Romney/Ryan concede women’s right to control their bodies matters

Just noticed this post on Ed’s blog noting that Ryan has flip-flopped on abortion in cases of rape, and the campaign has now announced, “A Romney-Ryan administration would not oppose abortion in instances of rape.” I just want to note that this is, in effect, a concession of the key pro-choice point that women’s right to control their bodies matters.

Not that I actually expect them to take this point to heart outside the narrow issue of abortion and rape. It’s just that it’s very hard to see a consistent way for them to take the position they have without admitting that, yes, the right of women to control their bodies really matters.

  • csrster

    Does anyone know how-tf this would work in practice? Would pregnant women have to prove in court that they were raped in order to get an Abortion Permit? Who would represent them? Who would have the right to oppose them? What would prevent the case dragging out for months, which would make it pretty moot anyway?

  • Reginald Selkirk

    “A Romney-Ryan administration would not oppose abortion in instances of rape.”

    I think you are way over-interpreting the article. This does not have to be a flipflop for Ryan, just an acknowledgement that a VP defers to the president in matters of policy.
    It’s not even clear that there is that much substance to it. What is meant by the statement? If a Republican House and Senate put an anti-abortion bill with no rape exception on Romney’s desk, would he veto it? I think that would be an overly generous interpretation. Or does it just mean that Romney will not actively push for such a bill?
    And what if Romney is raptured and Ryan takes over? It would be a mistake to read the brief statement above as a promise from Ryan not to pursue anti-abortion legislation if he ascended to the presidency.
    Finally, the statement leaves clear the erosion of reproductive rights in cases not involving rape.

    • Chris Hallquist

      Good points. But there’s a degree of acknowledgement that forcing a woman to have her rapist’s baby is pretty barbaric.

  • eric

    Not that I actually expect them to take this point to heart outside the narrow issue of abortion and rape.

    I do not expect them to take this point to heart ON the narrow issue of abortion and rape, past November 7th.

  • andyman409

    This policy doesn’t seem right to me. I always thought the entire point of being pro life was to favor the rights of the fetus over those of the mother. If that’s the case, than why should they make an exception for rape babies? What makes them different- that the sex was unconsentual? From a conservatives perspective, aren’t they still ending a human life, on the grounds that the mother does not want to care for the baby? And this is ignoring how on earth they plan to determine whether or not the baby really is a rape baby or not. Most cases of rape go under the radar. Most victims don’t talk. And sadly, much of the time the perp is someone related to the victim. This just seems like a way of attracting moderates raised in religious households.

  • dailydouq

    I suspect Ryan had enough dog whistles in there to keep the right happy that he’s only doing this as spin to fool the independents.

    I’ve seen many commentators take an entirely different line. Just like most people on the Net grew up with it and never knew a world without the Net, Ryan has grown up with the Repugs as a theological party. The older set grew up with it as a more inclusive party (once upon a time Repugs won in the northeast but purity has stopped that). The Repugs have always been about the rich and the wingnuts were invited in just for votes.

    But Ryan thinks in a different order than Mittwit. Mittwit thinks of money first, and of, well nothing as he’s only about money, second; Ryan thinks of the bible first, then money (for himself and his friends, not the rest of us). So the social conservatives, aka, nasty narrow-minded repressive assholes, have had enough of cycle after cycle delivering the votes and Roe is still there and personhood still hasn’t happened and government supported prayer is still illegal. In short, the money Repugs haven’t delivered much to the theomob.

    So Ryan is just lying and the theocracy crowd knows it. He’s got his name on redefinition of rape, he’s got his name on personhood, every pulpit will explain this. So he can lie to the rest of us and the theomob will know he’s lying.

    But also he did his lying in a very sneaky way. He merely submitted to authority, i.e. Romney is leading the ticket and is so confused about this his position-of-the-day conflicted with Ryan so Ryan is merely giving in. Now submission to authority is the key to religion so Ryan is just giving in to what the elder prophet wants today, tomorrow there will be a different prophet (presumably Ryan himself).

    So it’s just a game, not a flip-flop.