Giuliani’s six donations to Planned Parenthood

May 8, 2007

Rudy Giuliani’s abortion problem keeps getting worse. At last week’s debate, Chris Matthews asked the GOP candidates, “Would the day that Roe v. Wade is repealed be a good day for Americans?” Nine of the 10 said yes, with varying degrees of intensity (Brownback said it would be “a glorious day of human liberty and freedom,” while Tancredo it would be “the greatest day in this country’s history”). Giuliani said, “It would be okay.”

With conservative activists still buzzing about the former NYC mayor’s response, the other shoe dropped this morning.

Republican presidential candidate Rudy Giuliani in his campaign appearances this year has stated that he personally abhors abortion, even though he supports keeping a legal right to choose. But records show that in the ’90s he contributed money at least six times to Planned Parenthood, one of the country’s leading abortion rights groups and its top provider of abortions.

Federal tax returns made public by the former New York mayor show that he and his then-wife, Donna Hanover, made personal donations to national, state and city chapters of Planned Parenthood totaling $900 in 1993, 1994, 1998 and 1999.

The returns have been on the public record for years, but the detail about Giuliani’s support for Planned Parenthood — along with e-mailed copies of the returns — was provided to The Politico by aides to a rival campaign, who insisted on not being identified.

Even before this news, Giuliani was having trouble finessing his position — he’s pro-choice, hates abortion, and would appoint judges who disagree with his philosophy. But these revelations complicate matters — Giuliani directly gave financial support (six times) to a national abortion provider. As Mark Kleiman put it, “[I]t takes true greatness of spirit to voluntarily give money to support an activity you hate.”

That, or Giuliani’s spin on his position is entirely incoherent.

Asked how Giuliani could reconcile personal opposition to abortion with a contribution to Planned Parenthood, a campaign spokesperson said that “from the start, Mayor Giuliani has been straight with the American people about where he stands on the issues and saying exactly what he thinks. Ultimately, this election is about leadership, and it’s a sign of leadership to stand by your position in the face of political expediency.”

But even that’s unsatisfying. The pro-life position is a “politically expedient” one? Giuliani’s campaign seems to be saying that GOP primary voters should applaud the candidate’s pro-choice beliefs because it takes courage to have them. I don’t imagine that will go over well, either.

At this point, Giuliani is trying to find a middle ground that doesn’t exist.

“Roe vs. Wade is a yes-or-no question, and Rudy Giuliani is trying to make it multiple choice,” said Nancy Keenan, president of NARAL Pro-Choice America.

“He was as slippery as a wet noodle, and that’s not going to fly with social conservatives,” said Carrie Gordon Earll, senior policy analyst for the conservative group Focus on the Family. “He may pick up some support from social moderates, but the social conservatives won’t stand for it.”

People keep telling me that a pro-choice Republican can win the party’s presidential nomination. I’m skeptical of even that claim, but can a pro-choice Republican who won an award from NARAL, opposed the ban on so-called “partial-birth” abortions, and repeatedly gave money to Planned Parenthood win the GOP nomination? I don’t see how.

Funny how a wet noodle can crack such a tough party right in half.

heh

  • People keep telling me that a pro-choice Republican can win the party’s presidential nomination.

    If the candidate can stoke the fear and greed of the primary voters enough, they might nominate a pro-choice candidate. Its all about fear and greed with that crowd.

  • We run some risk of playing into the anti-Planned Parenthood folks hands, however, on this issue. By saying “Giuliani says he abhors abortion but he gave money to the nation’s largest abortion provider!” we undercut the message PP works so hard to get out there: Planned Parenthood should not be defined by the fact it provides abortion. Planned Parenthood’s services prevent many, many more abortions than they could ever conduct. Planned Parenthood is also one of the largest sources of basic, non-abortion womens health services in the nation. And one of the largest providers of basic information. We do them a disservice if, when it suits us to club Giuliani with, we slip into defining them by the fact that they provide abortion. (None of this is a defense of Rudy, of course, whose pandering and waffling is indefensible. We just need to be careful we do not inadvertently damage on our “ours” in the cause of pointing out the flaws in one of “theirs.”)

  • Fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice, shame on you. Fool me three times, erm yeah, sure, shame on my ex-wife (did I say, ex-wife… yikes!!!)… fool me SIX times, er, yeah, you know… did I mention I was Mayor of New York on 9/11?

  • Wow, are those quotes in the first paragraph real? What a couple of weirdos. And I like how “Okay” clearly wasn’t enough for those fruitcakes. Do you think if he said it would be transplendant they would have thought him too bookish?

  • Zeitgeist, if Giuliani had ANY willingness to stand up for himself and his principles, yours is exactly the argument he’d use to defend his donations. PP does some tremendous work– which, of course, none of the far right gives a damn about.

  • A pro-choice Republican probably could win the presidential nomination, but he would have to be consistent about where he stands. Rudy is all over the place. No one will take him seriously.

    Wait, I forgot – we’re talking about Republicans here. They aren’t famous for their logic, are they? They vote for whoever tells them what they want to hear, even someone who talks out of both sides of his mouth like Rudy does.

  • Look for him to say his wife made him do it; that it was really her donation. Good thing he got rid of her after giving his next wife a public test drive. And, of course, that was before he was born again–which happened 2 minutes before he announced for Prez. Can a man with such a twisted personal history wriggle out of this one? I think so.

  • All of this stuff would probably doom Giuliani in any case, but I think that it will be Kerik that finally takes him down.

    K will probabaly face indictments in the near future.

  • Looks like Frak beat me to suggesting this while I was drafting my comments, though I’ll admit to being a bit more sympathetic to the argument…

    the former New York mayor show that he and his then-wife, Donna Hanover, made personal donations

    Giuliani’s response to last week’s Roe V. Wade question suggested (to me, anyway) a certain degree of ambivalence… or at least that toppling this precedent wasn’t something that’s even on his radar.

    Speaking as someone who’s married, my spouse and I do not always confer with each other before donating to charities, and we certainly don’t always agree on the worthiness of recipients. If Donna Hanover felt strongly about giving to PP, or even if she merely felt it was the right thing to do, I can’t imagine that an ambivalent spouse would necessarily veto the action (if anything, he was probably feeling pretty in-control of his destiny at the time, what with being NYC mayor and all… perhaps political viability beyond such a position didn’t seem relevant at the time).

    I’m just saying…

  • “[I]t takes true greatness of spirit to voluntarily give money to support an activity you hate.”

    Do what? This makes no sense. Most people hate child molestors but by this fly-weight’s logic a great man would cheerfully hand over large chunks of cash to NAMBLA. Yuch. And does the fact that I wouldn’t give money to support Fred Phelp’s brood of genetically redundant lackwits or the KKK or anything that has to do with the GOP if you held a gun to my head mean I lack a “greatness of spirit?” Fuck you, then.

    “He may pick up some support from social moderates, but the social conservatives won’t stand for it.”

    Then siddown and shaddup. Gods these people need to give it up!

  • Just remember, folks, Rudy was mayor “on watch” in my city–NYC–on 9/11, and during the previous incidents at the Twin Towers. He tells people what they want to hear but his action–or should I say inaction–speaks volumes of his capabilities–or, rather, incapabilities–to defend Americans or otherwise be believable on any real issues affecting Americans.

  • Oh…wait…this may play even better in a different vein. RooDee claims to hate abortion, but his tax returns say otherwise. No matter how hard he gets hit on the two-faced issue, the freaks in ReThugLand won’t throw him under the bus for it. So—let’s just call a Giuliani a Giuliani, and accuse the fat little twirp of LYING ON HIS TAX RETURNS!!! H’es on the record—actuaslly, a great big batch of records—as “hating abortion.” Now answer me this—when was the last time any of “youze guys” saw someone who hated abortion “give money to PP?” Nope—didn’t think so.

    The only credible option here is that ‘Murricah’s Mayor filed fraudulent tax returns.

    Let the IRS audits begin….

  • I’m with Zeit on this [Margaret Sanger would be very proud of you!].

    And I would add that we have no idea of the context surrounding these donations. Did he also give six times to the NRA? The DAR? Clinch Valley College? Let the conservatives make hay out of the six donations all they want. He’ll come back with a perfectly reasonable excuse. I don’t think the liberal stance should be “lookee at the hypocrite!!” Don’t we usually look for deeper arguments?

  • Rudi is a Republican and that just proves that he is a dumb stupid hypocrite like all the rest of them. I think these people need a new front runner who has a brain and some integrity. Now who would that be? Oh sorry. Maybe they could borrow a second tier Democrat.

    • Comments are closed.