Romney: I Want Roe Overturned, Will Stop Obama Abortion Funding

[_Abyssinia]

How many Justices are going to resign in the next four years? Will Romney, if elected, be able to get his choice for Supreme Court approved by Congress? No one is overturning Roe v Wade because business doesn’t want it and so, they can talk all they wa nt, but when we had the most Republican controlled government in history under GW Bush, no one touched Roe v Wade.

Next president could elect 4 supreme court justices. If Obama is reelected the reversal of roe v wade will be put back probably decades

1st presidential debate in 2000 Bush declared that he would not try to overturn roe v Wade

Before Bush was elected as president, he said that he would support Supreme Court judges who would strictly interpret the Constitution. A strict stance on abortion, he indicated, would not rest at the top of his list of requirements for an appointee, though he had voiced strong personal opposition to most forms of the procedure. He said, “I will not have a litmus test for my judges, except for: Will the judge strictly interpret the Constitution, and not use the bench to write social policy?”

Not because of Roe v Wade being overturned but because 20% of their funding comes from government grants that can be withdrawn. Someone I know at Planned Parenthood, however, estimated that if a Romney, Tea Party influenced Administration withdrew all that money, their major donors would probably donate twice as much to make up for the loss, which is what they did during the Susan G. Komen debacle.

Donors would probably donate for a short time, but why would major donors donate nearly $500 million a year? What benefit would it bring to them? If donors want to donate money that is their decision, but the goverment should not be giving federal funds to a business that has $1 billion in personal assets and has made over $500 million in profit in last 9 years. Morally planned parenthood do not deserve taxpayer funds because they are an abortion provider and considering the scandals exposed by Live Action it is not right to give them money. Economically given the financial state of America giving money to them is not a priority

 

[cornbread_r2]

As I understand Romney’s position, he supports a woman’s right to choose to have a legal, safe abortion in cases of pregnancy that result from rape, incest and where that pregnancy endangers the life of the mother. If that’s true, why would he want Roe overturned? That seems illogical.

Also, if Romney truly believes that those circumstances could be used justify an abortion, I’d like to know if he thinks abortions performed for those reasons could be performed right up until the moment of birth. Again, to be logically consistent, I don’t see how he could deny that they could.

(Romney was recently given the perfect opportunity to clearly delineate and defend his position re: abortion during an exclusive interview with EWTN’s Raymond Arroyo. Yet, over the course of that nearly 15 minute interview, not only was the single most important political issue for Catholics (as is asserted by their leaders) not discussed, the word “abortion” wasn’t even mentioned. IMO, that negates any pretense that EWTN is a non-partisan organization.)

 

[_Abyssinia]

As I understand Romney’s position, he supports a woman’s right to choose to have a legal, safe abortion in cases of pregnancy that result from rape, incest and where that pregnancy endangers the life of the mother. If that’s true, why would he want Roe overturned? That seems illogical.

Also, if Romney truly believes that those circumstances could be used justify an abortion, I’d like to know if he thinks abortions performed for those reasons could be performed right up until the moment of birth. Again, to be logically consistent, I don’t see how he could deny that they could.

(Romney was recently given the perfect opportunity to clearly delineate and defend his position re: abortion during an exclusive interview with EWTN’s Raymond Arroyo. Yet, over the course of that nearly 15 minute interview, not only was the single most important political issue for Catholics (as is asserted by their leaders) not discussed, the word “abortion” wasn’t even mentioned. IMO, that negates any pretense that EWTN is a non-partisan organization.)

1% of abortions annually are for incest or rape. If roe v wade is reversed states could decide to ban all abortion, keep in cases of rape/incest. World over Live this week had a democrat on, they are not partisan

New study from National Bureau of Economic Research shows that state ban on abortion would reduce abortion

Regardless of how you view abortion, the constitution allows a state to prohibit a law, democratic choice, but roe v wade says no state can prohibit abortion. Constitution and roe vs wade are not in accordance. I think Romney recognises this even though he says it should be legal of rape and incest which is why he repeatedly says it should be reversed

 

[He_Man]

So, if he’s elected, nothing in this country concerning abortion will change at all.

Okay.

Policies concerning abortion have changed under every President since RvW. Some for good, some for bad. Elimination of a horrible injustice doesn’t happen in one executive order or legislative move. The list of positive steps under GWB is long. The rescinding of the Mexico City policy under Obama took one day.

By your logic, “nothing” has changed concerning poverty under Obama. Other than an increase, of course. But since no democrat has eliminated poverty, why vote for them?

 

[Tampa_Dave]

Policies concerning abortion have changed under every President since RvW. Some for good, some for bad. Elimination of a horrible injustice doesn’t happen in one executive order or legislative move. The list of positive steps under GWB is long. The rescinding of the Mexico City policy under Obama took one day.

By your logic, “nothing” has changed concerning poverty under Obama. Other than an increase, of course. But since no democrat has eliminated poverty, why vote for them?

I cannot think of any good reasons for electing a Democrat to the White House.

 

[cornbread_r2]

1% of abortions annually are for incest or rape.

Though I’d like to know where that figure comes from, for the sake of discussion I’ll accept your figure of 1%. Regardless of the actual number though, as I understand Catholic moral theology, a direct abortion performed to terminate a pregnancy that resulted from incest, rape or to protect the health/life of the mother is no less immoral than an abortion performed for any other reason. Whether there are 10,000 such abortions or 1,000,000 would seem to be irrelevant.

If roe v wade is reversed states could decide to ban all abortion, keep in cases of rape/incest.

If by that you mean that states could ban all abortions even in cases of rape/incest I think you’re being extremely optimistic. In fact, I’m pretty sure that the only reason Romney holds the eccentric view that he does is because a majority of Americans do too.

The one thing I could always admire about RCC moral theology, even when I disagreed with it, was its consistency. To see it not hold a mere politician’s feet to fire for a lack of moral consistency on the issue of abortion is very disappointing.

World over Live this week had a democrat on, they are not partisan

When EWTN conducts an interview with the President – or any other prominent national Democratic leader in a position to directly affect federal abortion law – and doesn’t even mention the issue of abortion, then I’ll withdraw my criticism of them.

New study from National Bureau of Economic Research shows that state ban on abortion would reduce abortion

I’m sure if people were denied access to safe and legal appendectomies, the number of appendectomies would go down too.

Regardless of how you view abortion, the constitution allows a state to prohibit a law, democratic choice, but roe v wade says no state can prohibit abortion. Constitution and roe vs wade are not in accordance. I think Romney recognises this even though he says it should be legal of rape and incest which is why he repeatedly says it should be reversed

As I understand the issue, states cannot outlaw an activity that has been determined to be legal on the federal level. If they could, I can imagine a whole slew of civil rights laws that might not exist in some states. The problem is that some people contend that the Constitution does not guarantee the right to privacy that Roe is predicated upon. So far, there hasn’t been a majority of SCOTUS justices that has agreed with them. If there ever is a majority that agrees with them and overturns Roe then, yes, the states could then ban abortion. Please note though, that if such a right to privacy was subsequently added to the Constitution through the amendment process then, as I understand it, those state laws could be overturned.

 

[_Abyssinia]

Though I’d like to know where that figure comes from, for the sake of discussion I’ll accept your figure of 1%. Regardless of the actual number though, as I understand Catholic moral theology, a direct abortion performed to terminate a pregnancy that resulted from incest, rape or to protect the health/life of the mother is no less immoral than an abortion performed for any other reason. Whether there are 10,000 such abortions or 1,000,000 would seem to be irrelevant.

Arm of planned parenthood, Guttmacher institute says less than 1% of reasons women gave for abortion were rape or incest

Romney supports reversal or roe v wade and would elect the supreme coiurt judges accordingly

If by that you mean that states could ban all abortions even in cases of rape/incest I think you’re being extremely optimistic. In fact, I’m pretty sure that the only reason Romney holds the eccentric view that he does is because a majority of Americans do too.

If roe v wade is reversed many states will likely keep abortion legal for rape and incest, but then that is reducing abortion by 99%. Chain effect will lead to complete ban on legal abortion

The one thing I could always admire about RCC moral theology, even when I disagreed with it, was its consistency. To see it not hold a mere politician’s feet to fire for a lack of moral consistency on the issue of abortion is very disappointing.

When EWTN conducts an interview with the President – or any other prominent national Democratic leader in a position to directly affect federal abortion law – and doesn’t even mention the issue of abortion, then I’ll withdraw my criticism of them.

Raymond Arroyo has said on air an invitiation for an interview has been extended to Obama, he has not accepted as far as I know. He is not going to want to be confornted by a Catholic on a Catholic network about abortion and the HHS mandate. World Over Live is a pro life show in acccordance with Catholic teaching, there are few prominent democrats, less than a handful on my count who are pro life so the chance of one being on the show is slim

I’m sure if people were denied access to safe and legal appendectomies, the number of appendectomies would go down too.

As I understand the issue, states cannot outlaw an activity that has been determined to be legal on the federal level. If they could, I can imagine a whole slew of civil rights laws that might not exist in some states. The problem is that some people contend that the Constitution does not guarantee the right to privacy that Roe is predicated upon. So far, there hasn’t been a majority of SCOTUS justices that has agreed with them. If there ever is a majority that agrees with them and overturns Roe then, yes, the states could then ban abortion. Please note though, that if such a right to privacy was subsequently added to the Constitution through the amendment process then, as I understand it, those state laws could be overturned.

Roe v wade said it was acceptable for a state to have third trimester abortion available. Polls show the majority fo those who are ‘pro choice’ and ‘pro life’ oppose the legality of this. 1 example of how roe v wade is not in keeping with how most Americans think of abortion now

Mississippi and Missiour have 1 abortion clinic left each. The tide is turning, the abortion rate is decreasing in many states and an unprecented level of pro life lfie laws have been passed in 2011 and 2012

 

[seekerz]

Romney said, ‘I say we’re going to replace Obamacare. And I’m replacing it with my own plan.’ He has said for a long time that he supports health reform protecting those with pre existing conditions and those under 26 staying on their parents insurance

His own plan? Guess he meant Romenycare, because as a businessman he should know that there’s no way insurance companies will take on increased risk/costs without the benefits of more customers. That’s exactly why the individual mandate was imposed and that’s why it will most likely stand…even if he hasn’t gotten round to discussing that detail yet.

 

[seekerz]

Arm of planned parenthood, Guttmacher institute says less than 1% of reasons women gave for abortion were rape or incest

Romney supports reversal or roe v wade and would elect the supreme coiurt judges accordingly

If roe v wade is reversed many states will likely keep abortion legal for rape and incest, but then that is reducing abortion by 99%. Chain effect will lead to complete ban on legal abortion

When EWTN conducts an interview with the President – or any other prominent national Democratic leader in a position to directly affect federal abortion law – and doesn’t even mention the issue of abortion, then I’ll withdraw my criticism of them.

Raymond Arroyo has said on air an invitiation for an interview has been extended to Obama, he has not accepted as far as I know. He is not going to want to be confornted by a Catholic on a Catholic network about abortion and the HHS mandate. World Over Live is a pro life show in acccordance with Catholic teaching, there are few prominent democrats, less than a handful on my count who are pro life so the chance of one being on the show is slim

Roe v wade said it was acceptable for a state to have third trimester abortion available. Polls show the majority fo those who are ‘pro choice’ and ‘pro life’ oppose the legality of this. 1 example of how roe v wade is not in keeping with how most Americans think of abortion now

Mississippi and Missiour have 1 abortion clinic left each. The tide is turning, the abortion rate is decreasing in many states and an unprecented level of pro life lfie laws have been passed in 2011 and 2012

http://media.economist.com/sites/de...idth/images/print-edition/20120908_USM905.png

Interesting, my experience is that when most people are faced with a situation in which abortion would be an option, their views undergo radical transformation - laws notwithstanding. Which explains perhaps why more than one public figure has been known to choke when some variant of “what if your daughter was raped” is asked.

Without solid statistics, it would be a mistake to think that abortion laws, regardless of their number, decrease - rather than redistribute - abortion. Mississippi and Missouri have only 1 abortion clinic left - great! How does that tell us anything about the number of women from these states who have abortions elsewhere?

 

[seekerz]

Policies concerning abortion have changed under every President since RvW. Some for good, some for bad. Elimination of a horrible injustice doesn’t happen in one executive order or legislative move. The list of positive steps under GWB is long. The rescinding of the Mexico City policy under Obama took one day.

By your logic, “nothing” has changed concerning poverty under Obama. Other than an increase, of course. But since no democrat has eliminated poverty, why vote for them?

What did the Mexico City Policy achieve?

Which government anywhere, in all of history, has succeeded in “eliminating poverty”?

 

[rlg94086]

Interesting, my experience is that when most people are faced with a situation in which abortion would be an option, their views undergo radical transformation - laws notwithstanding. Which explains perhaps why more than one public figure has been known to choke when some variant of “what if your daughter was raped” is asked.

Without solid statistics, it would be a mistake to think that abortion laws, regardless of their number, decrease - rather than redistribute - abortion. Mississippi and Missouri have only 1 abortion clinic left - great! How does that tell us anything about the number of women from these states who have abortions elsewhere?

What did the Mexico City Policy achieve?

Which government anywhere, in all of history, has succeeded in “eliminating poverty”?

Seekerz,

I get your belief that economics and changing hearts and minds are the keys to diminishing and eliminating abortion, but why are you opposed to laws that restrict or ban abortion? Why are you in favor of spending our tax dollars on abortion (e.g. Mexico City Policy)? I don’t get that.

 

[_Abyssinia]

Interesting, my experience is that when most people are faced with a situation in which abortion would be an option, their views undergo radical transformation - laws notwithstanding. Which explains perhaps why more than one public figure has been known to choke when some variant of “what if your daughter was raped” is asked.

Without solid statistics, it would be a mistake to think that abortion laws, regardless of their number, decrease - rather than redistribute - abortion. Mississippi and Missouri have only 1 abortion clinic left - great! How does that tell us anything about the number of women from these states who have abortions elsewhere?

Not sure of the statisic for Missouri and Mississippi but argument that if you restrict or ban abortion in state women will travel to another state to get an abortion - having limitations on abortion protects the majority of women. Some women might travel out of state to have an abortion but I bet that it is rare. Restricting/banning abortion in state means many women are less pressured by abortion advertising or families to have an abortion

Some teenagers likely travel to Mexico where you can drink alcohol at 18. Federal law in the US is 21. But people are not advocating lowering the age because you can go to Mexico to drink under that age. Best interest of majority of teenagers is put first with the federal law and those that are found breaking the law get in trouble

 

[seekerz]

Seekerz,

I get your belief that economics and changing hearts and minds are the keys to diminishing and eliminating abortion, but why are you opposed to laws that restrict or ban abortion? Why are you in favor of spending our tax dollars on abortion (e.g. Mexico City Policy)? I don’t get that.

I’m not in favor of any dollars on abortion, tax or otherwise. But I have read of the Mexico City Policy and there is a debate (not a full convincing one) that has not been addressed by its proponents, in which it is claimed that the policy actually led to more abortions because it defunded US organizations providing contraception - services on which women in many parts of the world had come to rely on.

The intent of the policy was great, but the effects might have been dictated by the law of unintended consequences. Even if it did not increase abortions, where is the evidence that it decreased them or that it was anything more than a symbolic political gesture?

 

[seekerz]

Not sure of the statisic for Missouri and Mississippi but argument that if you restrict or ban abortion in state women will travel to another state to get an abortion - having limitations on abortion protects the majority of women. Some women might travel out of state to have an abortion but I bet that it is rare. Restricting/banning abortion in state means many women are less pressured by abortion advertising or families to have an abortion

Some teenagers likely travel to Mexico where you can drink alcohol at 18. Federal law in the US is 21. But people are not advocating lowering the age because you can go to Mexico to drink under that age. Best interest of majority of teenagers is put first with the federal law and those that are found breaking the law get in trouble

You bet it is rare for women to travel out of state for abortions? I’ve been reading and hearing (from the horse’s mouth) about that happening for years - even before this recent rash of legislation. Women living in areas with strong community opposition to abortion, sometimes seek it further away for a variety of reasons. The more desperate they are, the further they will go to get what they want - unless…perhaps…they learn not to want it in the first place.

 

[rlg94086]

I’m not in favor of any dollars on abortion, tax or otherwise. But I have read of the Mexico City Policy and there is a debate (not a full convincing one) that has not been addressed by its proponents, in which it is claimed that the policy actually led to more abortions because it defunded US organizations providing contraception - services on which women in many parts of the world had come to rely on.

The intent of the policy was great, but the effects might have been dictated by the law of unintended consequences. Even if it did not increase abortions, where is the evidence that it decreased them or that it was anything more than a symbolic political gesture?

I see, so, as a Catholic, you are opposed to spending tax dollars on abortion but in favor of spending it on the spread of contraception.

We shouldn’t spend out tax dollars on either, and you are opposing a policy that prohibits spending on abortion, because some people claim that it might have increased abortions. You expect those of us who are consistent on our opposition to spending to address those claims. Well, consider them addressed. They are conjecture.

 

[rlg94086]

You bet it is rare for women to travel out of state for abortions? I’ve been reading and hearing (from the horse’s mouth) about that happening for years - even before this recent rash of legislation. Women living in areas with strong community opposition to abortion, sometimes seek it further away for a variety of reasons. The more desperate they are, the further they will go to get what they want - unless…perhaps…they learn not to want it in the first place.

Translation: I oppose abortion restrictions because people might go elsewhere to get an abortion.

 

[seekerz]

I see, so, as a Catholic, you are opposed to spending tax dollars on abortion but in favor of spending it on the spread of contraception.

I never said that. ***The US government *** encourages and promotes contraception as a means of ‘developing’ the Third World regardless of what Catholics here or elsewhere believe. They promote dependency on their ABC services as one of the best forms of ‘aid’ - until such time as the leader of the hour wants to make a political statement with an eye to the US electorate; then they pull the plug and those who cannot swim get swept away in the wash water.

We shouldn’t spend out tax dollars on either, and you are opposing a policy that prohibits spending on abortion, because some people claim that it might have increased abortions. You expect those of us who are consistent on our opposition to spending to address those claims. Well, consider them addressed. They are conjecture.

Conjecture? Do you know what the policy actually says and how it chooses which organization gets or doesn’t get tax dollars? You wanted an explanation for my stance and now you dismiss it as conjecture?

Of what use is anti-abortion legislation policy or law if it cannot be shown to actually save lives? Meanwhile, in the opposite camp…policies that prevent real babies form seeing the light of day are crafted…they don’t waste their money on theories and ‘should bes’…

 

[_Abyssinia]

You bet it is rare for women to travel out of state for abortions? I’ve been reading and hearing (from the horse’s mouth) about that happening for years - even before this recent rash of legislation. Women living in areas with strong community opposition to abortion, sometimes seek it further away for a variety of reasons. The more desperate they are, the further they will go to get what they want - unless…perhaps…they learn not to want it in the first place.

Study by National Bureau of Economic Research says state ban on abortion would reduce abortion and women wanting abortion are sensitive to the travel costs they would need to pay to travel out of state for abortion

 

[seekerz]

Translation: I oppose abortion restrictions because people might go elsewhere to get an abortion.

Translate away. I was responding to a statement that women going out of state to have abortions is rare.

My translation of your post: I support abortion restrictions even if they turn out not to really restrict anything.

 

[seekerz]

Study by National Bureau of Economic Research says state ban on abortion would reduce abortion and women wanting abortion are sensitive to the travel costs they would need to pay to travel out of state for abortion

What else would supporters of abortion rights say? Who profits if there are less clinics? How can one predict less abortions resulting from less clinics by using clinic figures?