From the Weekly Standard of April 9, 2007:

“What I mean by a ‘strict constructionist judge’ has to do with my whole view of the Constitution,” [Giuliani] said, choosing not to answer directly. “A judge should try to figure out what other people meant–the Framers, Congress–when they wrote the words they wrote. If a judge starts from that premise, then we have a system of laws and not of whim. And I think starting back in the sixties, we had courts doing what legislatures should be doing, the Warren Court and all that. There’s a real debate about some of the criminal justice decisions–the exclusionary rule, for example.” Did you think the court overreached in imposing the exclusionary rule, I asked. “Some people will argue it did,” he said. “But with Roe–a strict constructionist judge could come to either conclusion about Roe v. Wade. He could come to the conclusion that it was incorrectly decided, overturn it, or he could decide well, it’s been precedent for so long now, it would be too disruptive to overturn it, so we leave it alone. I would leave that up to a judge.”

So Rudy is not anti-Roe, even if he is not clearly taking a pro-Roe position.