« Who are libertarians? | Main | Last debate »

October 22, 2012

Comments

This doesn't make Romney pro-choice. I have the same position on abortion as Todd Akin, but if I were president I'd understand that there aren't enough votes to pass a constitutional amendment to return jurisdiction to the states where it belongs. Having a realistic view of what can be accomplished doesn't change what your actual views are.

OT. but Romney is surprisingly funny. Excellent speech.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=NIHbe-aO6oI#!

Huh?

That means he he is going to focus on the economic crisis. Unlike Obama who spent his time pandering to the 3% Gheys.

Mitt Romney himself just said this: "There's no legislation with regards to abortion that I'm familiar with that would become part of my agenda," he told the Des Moines Register in an interview posted on the newspaper's website.
http://finance.yahoo.com/news/romney-promises-no-abortion-legislation-004508435--election.html

I wouldn't make them illegal either, I would just use the FDA and other administrative agencies to make performing them basically un-thinkable if a doctor wants to retain his practice. It's not that you can't open an abortion clinic, it's just that it will bankrupt you. Unless you are serving "at risk" communities. Then of course exceptions will be made.

This is mildly reassuring to me, but I don't think I can vote for Romney because I heard the republicans want to put black people back in chains.

Mitt romney will nominate conservative justices to the supreme court that will overturn Roe v. Wade. It is obvious that he is not going to call for any amendment of the constitution. But he will nominate Scalia/Thomas/Alito like justices and those justices will do the rest of the work.

"...liberals don’t want to mention this because they think that Mitt would get more votes from moderates..."

This is incorrect. They truly believe he wants to completely ban all abortions.

My sense is that the Romney campaign is determined to control the message, keep focused on the economy. You know, like all the libertarian types have been saying the GOP should do. So yeah they figured it out.

I hope it works for him.

"It’s strange that this startling piece of news has not had more prominent coverage."

Startling that Romney's sister said something politically helpful for him? Yeah, the press should jump all over that.

If Romney is pro choice you can be sure the Dems will keep that secret. They need abortion to scare their womenfolk. They are not going to give up that issue.

Most people on the far-right (e.g. Todd Akin) know that Mitt Romney is a liberal and that the media lies about him. The only people deluded about his "extreme abortion" position are the same feminazis, the same ones in 2008 who thought that an idiotic moderate like Palin is "ultra conservative" (yeah right!).

Mitt's sister said what I said in your last post on this topic. Abortion is irrelevant to this election.

You can't vote for just Mitt Romney. You must vote for the religious extremist and anti-abortion radical Paul Ryan, too. Ryan could easily become president at some point during Romney's two terms. Romney will be 73 by the end of his second term.

[HS: It's possible, but Romney looks pretty healthy and presidents usually live a long time. Jimmy Carter is still alive. Ford lived into his nineties. George HW Bush is 88 and still healthy.]

Romney did counsel women against have an abortion, so certainly, on a personal level, he thinks its wrong (this is also the Mormon position). As far as legislation goes, I don't foresee him giving federal funds for abortion.
I do see him nominating judges like Scalia/Thomas/Roberts/Alito, but even if Roe v Wade is overturned, this just sends it back to the states. The Northeast will always have easily available abortions, as will the west coast. YMMV in between these two locales.
Some on the left may see this as a bad thing, but Thomas/Scalia voted against Kelo vs New London, CT, which is easily worse than unfettered access to abortion on a federal level.

This is why the religious right should give up on abortion and focus on real social issues, like immigration, school choice, affirmative action, etc. Politicians don't care about it. Roe v. Wade is nearly 40 years old. Abortion will never be illegal. The entire issue is a distraction from far more pressing concerns.

I'm against later-term abortions (after 2-3) months, but if some woman wants to kill her baby in utero then it's basically a form of eugenics. If abortion were less available we might be more serious about procreation and stop treating sex as merely recreational activity, but I'm not holding my breath.

The comments to this entry are closed.