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Samuel Alito, President Bush's appointees. Both were part of the majority in Wednesday's ruling.
Giuliani said in a statement that he approves of the high court's action.
"The Supreme Court reached the correct conclusion in upholding the congressional ban on partial birth abortion. I agree with it," he said.
- An entry on The Wall Street Journal blog Washington Wire stated: "We took [McCain's statement] as a swipe at former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani, who has said he supports abortion rights but has also said he would appoint 'strict constructionist' jurists, like Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Samuel Alito. Giuliani didn't exactly expand on his views, issuing a terse statement: 'The Supreme Court reached the correct conclusion in upholding the congressional ban on partial birth abortion. I agree with it.' "















I can almost hear the press mumbling under their breath...Rudy! Rudy! Rudy!
Journalism has a sickness...
I thought I herad
Obama, Obama, Obama
Guess they only cover democratic flipping
With the rampant 'liberal media bias'? No.
A conservative flip flop...naw, the Lib media would rather cover the lowering of John Edward's ears
I would like to know why Clinton vetoed the bill when even the most Liberal Senator at the time, Paul Wellstone, agreed that partial birth abortion should be banned if the clause to protect the life of the mother was included in the language.
Dick? Dick Morris? Is that you?
When Hillary vetoes similar legislation I'm sure Dick will be chiming in!
Dick will chime in when Clinton wears open-toed sandals.
I suppose one could argue that they would've supported a bill as a legislator but agreed the bill was unconstitutional. I don't know that it's Congresses responsibility to get really nit-picky on whether the Supreme Court is going to find their act unconstitutional or not, given the Court's wavering on so many subjects.
That being said, looks like Giuliani is standing on shaky ground for this one. It's almost humerous to see centrist candidates on both sides scramble to lean when they're in the primaries.
This is just stupid.
I challenge one person liberal/conservative (some conservatives are pro-choice), to find one hypothetical instance where a mother's health is in danger and partial birth Abortion would solve the problem.
Dilation and Extraction "Partial Birth-Abortion" is where the cervix is expanded, the fetus is pulled down into the birth canal, the fetus is torn apart with forcepts, the skull is crushed, and then it is vacumed out.
The craziness is that this procedure is legal even 1-3 weeks before the fetus would be "born."
Anyone who thinks that this is about "choice" is turning the definition of "choice" into a pretzel.
Seems to me any such discussion of what's right for the mother's safety should be between her and her doctor. Oh, wait, it is, if you've got enough money.
If you haven't got enough money to have an abortion, then why are you and your man having unprotected sex in the first place, where pregnancy could result in a child you and the father are morally responsible for?
As Bitter as Marv is, I think he was speaking more to the situation of the pregnancy being life-threatening rather than a cosmetic procedure.
You are probably right, I may have been out of line with the comment......my apologies.
I'm pretty ignorant of the medical faction on PB abortions. Couldn't they do they same thing by performing a C-section?
Why is giuliani being strung out to dry for flip flopping from something he voted on 7 years ago?? Hasn't every democrat in the house and senate flip flopped on their vote to support the war within the same amount of time? Yet we hear nothing of that being a bad thing.
As for the abortion ban. I am so glad bush got voted in and was able to get 2 normal thinking judges in place. It justifies my reason for voting for him. Now, with the two oldest judges maybe getting ready to retire, hopefully we'll get more normal thinking judges in place. 5000 of the 1.2 million per year were partial birth abortions and not one was medically necassary to save the mother's life. I wonder why it took so long to become illegal.
The worst is Harry Reid.
He voted for the Statute and then decided to rant at Alito and Robert for upholding the statute!!!!!!!