MSNBC's Witt referred to "pro-abortion" candidate Giuliani
SUMMARY: On MSNBC Live, Alex Witt referred to Rudy Giuliani as "a pro-abortion candidate." In fact, one can support legal access to abortion procedures and support trying to decrease the number of abortions. Moreover, Giuliani has wavered on the desirability of the Supreme Court's overturning Roe v. Wade.
On the October 4 edition of MSNBC Live, discussing a new NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll, which found that Republican primary voters said GOP presidential hopeful Rudy Giuliani has "the best chance of defeating [Sen.] Hillary Clinton [D-NY] in the general election," host Alex Witt stated that religious conservatives are "threatening ... to consider backing a third party even if the GOP nominates a pro-abortion candidate like Rudy Giuliani." In fact, one can support legal access to abortion procedures and support trying to decrease the number of abortions -- a position Giuliani, and several other public officials who support abortion rights, have espoused, as Media Matters for America has previously noted.
But the reference to Giuliani as "pro-abortion" is misleading in another respect, beyond the inaccurate characterization of those favoring abortion rights; he has vacillated on the issue at various points in his career as a public official, and this year alone, has wavered on the desirability of the Supreme Court's overturning Roe v. Wade. As Media Matters has documented, on the February 5 edition of Fox News' Hannity & Colmes, co-host Sean Hannity asked Giuliani, "Where does Rudy Giuliani stand on abortion?" Giuliani responded by saying that he "believe[s] in a woman's right to choose," but then encouraged "conservatives" to find similarities in "the way we think," specifically on "the appointment of judges." When asked about Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia, who has stated that he would overrule Roe, Giuliani replied that he is "somebody I consider to be a really great judge. ... I do think you have sort of a general philosophical approach that you want from a justice, and I think a strict constructionist would be probably the way I'd describe it." Additionally, during a May 3 Republican presidential debate, Giuliani said that "[i]t would be OK to repeal" Roe, but that "[i]t would be also if a strict constructionist judge viewed it as precedent."
Introducing a report about Giuliani's then-upcoming speech at Houston Baptist University by National Public Radio national political correspondent Mara Liasson on the May 10 edition of NPR's All Things Considered, co-host Robert Siegel stated: "Former New York City Mayor Rudolph Giuliani is the only one of the Republican presidential candidates who supports abortion rights. Recently, his answers to questions about abortion, such as in last week's debate, have caused some confusion. NPR's Mara Liasson reported that Giuliani would be making an effort to clarify his position, if not change the topic all together." Liasson then reported: "Tomorrow, Giuliani will speak at Houston Baptist University, where, his aides say, he will reiterate his support for abortion rights, and say that, although there are disagreements about the issue, all sides should respect each other. Although Giuliani has never hidden his support for abortion rights, until last week, he had said that if he were president, he would appoint strict constructionist judges -- language that some took to mean he would appoint judges who would overturn Roe v. Wade. But at the Republican debate in California, things got confusing."
From the 11:00 a.m. ET hour of the October 4 edition of MSNBC Live, featuring NBC News Washington bureau chief Tim Russert:
WITT: What about religious conservatives, Tim? Because they are certainly crucial to the Republican base, but they're considered -- threatening rather -- to consider backing a third party even if the GOP nominates a pro-abortion candidate like Rudy Giuliani. Do you think conservative Christians are trying to regain influence within the GOP or do you think this is a legitimate threat, would they really do it?
In the context of discussing Giuliani's abortion stance vis-a-vis religious consrvatives, I wonder if Witt meant to say "'a quote/unquote' pro-abortion candidate like Rudy Giluiani."
Apparently, Cjristian conservatives, James Dobson and/or Tony Perkins, had earlier referred to Giuliani as being "pro-abortion" and that characterization of Giuliani had drawn notice in the media as being rather hostile to Giulini.
There is no such thing as "pro-abortion." Period.
Furthermore, people who call themselves "pro-life" rarely are.
Excellent. If the Stalinists here can defend Rudy well enough, then the republicans will vote for him in the primaries, and Hillary will not have to deal with the formidable Mitt or Fredrick of Hollywood in the 2008 general election. And then we will inevitably own this government. And there will be little resistance to the socialization of the Homeland from the people once they see the prescience in Castros words. Soon we will have a veritable orgy kiling babies and divvying up the bank accounts of rich executives among the illegal aliens.
Ah yes, it is a bright future today, comrades.
And we can turn all the churches into storehouses for the corn we'll use to make ethanol.
But then what shall we do with the hemp?
Just turn over the hemp to me ... I'll "dispose" of it for ya ...
:)
Good luck with that, since you can't smoke hemp.
Rudy will not get the nod because he doesn't have the Pro-Life vote. I think this group is the downfall of the Republican part, in that they do not waver on the issue. I am a conservative, but I am 100% FOR a woman's right to choose. (this is just one of the reasons we need a legitimate third party).
And, Rudy has publicly stated the he personally finds abortion abhorrent, but he thinks that it should be a state issue, not a national issue.
Only right wing wackos use the term pro-abortion and no one is "pro-abortion", except Kang!
Abortions for some, little American flags for others!
This sloppy "pro-abortion" remark reminds me of how some think that if you're against the war, you can't be "pro-military".
Wash. Post's Murray, Weisman echoed media suggestion that pro-war = "pro-military"
Dave, pro-abortion has become the new gotcha phrase used by evangelicals. Pro-choice sounds reasonable and of course we can't have people thinking that those who believe in pro-choice are reasonable people, they must be dehumanized, hence new word pro-abortion.
Exactly.
See my comment above.
1. Congrats to MMfA for this article, and being issue-oriented rather than omitting this article because Giuliani was the target of the misleading statement.
2. You can question the legal integrity of Roe vs. Wade and still support safe and legal access to abortion, so Giuliani "wavering" on Roe vs. Wade does not amount to "wavering" on being pro-choice.
I have a question for you all: If I think that the Constitution neither guarantees the right to an abortion nor allows the federal gov. to decide the issue, and I think that it would be ridiculous for any level of gov. to essentially deny abortion access, am I still "pro-choice"?
It would seem so.
Dex,
It all depends. Do you believe women have the right to abort their babies?
Another, in a natural-rights environment, I don't think anyone has the right to stop them, except I guess their husband...
But, in our "reality" environment, I do not believe the right to an abortion is adequately addressed in the Constitution for there to be an established constitutional standard on the practice.
It looks to me like you answered your own question. (I wonder if any feminists will argue your notable exception?)
Well, my first comment was very very philosophical..it's that "natural state" that has never really existed but that societal philosophers talk about. I would think that, if there was an environment with no laws and it was literally natural justice, the only other person who could claim ownership of a fetus is the other creator of it.
Because i don't care how lefty you are, a fetus is not a limb.
"Do you believe women have the right to abort their babies?"
You can't abort a baby. If you teminate a pregnancy and the foetus is viable outside the womb...that's called a BIRTH of a baby, whether it's induced or not.
Do I believe a women has the right to terminate a pregnancy in the first tri-mester? Yes. After that, for the health of the woman? Yes. Would I prefer there to BE no abortons? Yes. But I'm not willing to take away a woman's right to choose in order to bring about that last preference.
This is why many people are so over politicians and their tiptoeing around sensitive issues, such as abortion. And this fuss over labels, pro-choice, pro-abortion, pro-life, pro-this, anti-this.......whatever. Just state your position clearly and honestly. Leave no room for false or vague impressions, or mischaracterization or misrepresentation, or any blurring or equivocating. Let the voters make up their mind.
It then becomes very difficult for someone else to misstate your position. I know politicians hate to take tough principled stands on sensitive, polarizing and emotional issues, they love lots of wiggle room - but too damn bad. We have a right as voters to know exactly where they stand........save your waffling and flip-flopping for your breakfast griddle duties.
Abortion is a tough one though, Tommy. I think Giuliani thinks, like I do, that the Constitution does not address abortion, and that it's not reasonable to ban it.
So, if that's his stance, how does he answer a question: "Do you support Roe vs. Wade?" A simple "yes" or "no" would not do justice to his position.
Dex,
I didn't say complicated issues should have a "yes" or "no" answer, most do not and require explanation, and that is fine. Just lay it out clearly - delicate issues require thoughtful and reasoned explanation, not wimping out because you might risk losing a vote or two.
As usual I disagree. The language has to be established to have a reasonable discussion on the subject. Advocating abortion i.e. being a promoter of abortion BTW I’ve never met a person who promotes abortion as a good thing. Framing the argument that pro-choice people are pro-abortion devolves into language being introduce like culture of death, people who worship at the alter of abortion, etc, etc., etc. Advocating a woman's right to decide for herself what to do with her body and celebrating abortion as a good thing to do are very very different. So Tommy I am a pro-choice advocate not an advocate of abortion. I would have to make that clear before participating in any discussion about abortion; and if a person refuses to see the difference between these two things it would be a complete waste of my time to talk to them on that subject.
Lynn,
You've just stated your position clearly........that is all I am asking of candidates on their positions, abortion included.
I could care less how partisans label their opposition's positions, they can volley that back and forth all day long. I am interested in the meat and potatoes of those issue positions, not which label someone affixes to it.
Lynn,
What I hear you saying is that you personally don't believe in abortion but you are ok with others that do.
Would it be fair to say that makes you a pro-abortion sympathizer?
You heard me wrong or you’re hearing what you want to hear. I believe that a woman has the right to choose. I found myself in that position of having an unplanned pregnancy once. I considered an abortion although ultimately I decide against it. I lost that pregnancy at 20 wks. I don't regret or feel guilty that I considered the abortion, nor would I judge any woman who had been in a similar situation as mine who chose to have an abortion. After that miscarriage I choose a permanent form of birth control and even if I had not I’m pretty sure at the age of 49 now my biological clock has tocked, so I’ll never be in a position of having to deal with an unplanned pregnancy again. I certainly will never be an advocate of having the state choose for a woman what she should do with her body. It’s her decision whether she will allow a biological process that if left uninterrupted will ultimately result in the creation of a viable human being to take place in HER body. I advocate birth control to prevent unplanned pregnancies but I support a woman's right to choose how to handle her own unplanned pregnancy or a pregnancy that is determined to be detrimental to her health. I think my position is extremely clear. You may not agree with it or how I characterize the gestation process but clearly no reasonable person could say that I advocate that women should just have abortions because it’s really fun.
As to your last comment, I don't think anyone ever argued that it was.
You are being disengenuous. If you think it is okay for others to have abortions and it is not okay for the state to outlaw it then you are a an abortion sympathizer. You needn't deny it or dance around it.
BTW, my truest and deepest sympathies on the loss of your baby.
Lynn,
I'm afraid my last note sounds condescending which is the last thing I meant.
My heart does grieve for anyone who has lost their child. I apologize if I offended you.
Gads, I have inserted my foot into my mouth again.
I am sorry.
I meant to say that my feeling for your loss is truly heartfelt.
I too have lost a child. I only say that to tell you that I am not being trying to be flippant or insensitive.
Again, I offer my sincerest condolences.
AA, I re-read your post and I believe you're the one actually being disingenuous. AA you're a smart guy so I know that you understand exactly what I'm saying. I don't back away from my stances nor do I allow anyone to mischaracterize them as you are doing here. I am an ADVOCATE of a woman's right to choose how to handle HER unwanted pregnancy. I can't make it any clearer than that.
AA,
I am being a genuine as I know how to be. I said I decided in that instance to maintain that pregnancy, it doesn't mean that I wouldn't have had an abortion under other circumstances. BTW, thank you for your condolences and I did grieve the loss of that pregnancy. After making the decision to bring the pregnancy to term I had become emotionally vested in having a baby at the end of that nine months. But let me reiterate that I would never fault a woman for choosing to have a trimester abortion, and I believe the legal right to do with stipulations should remain intact. If it helps I don’t believe in late term abortions unless the mother’s life is in danger. As a matter a fact after a fetus has progress to a stage that it could survive outside of a host female abortions shouldn’t be allowed.I appreciate you taking the time to express your views.
Take care!
Lynn, excellent post!
I am a pro-choice advocate not an advocate of abortion.- Lynn
Lynn, for the record, you were very clear.To anyone who can read.
This was interesting from the other day
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/10/03/politics/main3326907.shtml
At least he's consistent.
If Giuliani would tell the Archbishop to go pound sand, I might even consider voting for him.
I would at least respect Giuliani if he said: I disagree with the teachings of the Catholic Church on the issue of abortion.If that means I can't be a Catholic then I guess I'm not a Catholic.
One thing I learned about Catholicism is that the Catholic Church does not tolerate dissent. Either you buy into the entire package or you're not a member.
What if Giuliani said: I don't think it's a sin to have sex out of wedlock if you're married to a real bitch.
But a politician without a church is like a politician without an American flag lapel pin.
And here's some irony for Irony... http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20071005/ap_po/obama_no_flag_pin_7
Good for him.
Irony,
The Catholic Church does have dissent in it's midst. Always has.
I'm a lay Catholic so I'll explain my understanding. To be a Catholic means that you share in the fundamental beliefs as taught by the Church. For example, one of those beliefs is that Jesus is the Son of God. If one doesn't believe in that, then there is no sense calling one a Catholic, (or for that matter, a Christian.)
In this case, the Church teaches that life begins at conception and that life is such a wonderful gift from God that people who commit abortion sin against their babies and against God. (The Church also teaches forgiveness.)
If one does not believe the Church's teachings, and in addition, actively supports people obtaining abortions then one has, by their own conscience created a rift with the teachings of the Church. So to be actively supporting abortion effectively makes one "not in communion" with the Church.
People are free to accept or reject the teachings of the Church. However when one publicly opposes a fundamental Church teaching such as this, then one should not call themselves a Catholic or receive the Sacraments.
Having said that, there are a number of Catholics, some running for President, who think differently.
For anyone who would like to learn more, one can google the teachings of Pope Paul VI, "Humanae Vitae" (Of Human Life) and Pope John Paul II's "Veritatis Splendor" (The Splendor of Truth). These two documents will provide one with reasoning behind the Catholic teaching on abortion.
"If one does not believe the Church's teachings, and in addition, actively supports people obtaining abortions then one has, by their own conscience created a rift with the teachings of the Church."
And THIS is why I am a Christian, but not a Catholic. I prefer to follow the teachings of CHRIST as best I can...not the teachings of a CHURCH. I need look no futher than the fantastical and expensive trappings of the Caotholic church and compare them to the humble life of the man whom they claim to follow to SEE that they DON'T follow His teachings.
another disingenuous post for another american. he says right off the bat that the church does tolerate dissent in it's midst, but then goes on to argue that they do not tolerate dissent. call it separating yourself from the church, but it's all the same. their way or the highway. [except if you do give enough cash you can get that marriage annulment.]
Your pre-Vatican II rhetoric is poorly obscured. Continued heapings of Roman Catholic obfuscations, regarding its odious dogmas, waxes towards the dullard anew. Your deceptive scatting echoes the essence of the previous supreme procurator, who headed the Vatican’s department of The Inquisition…it all sounds mighyt fine, as long as it’s for someone else and not Saul of Tarsus.
ALEX WITT IS ANOTHER RIGHT-WINGER WHO NEEDS TO BE AT FOX NEWS TOO.BUT YET AGAIN ALL OF THESE NEWS STATIONS ARE JUST LIKE FOX NEWS!!