Is there any Dem presidential candidate who supports gov't funded abortions?

[Hamlette]

I think Rudy's position is a big deal. How are the republicans going to call us the party of death anymore?

His argument that because it is a consitutional right means the government has to pay for it is shockingly misinformed in light of the fact he is a lawyer. (Can you say "Hyde" Amendment which outlawed funding for most abortions in 1976). Since then, I've not known anyone brave enough actually suggest the government pay for abortions.

Isn't this a big deal? It's one thing to be pro choice but pro "use taxpayer dollars to kill babies" (how they will frame it) seems out there. I actually think this will blow up on Rudy. I think we'll be running against Romney. (Or someone not in the top tier right now. I think McCain is over unless we win the war in Iraq and bring peace to the Middle East by election day.)

(I actually support government funded abortions just didn't think a GOP candidate would.)

[BayCityProgressive]

1. I support it as well

but right now we can barely keep Roe V Wade legal. I think the vast majority of people would be against gov. funding. Rudy won't get the nomination and even if he does he will have to flip flop so much that he will be a sitting duck in the general election. Then again that is if the press is fair which we know they will not be. They will prob cover up anything negative about him.

[Colobo]

2. I'm starting to think the BK King (Romney) will beat Giuliani

The man will not get the support from the social conservatives, and the Bush machine is behind Romney.

[DaveJ]

3. I would assume they all understand a woman's right to choose...

This is how Edwards phrased it: "I support a woman's right to choose and believe this that right is constitutionally protected. I also support funding for family planning."

I also agree Romney is the Repuke's best hope, but given that the U.S. Repukes are conflicted between Guliani and Romney, it's obvious they don't have the focus to win this time.

[Hamlette]

4. a woman's right to choose is NOT the issue nor is funding family planning

the issue is funding abortion which was a HUGE fight 30 years ago. So bad no democrat has dared to even suggest funding abortion on demand (it is funding to save life of mother, incest, rape and a few states pay for it...but FEDERAL funding of abortion?

Rudy if further left than any Dem candidate on this. And he's their front runner

Additionally, I'm not so sure he'll back down. He said it years ago and confirmed it yesterday.

[DaveJ]

6. Ok, but isn't that what Edwards was saying

The quote above says he supports funding for family planning, eg abortion. I have not researched the issue much but that statement seems clear enough to me.

I've also heard Hillary make similar statements supporting abortion rights using the phrase 'family planning'.

Giuliani seems nervous when he talks about it, whereas Hillary and Edwards talk about it quite casually. It should be talked about causally. It's constitutionally protected.

As far as funding goes, I thought a lot of medical care was billed after the fact. I haven't really kept up on the topic. Are people being denied abortions purely because they do not have the cash up front? Edit: If so, drive to another state. In my experience, the public hospital here will help anyone, no frills, no questions asked.

[Hamlette]

8. no, family planning and abortion are not the same thing

Family planning is code speak for birth control. Birth control is code speak to access to birth control pills. That is a separate debate, one we have by and large won (although we still don't force insurance companies to pay for birth control even though they do pay for viagra...but different issue). Sometimes I think we are just barely holding on to birth control. But birth control is NOT abortion. VERY different. I would be shocked to my core if Hillary or Edwards would say out loud "the government should pay for abortion." It would set of a firestorm like 1976 and consume public debate for a year.

we have had a long and bitter debate about abortion in this country. Remember the very first act of W when he took office? He signed the executive order that no federal foreign aid dollars can go to any organization that ever discusses abortion. The organization can discuss family planning (birth control) but NOT abortion. Even if they don't provide abortions...no money.

[Lone_Star_Dem]

5. No.

And even though I recognized it as his potential demise as a Republican presidential candidate I was impressed that he stood by his belief.

You have to admire that in a person, even one that you don't agree with on many, many other levels.

[AshevilleGuy]

7. I thought Rudy said it was "an issue I will have to look at again". n/t

[Hamlette]

9. no, he said he supported it. He said he would look a partial birth abortion again. n/t

[pigpickle]

10. There's no need for any Dem to take a stance at this point.

Rudy obviously did it to distinguish himself from his GOP opposition. He's gunning hardcore for the moderate conservative vote. No other GOP candidate is doing that. It makes good political sense for him to take this stand before the primary so he can carve out as many moderate votes as possible.

On flip side, no Dem has any incentive to make an issue out of this right now. The Democratic Party is almost universally supportive of abortion rights. No Dem will gain any advantage in the primary by stating specifics on abortion. If you're running as a Dem then you know you can't run as an anti-abortion candidate, so what would be the point of even making a statement about it?

[Hamlette]

11. hardly

this issue has been one of the bloodiest political fights in my lifetime. I can't even imagine the leftest of the leftest dem candidates opening that door.

Rudy did it because he supported it in NY. NY pays for it but it is one of a very few states that does.

He was asked if he still supported it and he didn't say it was a state's rights issue (which the Hyde Amendment implies it is while denying all federal money) he says it is a FREAKING CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO HAVE THE GOVERNMENT PAY FOR YOUR ABORTION ON DEMAND.

That is a radical position. I bet you wouldn't find 50% of americans in support of that position and I'm be shocked if 10% of republicans support it.

It is one thing to support choice, it is light years away to support government funding of abortions.

Watch. This is about to become a HUGE deal.

(Just out of curiosity, do those of you who think this is not a huge deal remember the fight over this in the 70s? Or Bush signing the executive order as his first act of his presidency?)