Romney Code to Pro-Choicers: You Have Nothing to Fear From Me

“There’s no legislation with regards to abortion that I’m familiar with that would become part of my agenda.” 

I know the Romney apologists out there are going to take me to task for saying this, but I interpret this comment as the Governor, playing both sides again. “No new legislation” sounds like a sop to get the votes of the on-the-fence pro-choice Republicans.

Yes. There are pro-choice Republicans. The wealthier areas of Oklahoma City vote heavily Republican, but when you talk to them one-on-one, they are, as a group, strongly pro choice. I know because I have campaigned those areas in depth, going from voter to voter and listening to what they have to say. They are pro choice.

This parallels the less affluent areas which are pro life but vote Democratic. Both areas are voting economics, not life issues.

To get back to the discussion at hand, I think Governor Romney is saying in a not-so-coded way that he will reinstate the Mexico City policy but do nothing else about pro-life issues.

Do you understand what that means? It means more of what we’ve been getting for the past 40 years.

I am not arguing that President Obama is the most pro abortion president in history. That’s obvious. What I AM saying is that Governor Romney is not going to do anything at all about pro life issues unless we MAKE him, and once he’s elected, making him is going to be tough. I think both candidates are pro choice. It’s a matter of degree.

Mark Shea says that the Republican Party treats pro life people the way that a batterer treats a battered wife. He’s right. There is a HUGE difference between the way the Republicans treat us and the way that the Democrats treat Planned Parenthood and other pro-abortion lobbies. Huge.

Whoever wins this election, we are in for a fight. That’s what I’m trying to get across. The article I’m referring to begins below.

Ok now. Lay into me.

Romney promises no abortion legislation
By STEVE PEOPLES | Associated Press – 56 mins ago

DES MOINES, Iowa (AP) — Wading into an explosive social issue, Republican Mitt Romney on Tuesday said he would not pursue any abortion-related legislation if elected president.
“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.
The former Massachusetts governor said he would instead use an executive order to reinstate the so-called Mexico City policy that bans American aid from funding abortions. President Barack Obama waived the order soon after taking office.
Still unclear is what Romney would do if a Republican-controlled Congress passed abortion legislation and presented it to him to sign into law.
The Romney campaign sought to walk back the comments soon after they were posted on the Register’s website. “Gov. Romney would of course support legislation aimed at providing greater protections for life,” spokeswoman Andrea Saul said, declining to elaborate. (Read more here.)

  • http://nebraskaenergyobserver.wordpress.com neenergyobserver

    No laying into here. I think you’re right. I also think that there is no conceivable federal legislation that will fix it. What needs to happen is that Roe v Wade needs to be vacated by the court, and the issue taken back to the states where it belongs. A proper court would have no problem at all figuring out that the right to life trumps a fabricated part of the right to privacy.

    To fix it in Washington would require a constitutional amendment and it’s not going to happen anytime soon, unfortunately.

    • Rebecca Hamilton

      I agree this is a tough slog, but I think it’s probably where we need to go.
      “To fix it in Washington would require a constitutional amendment “

      • http://nebraskaenergyobserver.wordpress.com neenergyobserver

        I won’t say you’re wrong here, it’s just such a huge problem to get done. As you know, I tend to be wary of over-federalization, but if that’s what it takes, that’s what it takes.

  • Arkenaten

    You are going to be bashing your head against a wall for another forty years as well if you refuse to recognise that the focus of this whole issue is misplaced.
    You may consider you have the moral high ground (maybe you do?) and have God’s written backing in the Bible, your chance of reaching your ultimate objective in this fashion is probably nil.
    Abortion has been practised in one form or another since time immemorial so what makes you think it will stop any time soon merely because of more aggresive modes of campaigning?
    The focus should be on preventing unwanted pregnancy in a safe and hopefully non-chemical (drug usage) way.
    Remove all aspects of guilt, tacit insinuations of murder, and especially religious condemnations,
    The States have some of the most advanced medical institutions and doctors in the world. Are you truly telling me a Government that spends 700 BILLION DOLLARS on arms, designed, if push comes to shove, primarily to kill people can’t afford to invest a few billion in such a worthwhile cause as advanced contraceptive research? A form of supoerior contraception that can be administered ( and distributed through clinics etc. ) until a woman wants a child?
    THIS is what you should be campaigning for. And if there’s money to be made then a drug company will be right behind you. Remember Viagra? Right!
    And if you were to achieve this and the Pope wouldn’t make you a saint, Rebecca, millions of woman will regard you as one.

    Prioritise and Focus.

    • Ted Seeber

      And that’s why I’ve given up hope on America. This empire is dying. Viva Christo Rey!

    • Ted Seeber

      BTW, why are you bigoted against unplanned children to such an extent that you feel we need to commit murder to get rid of them?

    • Ted Seeber

      And thirdly, why do you feel women need to poison their bodies to stop “unwanted” or “unplanned” children?

      Wouldn’t it be better to completely redesign our society from the ground up to work WITH nature instead of AGAINST it?

      • Arkenaten

        I have never once acknowledged that abortion is the answer. Stop beiong a twit. Maybe you don’t read so good, Ted.
        Stick your bible in your pocket for a few minutes and rather than make wild and inflammatory statements, think.

    • Rebecca Hamilton

      Douglas, you always raise some unrelated point and then call it an argument. I don’t disagree with you about the issue of unjust wars and empire. But I don’t see how this justifies killing babies. As to the fact that abortion has always been around, most of the reasons for abortion find their basis in misogyny. I agree that the only way to save the babies is to save their mothers. Your idea that by eliminating religious discrimination against women (something I heartily agree with about, btw) it will somehow end abortion is utopian nonsense that fell down alongside the Berlin Wall. Consider China, as one for instance. When people are regarded as nothing, as they are by definition in a materialistic atheist philosophical construct, then any atrocity is not only possible, but if it can be justified on a material basis, it has no effective argument against it.
      Christianity has and does fail to live up to its ideals, but those who advance this fallen Christianity find that their ideas are always forfeit before the Gospels. What I’m saying is that there IS a counter argument against the abuse of people in Christianity. It’s the one I keep advancing over and over on this blog.

      Not everyone will respond to it, but many will.

      • Arkenaten

        You refuse to see the issue in any other terms than your own.
        If they can put a man on the moon then the issues of unwanted pregnancy can be solved, and solved in a fashion that eliminates the need for abortion.
        It is not a utopian fantasy but merely applied science and changing social conscience.
        It merely depends on how much you REALLY want to find a win win solution.
        I realise this might upset the Catholic standpoint regarding contraception being a sin, but there are millions of Catholic women who use it, so this hypocrisy is old hat.
        If reasons for abortion are primarily mysongenist (and again, it would be nice if you supplied figures to back this) then women need to retain power over their own bodies.
        Prevention is better than the so called ‘cure’.
        You keep hammering on that this is a power struggle between Christian morality and atheist amorality. What poppycock! This is merely hyperbole.
        I am an outright atheist. Do you think I would have forced that Chinese woman to have an abortion?
        Please don’t EVER stick me in the same box as this.
        I am not justifying abortion, it is not my choice to make, I am merely stating as fact that your approach is GUARANTEED to fail. It is always going to hurt someone. It has failed all along and will continue to do so. And all you are doing is polarising the pro lifers and pro choice.
        Find a way to prevent the pregnancy. This will return power to women, uplift their socio economic status and with a bit of luck make the religious crowd happy too.
        All you are doing is drum beating and its way beyond passe. Do something that will have a genuine possitive outcome.
        That will be a worthwhile cause in anyone’s book.

  • http://scpeanutgallery.com Art Chartier

    Elect Romney first, then hassle him on pro-life issues. He may not be an ideal pro-life candidate, but he’s a damn site better than the other guy. It is what it is.

    • http://www.rosariesforlife.com Dave

      No! Definitely not! Hold his feet to the fire right now, and let him know he doesn’t have our vote unless he convinces us of his pro-life credentials. No more mixed messages. Then, continue to hold him to the fire once he is elected. That is, if you are planning to vote for him. I am not sure myself yet, whether I can bring myself to pull the lever for Romney.

      The thing about voting for the lesser evil over and over, I have found, is that you tend to end up with worse and worse candidates.

      • Arkenaten

        LOL And a fat chance you have of that fantasy coming true….
        “Oh, Dave. I don’t think we’re in Kansas anymore…”

        • http://www.rosariesforlife.com Dave

          What fantasy is that? Romney convincing people of his pro-life credentials? I would tend to agree with you on that one.

          • Arkenaten

            The pro lifers don’t like Obama, but he seems a more straight shooter than his counterpart.
            But as I say to Rebecca, you guys are going about thisabortion issue all the wrong way.
            You will never win the argument on any moral or religious grounds, never in a month of Sundays, and Romney is too astute to commit on such a sensitive and explosive issue. If he does, he will lose any chance of parking his butt in the Oval.

      • http://scpeanutgallery.com Art Chartier

        So… you’ll do better with the current administration?

  • http://scpeanutgallery.com Art Chartier

    That should have been “dam site better.” Probably a Freudian slip.

  • http://scpeanutgallery.com Art Chartier

    On third thought – after further research – it should be “a damn sight better.” Dam late-night idioms.

  • Theresa

    I saw this article on the yahoo ticker yesterday and wondered if you would post about it. This is exactly like the point you made not too long ago about neither party really wanting to get any real movement on this issue. It’s sad, but it’s true; this issue is too easily exploited for personal-political gain for either party to really want anything changed. If Romney gets elected, he wouldn’t dare touch this issue with a ten-foot pole during the first 4 years. How else could he get a second term? If he gets to a second term, he would have to ride into it on the coat-tails of an AMAZING 1st term where at least 75% of Americans thought he walked on water. Then, maybe, if in the depths of who he is as a person, he sees abortion as a true evil, and if pro-life politicians who really see abortion as a true evil are the vast majority in both the house and the senate, then maybe something could happen. But this doesn’t seem very likely. It’s not that I don’t want to see legislation enacted some day, but even a person-hood amendment would have such vast far-reaching consequences it’s not likely to happen. Rumor has it, pharmaceutical companies bank a lot from oral contraception, IUDs and the entire IVF industry. Their lobbying alone would squash legislation! I think long before any legislation could be enacted, we would have to have a seismic shift on a social level where abortion becomes an unthinkable evil, and our societal understanding of the definition of abortion would have to broaden seriously. Let’s just say where a candidate claims to stand on the issue of life has very little impact on my vote.


CLOSE | X

HIDE | X