Romney Surrogate Says Roe is Safe

Once again the Romney campaign is trying to be on both sides of a very important issue at the same time. He’s done everything he could to convince the base that he is as anti-choice as they are, saying he would appoint justices like Scalia to the Supreme Court and that he would “absolutely” support a personhood amendment. But now one of his surrogates is trying to tell voters, especially independent women, not to worry, that Roe v Wade is safe if Romney is elected.

In the frenetic push to win all-important Ohio, Mitt Romney’s campaign is saying a lot of things to a lot of people. And on Monday, a top Romney surrogate told a group of Jewish voters in the Buckeye State that the landmark Supreme Court decision granting women the right to an abortion is in no danger of being overturned should Romney become president.

“President Bush was president eight years, Roe v. Wade wasn’t reversed. He had two Supreme Court picks, Roe v. Wade wasn’t reversed,” former Sen. Norm Coleman (R-MN) told a Republican Jewish Coalition meeting in Beechwood, Ohio. “It’s not going to be reversed.”

But this is almost certainly wrong. There are four clear votes to overturn it on the court right now — Scalia, Thomas, Roberts and Alito. Justice Kennedy famously changed his vote in 1992, originally agreeing to overturn Roe and later flipping his vote to the other side to preserve that ruling while allowing more peripheral restrictions like waiting periods, mandatory notifications and so forth. If a single justice from the liberal side of the court retires or dies in the next four years — and remember, Justice Ginsburg is 79 years old and has already had colon and pancreatic cancer — then Roe is gone.

"Care to cite this map you're referring to?"

Christian Con Man Disproves Global Warming
"My goodness. They've supported the idea for a hundred and twenty years. Who rewrote chemistry ..."

Christian Con Man Disproves Global Warming
"Yeah? Well MY Eskimo friend can beat up YOUR Eskimo friend...One would think that the ..."

Christian Con Man Disproves Global Warming

Browse Our Archives

Follow Us!

What Are Your Thoughts?leave a comment
  • Doug Little

    Really? Who would listen to this and believe it given the Republican’s track record. It smacks of pure desperation.

  • Michael Heath

    A major annoyance for me right now is when someone on the TV news points out a contradiction in Romney’s rhetoric, the Romney spokesperson notes his current position and the journalist acts as if they’ve done their job informing their viewers. I just saw that on CNN the other evening. The CNN journalist followed the Romney spokesperson concluding that was the Romney position, in spite of the fact he’s making contra arguments in other venues.

    No you have not done your job Ms. Journalist, you’ve instead misinformed your audience by failing to report that Mr. Romney is all over the board on nearly all matters which care to voters; where his multiple positions are not serial and therefore arguably part of his beneficially adapting as he claims, but instead simultaneous.

    Except for climate change, the most important issue of our generation where journalists don’t even raise the question allowing Mr. Romney to spread the lies that:

    a) scientists don’t understand the sources of warming and can’t parse and measure various forcings and their respective amounts and,

    b) aren’t predicting great harm with high confidence.

    Journalists are incredibly effective allies to Mr. Romney in regards to his and the GOP’s demonstrated commitment to fucking the future of humanity for his own personal aggrandizement, even at the expense of their own progeny. Mr. Romney’s failure in character goes way beyond Sarah Palin’s with the possible exception of her fantasies of leading the world into Armageddon. We don’t know if his lack of character goes beyond Messers Cheney and Bush 43 simply because he’s yet to be extended the opportunity to sufficiently test the depths of his character failure. I sincerely hope we don’t get the chance to observe that test.

  • eric

    I’m not sure a pro-choice Romney’s personal opinion would even matter that much. Such a GOP president might be able to propose a pro-choice SCOTUS candidate and get away with it if the Dems had solid control of the Senate. Say, 60 seats. In that case, he could just say his hand was forced; he had to compromise to get their consent. But that’s a very unlikely scenario.

    Much more likely, numbers will be almost even. In which case, no GOP president is going to nominate a pro-choice SCOTUS judge. It would anger too many of his own party’s legislators, who he needs in order to pass legislation. On horsetrading principles alone, he wouldn’t pick a pro-choice candidate. Its politically naive to think Romney would do it even if he wanted to.

  • slc1

    Just in case anyone missed it, Rmoney rattled his etch a sketch again, reversing his stand on FEMA. The fact that this asshole is still in striking distance of winning the election indicates that the future of this country is very much in doubt.

  • baal

    The correct journalistic response to Romney surrogates is, “bullshit!” (or what Mr.Heath said)

    It really speaks to how well trained the right is that they put up with this amount of bald faced lying.

  • former Sen. Norm Coleman (R-MN) told a Republican Jewish Coalition meeting in Beechwood, Ohio. “It’s not going to be reversed.”

    Tell me why, or STFU. Does Romney plan to nominate only candidates for the Supreme Court whom he feels sure will not overturn Roe? If not, then on what basis are we to believe this statement, even assuming we believe that Romney does actually plan to do that (which there’s no way in hell he does)?

    Sen. Coleman appears to have taken bullshitting lessons from the great master himself.

  • raven

    I’ve stopped paying attention to even trying to understand Romney’s positions on anything.

    1. He has had every position on every issue, and its opposite.

    2. The Tea Party/GOP lies about everything anyway. No point in believing a word they say.

    Romney is an empty suit being run by others. I suppose they will do what Bush did, loot the country any way they can for their own benefit.

    When it crashes again, try to blame it on Bill Clinton, Obama, commies, and demons.

    The usual.

    well trained the right is that they put up with this amount of bald faced lying.

    Lying is a major sacrament of fundie xians. They don’t “put up” with it, it is a mandatory religious duty.

  • marcozandrini

    Roe is “safe”? “Safe” as in its “safe” to say W. Mitty will sign a bill that outlaws abortion. That’s a “safe” bet.

  • dugglebogey

    We completely disagree with a law, so much so that we raised our hand in a primary stating so, but we won’t do anything to change that law.

    You know….leadership!

  • Reginald Selkirk

    From the linked article:

    Late update:

    Asked about his comments by the AP, Coleman said he wasn’t speaking for Romney.

  • Seriously, Romney has more positions than the Kama Sutra.

  • eric

    Asked about his comments by the AP, Coleman said he wasn’t speaking for Romney.

    Ahhh. It was one of those “not intended to be a factual statement” comments.

  • Tony–Queer Duck Overlord of The Bronze–


    Roe is “safe”? “Safe” as in its “safe” to say W. Mitty will sign a bill that outlaws abortion. That’s a “safe” bet.

    With access to abortion clinics diminishing across the country, Mittens may not have to sign any bills into law.

  • Gregory in Seattle wrote:

    Seriously, Romney has more positions than the Kama Sutra.


  • Michael Heath

    raven writes:

    He has had every position on every issue, and its opposite.

    I realize this is popular but it’s not true. Plus it’s revealing to consider the positions where he’s consistent*.

    He’s consistent in arguing he won’t raise revenue from an effective increase in tax rates. Instead he’s using the same false argument Bush 43 and Paul Ryan did. That his tax reform will not require tax hikes because he’ll generate increased tax revenues from higher growth rates.

    He’s consistent we will go to war with Iran if they obtain nuclear weapon capability (though so is Barack Obama).

    He’s consistent in denying the scientific consensus on global warming. He denies the fact it’s caused by humans, he denies the fact that the relevant scientific consensus is near monolithic – as allied as a scientific body could be, and he denies the implications of ‘business as usual’ as reported by the scientific community along with the re-insurance industry. Therefore he’s very consistent in arguing he won’t leverage government power to mitigate this threat while consistently promising to promote policies which will cause far more human suffering far faster.

    He’s been consistent in his promise to work to maintain and even extend the imposition of Christian-fueled hatred and bigotry of gays by force of law.

    He’s been consistent in noting he will not fight for the equal rights of women, Muslims, non-Christians, or others who are denied their equal rights.

    I’m sure there others and I’m confident those items which are missing are predominately repugnant.

    *I realize he’s expressed support for gays and climate change policies when he was falsely posing as a moderate. My framework here is the positions he took into the 2012 campaign season, partly because he consistently developed and executed policies back then to what I now describe him promising in this entire campaign season. Mostly because on the other major positions he’s simultaneously talking out of both sides of his mouth.

  • gmacs

    I can tell you the same thing PZ and Biodork will tell you. Living in Minnesota, I have learned not to trust a damn thing Norm Coleman says. He’s like a nastier, more dishonest Romney.

    It actually concerns me to hear his name popping up again. We only narrowly got rid of him in 2008. He’s a terrible person, but a good politician.

  • StevoR

    @ ^ gmacs :

    {Norm Coleman is] like a nastier, more dishonest Romney.

    More dishonest than Mittens Rmoney? That’s unpossible!

    Equally dishonest I might believe, more than, never!