Romney's mail piece on abortion was roundly criticized by his Republican rivals.
COLUMBIA, South Carolina (CNN) – Former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney's presidential campaign recently sent out a slick mail piece in South Carolina emphatically stating that Romney is "the only major presidential candidate who supports the Republican party's pro-life platform: A constitutional amendment banning abortion nationwide."
That blanket declaration is aimed directly at many of the state's conservative primary voters, who believe abortion should be outlawed in full.
But the claim doesn't completely square with Romney's previous statements that the abortion issue should first be decided by state legislatures before a constitutional amendment can be passed, leading one conservative leader in the state to call parts of the Romney brochure "oversimplified" and "offensive."
Romney's claim in the mailer, obtained last week by CNN, also opened the door for three of his Republican opponents campaigning in South Carolina to hammer Romney on his past support for abortion rights.
Romney, according to previous statements, actually favors overturning Roe vs. Wade and returning the issue to the states as a stop gap measure until enough votes can be gathered in the Senate to pass an amendment.
In a 2005 Boston Globe op-ed, Romney wrote that he is "pro-life" but said that "while the nation remains so divided over abortion, I believe that the states, through the democratic process, should determine their own abortion laws and not have them dictated by judicial mandate."
Asked about whether those statements conflict with the mailer's straightforward claim that he supports an amendment banning abortion nationwide, a Romney aide directed CNN to a Christian Broadcasting Network interview from Monday with James Bopp, Jr., Romney's advisor on "life issues."
Bopp said in the interview that Romney believes an amendment is "not possible right now" because the votes are not there, "but what is possible is reversing Roe vs. Wade."
Bopp added that Romney's state approach is consistent with "a federalism approach" because a constitutional amendment would ultimately require ratification by three-fourths of the states.
Oran Smith, president of the Palmetto Family Council - the South Carolina affiliate of Dr. James Dobson's organization, Focus on the Family - said that Romney brochure is "oversimplified and unnecessary."
"It's really unnecessary for Romney in many ways," Smith said. "He had a pretty good record as governor. He doesn't need to resort to oversimplifying his record."
Smith also dismissed the brochure's use of the term "major candidate," which apparently excludes former Arkansas governor Mike Huckabee, who poses a challenge to Romney with his recent strides among religious conservatives, most notably in Iowa.
Romney dropped a mailing in Iowa about gay marriage this week that also excludes Huckabee.
"You can't say before any election has been held anywhere who is and who isn't a major candidate," Smith said. "I find the use of that term rather offensive."
Former Arkansas governor Mike Huckabee, a staunch abortion rights opponent, said at a campaign stop in South Carolina on Saturday that he too supports an amendment banning abortion.
"Long before he was even pro-life, I was pushing the Human Life Amendment," Huckabee said. "Where Mitt comes up with that, I have no idea. You'll have to ask him how he can manufacture such ideas."
Huckabee, along with former Tennessee senator Fred Thompson and Arizona Sen. John McCain, have all campaigned in South Carolina in recent days.
Asked about the mailer, all three blasted Romney for his past support for abortion rights, with Thompson on Saturday going so far as to call Romney "one of the most adamant pro-choice advocates that I had ever seen."
Thompson, who supports overturning Roe vs. Wade and letting states decide their own abortion laws, does not support a constitutional amendment banning abortion.
McCain said Tuesday in South Carolina that he does support an amendment, and that Romney's mail piece "is certainly dramatically different from his passionate defense of a woman's right to choose that used to be his position both verbally and in writing."
McCain told ABC News last year that said he supports a constitutional amendment with exceptions for rape and incest, but that he is ultimately a federalist and isn't confident such an amendment will be passed.
The other leading Republican candidate, former New York City mayor Rudy Giuliani, is a supporter of abortion rights but has repeatedly said he will appoint "strict constructionist judges."
– CNN South Carolina Producer Peter Hamby
From CNN Politics
© 2011 Cable News Network. Turner Broadcasting System, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
| Advertising practices | Advertise with us | About us | Contact us | Work for us | Help
Republicans do believe in "Evolution" that's what they call it, when you change your position to agree with theirs. Otherwise they call it waffling and waving.
Everybody is just trying to out do each other. It is sounding like a boasting session of boys talking about how much they have done (in sports or treating women as sex objects etc). I would like to have the candidates just talk about their own record. I guess that is too much to ask at this point. It would be nice if the various media outlets would work together to verify claims that the candidates make.
*sigh*
Funny how the Pro-Lifers always want to 'save a life' but they never want to help out physically or financially. They prefer just to tell other people what they think they should be doing.
Who honestly cares about these lackluster candidates.
Where is my man Dr. Ron Paul?
Surely, you could have included his position on this issue. Afterall, he is an obstetrician.
CNN just keep getting worse...
All I can say is I hope Mitt and all his conservative cronies are going to take care of all the unwanted children he would create with is pro life stance. Until he can control everyones life and keep pregnancies from happening that aren't wanted he better have a great welfare plan for picking up the slack. He needs to keep government out of the doctors office and our personal lives.
Some STUNNING news from Iowa this morning: Huckabee is ahead in front of Romney for the first time ever in a new poll of the caucuses just released this morning!
Every story can't be about Ron Paul, Alexander. Especially when he doesn't stand a snowball's chance in hell of getting the GOP nomination.
Yet another example of how the Republican candidates are falling over themselves to be first in line to impose their religious beliefs on an entire nation. It would be interesting to hear their answer to the question: what do you say to the majority of American people who support abortion rights? The GOP has become the American Taliban, because under their idea of government, American women would become second class citizens.
"Republicans do believe in "Evolution" that's what they call it, when you change your position to agree with theirs. Otherwise they call it waffling and waving."
Posted By Ivan, Chicago, Illinois
Ivan, What do you call it when Hillary and Bill Clinton switch there views on a daily basis?
When you are a lib, it is considered a grey area... no such thing as a "yes, no"... or maybe it all depends on what the definition of the word "is" is.
Let's see if CNN bothers to post this one.
Mike Cobb, you are absolutely right. It's about time the GOP realized that their love affair with the Christian right is getting moldy, especially for those of us who still believe in individual liberty. (Just who should own my body, anyway?)
I'm sick and tired of extremists of any mold, except...
"Extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice." - Barry Goldwater, GOP Presidential candidate 1964
Bring back the good old days.
Why does a cultist like the Mittster bother pandering to a Neanderthal population when such a nationwide ban has no chance of surviving Supreme Court review?
I'm so tired of the Republican party trying to take away my rights. I don't need their 'version' of religion shoved down my throat.
I'll also note, these are all men, who really have no right to decide.
"Flip" Romney is at it again! Does he even know where he stands? How does he expect us to know, if he does not know?
It is also pretty ridiculous considering of all the candidates McCain and Thompson have been more anti-choice than Romney. Thompson was also endorsed by the national right-to-life party. That said I would still rather Romney over Rudy.
The only time the Publicans care about a child is in the womb, after that...forget it. Look at the CHIP bill. Enough said!!!!
I think Roe v. Wade has been the law long enough that many people have forgotten the whole issue of what back-street illegal abortions were like. These people who support amendments making abortion illegal must be too young to remember why it was made legal in the first place.
Panderer.
The abortion issue is a difficult one.
On the one hand, I am totally against the practice. I think is horrible and denies the life and freedoms of the unborn. On the other hand, I do understand how an abortion ban could be viewed as a limit on personal freedoms. Personally, I think we should have a vote and let the people decide. Hopefully, they would make the right decision.
On a side note: Romney did flip on this issue. However, his record in MA illustrates that he took the side of life everytime legislation was brought to him.
Ron Paul has a better track record on this issue than ANY other candidate. He's been consistent throughout his career. Funny how the religious right shys away from him. Must have something to do with his reluctance to bomb people in other countries. So CNN, is it really that hard to research that info on Ron Paul, or are your "journalists" just really lazy?
Whatever happened to the pill and other
devices for avoiding pregancy. I do not think I am solidly pro life because I think compassion should be used in these cases. But look at the number of cases where people go to foreign countries to adopt children. Adoption should be cheaper and easier in this country and access to pregnacy prevention methods should be more available to women. There should be something done to help to solve the problem other than the wholesale slaughter of babies. The toll today is so horrendous that it is sickning.
Romney is really resorting to garbage tactics with this mailer opposing abortion. You can look up any of his interviews while running for governor of MA and he never says that he is pro-life. See Romney on youtube.com.
I think that he will say or do anything to try to get the Republican nomination.
Clearly he is changing his position.
I am a 'Republican for Choice'.
http://www.republicansforchoice.com
Mitt Romney has been doing this since he decided to run in the the election. He took whatever view neede to win in MA. Now he has a new constituency. His real views are extreme conservatism, don't let him fool you. He had to get permission from "the brethren" in Salt Lake City before he could even take the positions he did in MA.
Congressman Ron Paul is a medical doctor who has delivered 4000 babies in his career. That's about as pro-life as it gets. No other GOP candidate for president can touch that claim.
No body, let me repeat no body, has the right to dictate when a life ends. I hope that some day R vs. W is put to the peoples vote because the media has overinflated the concept that most poeple are pro-choice. Think about this. There are 300+ million people in America. That means that 300 million mothers chose life.
Screw Romney and the far right! A woman has the right to decide what to do when it concerns her body and her life. Period!
No candidate, from either party, is more pro-life than Dr. Ron Paul. His voting record and his activity in Congress vouches for that.
Ron Paul has authored legislation that seeks to define life as beginning at conception.
Ron Paul is the prime sponsor of HR 300, which would negate the effect of Roe V Wade and return this issue to the states. Aside from this, he has delivered over 4,000 babies as an ob-gyn.
Mitt Romney's credentials and history don't really matter. He has great hair. Isn't that what's really important?
CNN must mean Censored News Network.
OMG...why is Abortion even on the platform? A woman's right to CHOOSE is such a personal issue that does not even remotely involve professional politicians who pander to their party to just get a vote. That is so sad.
This issue has already been decided by the Supreme Court in Roe V. Wade.
The solution is simple: If you don't want an abortion...then don't have one!
Leaving it up for the states to decide would create a lot of fiscal problems and we've got enough of that already in this country.
Ban abortion?
What country just had a young wife die from an ectopic pregnancy because intervention by a doctor might have further harmed the "baby?"
That wouldn't be a Constitutional ban but a Taliban.
Richard, St. Paul, MN, wrote:
"Funny how the Pro-Lifers always want to 'save a life' but they never want to help out physically or financially. They prefer just to tell other people what they think they should be doing."
I have a suggestion for your, Richard. Before you put out something stupid like this for people to read, do a little research.
Arthur C. Brooks, who earned his PhD in Public Policy Analysis from the Rand Graduate School in 1998, and also holds an MA and BA in economics, says that "when you look at the data, it turns out the conservatives give about 30 percent more than liberals do."
You got something to counter?
It's time people start to smarten up and realize that abortion is a necessary evil. It is never an easy decision for a woman to make and she has to live with it for the rest of her life, however it is sometimes necessary. I'm not talking about the cases where the woman simply doesn't want the child how about when a woman's health is at risk? Why can't that woman get an abortion? Would you rather kill 2 or kill 1? My wife was in that position a couple years ago, we had gotten pregnant dispite using birth control methods (the pill and condoms) and once she was pregnant her blood pressure started to get into the danger territory (200/100+) on a regular basis, had she not terminated she would have died (and that was only at the 6-8 week mark).
Abortion cannot go away, if it does you will start seeing a sharp increase in the number of woman dieing in this country either because the pregnancy or the birth kills them, or the attempt to self abort and end up bleeding out. It is better to keep it safe and legal than to issue a death sentence to so many women.
Willard has his roots in two cultures that depend heavily upon lying: mormonism and republican politics.
I'd love to know Mitt's address so that I know where to drop the unwanted child off. Republicans don't like government interference in economics, but I don't like Republicans interference in my bedroom or my uterus.
Abortion is a very sensetive issue and is a dividing issue. One side will never agree with the other and vice versa, so what to do? Roe v. Wade could be reversed but it wouldn't stop the practice. Think about it. During prohibition, alcohol was banned and yet how many were still selling it? Point is, as long as there is a demand, the services will be available. Education and promoting safe sex are the key. Stifle the demand and the service will be less.
Can you say "flip flop"
Abortion is one thing...candidates is another. This slick guy strikes me as someone who says whatever he thinks will get more votes. He's not presidential material.
Go Michelle D!!!! What gives any one the right especially a predominately male group to dictate how a woman treats her body??
No body, let me repeat no body, has the right to dictate when a life ends. I hope that some day R vs. W is put to the peoples vote because the media has overinflated the concept that most poeple are pro-choice. Think about this. There are 300+ million people in America. That means that 300 million mothers chose life.
Posted By Matt, Lancaster Pa : November 28, 2007 12:57 pm
Nobody, let me repeat, nobody has the right to tell me how to handle my uterine goings on. My body, my choice. Keep your religion and your opinions out of my uterus. If you're so committed to raising and funding these children THEN YOU HAVE THEM.
You want to start controlling reproductive rights, why don't you sponsor a bill the sterilizes CRACK heads that spew out 5,6,7,10 kids that wind up in the system. The majority of which have no chance of making a productive life for themselves. Just repeat the cycle.
Where are we going to draw the line here people. The whole world does not follow your religious doctrine. SO DEAL WITH IT and worry about the kids who are already here and need the help.
Men.... they think they know it all. Be a pregnant teen for a week and you will flip your opinion faster than your can say Inter-Uterine Device.
What about Romney ISN'T offensive?
Andrew,
such a paragraph would be ok but unnecessary! You see if you really want to know where a candidate stands you go to their web page and read or look at their voting record. I doubt any educated person would decide who to vote for off of a CNN political blog.
And i agree...the Ron Paul people need to stop pretending he is the best thing since sliced bread. He should be given his time but be is not the only candidate out there and his poll numbers are not the highest!
Who cares if Ron Paul is a medical doctor, I mean really? We should stick to the issues and it's clear that Ron Paul is the only true conservative running for President. Everyone is kidding themselves if they're supporting Rudy, Mitt, Hillary or Barack (the circus clowns of the status quo). Ron Paul in '08 for real change.
No say it isn't so. CNN found somebody to claim that a republican presidential candidate's platform was offensive. I am astonished. Truly
Belinda L, Raleigh, NC
You mean to tell me that the father of the baby has no right on whether he wants to keep the baby? Maybe you should be aborted!
He doesn't register as high in national polls because they don't ask about him.
Posted By Andrew, Haslett, MI : November 28, 2007 12:19 pm
Ron Paul doesn't register higher on national polls because people realize that because he's so far removed from the standard GOP party line that if he were to get nominated and elected, he'd be unable to govern – kind of like what Jesse Ventura faces when he was elected governor of Minnesota and had no backing in the state legislature.
On the one hand, I am totally against the practice. I think is horrible and denies the life and freedoms of the unborn. On the other hand, I do understand how an abortion ban could be viewed as a limit on personal freedoms. Personally, I think we should have a vote and let the people decide. Hopefully, they would make the right decision.
Posted By Dave, Denton : November 28, 2007 12:51 pm
Bad idea, Dave. There have been many times in the past where wrong concepts were popular. If a similar vote had been done 50 years ago regarding civil rights, we'd probably still be segregated today and it would still be illegal for a black man and a white woman to marry. We know that segregation and marriage bans are wrong today, but they were the accepted norm back in the days of Jim Crow.
<>
Yeah. Instead of charity, support effective gov't programs (like for example grants/loans for higher education), that aren't part of this or that person's religious institutions, and don't require any allegiance to a particular worldview. These programs already exist, and like the student loan program mentioned above, are usually constantly under assault by Republican politicians.
They don't want women to have abortions, yet....they are against anything but teaching "abstinence only" for sex ed. Maybe if we had honest education about family planning and safe reliable access to birth control there wouldn't be so many unwanted pregnancies.
Hey come on, not every Pro-Lifer feels the way they do because of religion. I was, technically, an agnostic when I decided my position. I assumed murder is wrong, and defined abortion as murder, and concluded that abortion is wrong. Purely an exercise is logic. Right and wrong do not exist only in religion. And he is allowed to support a constitutional amendment banning abortion while respecting state authority. I'm still voting Democratic – these Republicans are nuts!
Being Pro- Life will cost votes as most people believe that to bear a child is a women's decision and only she knows if she wants to take that on.
Just reading the phrase "unwanted child" makes me shiver when I think about our morals and priorities in this nation. The word "choice" has been twisted to fit our own selfish desires. "Freedom" is now used to excuse our bad choices. True freedom is really interdependance, respecting each other, and living within moral laws. Why are we even here on earth? Is it just to get ahead? Think about it.
I believe that the majority of the voters are against abortion and that the candidate (Republican or Democrat) who runs on an anti-abortion platform will win the White House.
Mitt can take a walk. I would never vote for this flip-flopper. Abortion is not a religious argument, but an argument for humanity. Ultrasound proves this is not a blob of tissue, but a human. To call it a religious argument is an attempt to invalidate it. Even animals have rights against cruelty. Abortion has not stemmed the tide of child abuse, or unwed births, but increased it with deprivation of consequences. Murders still happen with the DP, but we wouldn't make it legal because people "do it anyway".
A 12 year old girl gets pulled into an alley and gets beaten and gang raped by five guys, then get pregnant.
Do we force her re-live the ordeal for nine months and have the baby?
She would only be in 7th grade.
PRO-LIFE MEANS THAT THERE ARE NO EXCEPTIONS!
-----------
A drunk father comes home one night, goes to his daughters room and rapes her.
Two weeks later this 8th grade girl is pregnant.
Force her to have her father's baby while she is still in middle school?
PRO-LIFE MEANS THAT THERE ARE NO EXCEPTIONS!
The GOP candidates should take a look at what happened to Ken Blackwell, the GOP nominee for Ohio Governor in 2006. Blackwell ran so far to the right to win the primary that he had no middle ground left from which he could campaign in the general election. He lost in a landslide. My predition is that whomever wins the GOP nomination will emerge completely unelectable.
I think each state should be allowed to determine if abortions should be legal. However, the states that do allow abortions should then keep track of all abortions performed on women from states where it's illegal (valid state IDs required). We'd then be able to determine how phony "conservatives" and "evangelicals" really are.
Let me be sure I understand....a SC conservative leader complaining that something in the abortion discourse being over simolified? Now if that ain't the pot callin' the kettle..
Clearly, none of the GOP candidates have read what the founding fathers wrote when drafting the constitution and their reasons for specifically including a separation of church and state clause therein. Talk about brilliant forsight. There is a reason that the constitution was drafted and ratified to include a constitutional separation of church and state – it was that religious persecution that the early colonists fled and the founding fathers were trying to keep from repeating with the birth of this nation. What the original signors had to say about their beliefs and the importance of not imposing those personal beliefs on an entire and collective people is truly magnificent. It would be nice if those running for office could take the time to read those comments as well.
It would be nice if ANY of the candidates would remember that we are a nation of WE THE PEOPLE, not WE THE GOVERNMENT ... and act towards the betterment of our nation instead of dividing it to enforce a few personal beliefs founded WHOLLY in religion.
It would be nice...
Ah, these conservatives who scream about less influence of the federal government and then want MORE influence of the federal government when they can't win on a state-by-state basis. Boy how I hate hypocrisy.
I never thought Romney would become governor of Massachusetts – and while he was there he worked exclusively on his run for presidency. This man is potentially dangerous to this country and makes the current president look like Goldilocks.
Mitt Romney will be the one to win in IA,MI, and NH. I think it is great that Romney has changed from Pro-Choice to Pro-Life. Isn't that what we want as Christians? Don't we want to encouarge those who are currently Pro-Choice to take a honest look at life for the unborn? I find it very interesting that so many want to throw mud at the man with the strongest family, and has done so well economically! Romney has my vote, and I know he will be the next President of the USA! He is the only one who stands as the clear chance against the Hillary machine in 2008!
MY WISH
I wish every man (and I do mean men, not the supposed "generic" inclusion of women) could experience first hand with their own bodies what its like to carry for 9 months and give birth to a child. If men could experience the "wonder" of child birth, abortion and birth control would become a god given right rather than one women have to fight for every 4 years depending on which yahoo happens to be in office at the time.
The fact that these idiots also want birth control taken away speaks volumes of their real goal and that is to control women not protect children.
I do hope god hates hypocrites because the GOP will be burning!
Pro Lifers aren't limited to neocons and the far right. I am a social liberal and a fiscal conservative. I am a former Repub but Bush changed that in a hurry.I think Romney will need more than his pro-life position to get the nod from Repubs.
The reason Ron Paul rarely gets mentioned is that he dead last in the polls.
I hate to break it to you, but Hillary will completely destroy Mitt in the general election if he is the Republican candidate. He stands no chance against her. Not one.
If pro-lifers really had their act together, they would support Universal Healthcare.
'nuff said.
This is just a end run around a hot topic from a neocon. He wants to make pro choice illegal period. Never mind his political fast talk like "federalism".
Hillary has no values. Hillary has zero character, and every honest American that takes a real look at her will vote for anyone else, even Romney in 2008! Hillary would be nothing if Bill Clinton wasn't her husband, period. She has done nothing that main stream Americans can relate with. Wake up! She will never be President!
Imagine...another republican hypocrite.
FLIP FLOP FLIP FLOP FLIP FLOP....He is not pro life until he decided to run for President? These politicians must think we are stupid. Romney may as well drop out of the election now. No Christian is going to vote for him. They don't believe he will remain committed to the pro life stance and Evangelical Christians think the Mormon Church is cult-like. Case closed.
Option A: Pro-Life
Meaning the Government makes the call.
Option B: Pro-Choice
Meaning the woman has a choice.
This is a no-brainer. I was adopted as an infant and am personally Pro-Life. However, I ask myself what type world I need to live in where the Government tells me that is my only legal choice.
How can a candidate pledge "to uphold the Constitution", and (at the same time) campaign to amend it?
Why do male politicans feel that they should be able to determine what a woman can or cannot do with her body? I am not pro-abortion and I am not anti-life but this is a decision for a woman and her doctor. If you're anti-abortion, how many adopted children do you have?
I dont think this issue should be governmentally controlled but lets get something straight.
95% of abortions are not because of rape, incest, or medical reasons. They are starting to become a form of birth control and that is just wrong! I understand some circumstances where it may be needed but more and more people are loosing respect for the miracle of birth. The argument that rape victims will be forced to live with their assault forever is valid but applies to such a small minority it carries very little weight.
I dream of a day when people realize how divisive these religiously motivated issues are. Remember the whole freedom of religion thing in the constitution? Apparently not! Canadites on both sides just can't ignore the temptation of bowing to the christian coalition. I wish everyone in this country would GROW UP! and realize that the world is full of religions, and maybe it would be better if our leaders did not form their arguements based on what the local church says to do. Doesn't anyone get the idea? Where does ethics fall into all of this? I'm not saying that I want all of our leaders to be atheists, but is it too much to ask that they have the ability to relate to the world in an ethical way NOT a religious one. All these canidates have to check with there church leaders before they say anything these days. And yet when Kennedy ran people worried we'd be told what to do by the pope. Where are those people now- or are you all just complete hypocrites?
Although I'm not surprise Mitt changed his mind upon visiting the state. John McCain drank the water and decided to change religions when he came to SC.
Please people, use your brains.
Abortion will NEVER be made illegal–and every politician knows this. Any stance that a campaigning or sitting politician takes against abortion is purely pandering in order to get votes from the religious right.
They already know that abortion will never be made illegal-and here is why:
The System knows that the infrastructure of this country would never be able to handle the increase in population growth that would occur if abortion were to be made illegal.
It is simple economics.
The greatest threat facing the world today is not terrorism. It is not nuclear war. It is not disease. IT IS OVERPOPULATION.
That is why the US government never lifts a finger to stop genocide in the Third World and has never shown anything but a feigned weak criticism of China's forced population control policies.
The Republicans themselves have secretly undermined the effort to outlaw abortion for decades-by stating in their campaigns that they are against it, but then doing nothing to stop it after being elected.
Overpopulation is the issue for them, folks-not morality.
Hey Kelly,
Maybe if that pregnant teenager had exercised her right of "choice" (liberals love that word, especially when it means shirking responsibility) before getting knocked up, it wouldn't be such a problem for her.
Yes there should be some exceptions for women who are raped or molested, but those instances do not account for the majority of abortions in this country. Abortion is just another example of what is wrong with too many of today's Americans–they only want to do what makes them feel good (instant gratification), but when it comes to bite them in the a– they won't deal with the fallout. Take some responsibility, America!
<>
The media has not overinflated anything. The majority of Americans ARE pro-choice – that's not analysis by the media but social scientists. They may not necessarily define themselves as pro-choice but they DO believe abortion should be legal. The majority of America does NOT support overturning Roe v. Wade though most do want some restrictions. So let's make sure we don't try to twist facts here and accuse the media of something they should not be accused of.
Also, roughly 40% of abortions are performed on women who ALREADY have children (and even more on those who will eventually have children). I think your belief that if you have an abortion you cannot possibly be pro-choice is naive and, quite frankly, shows a very, very simplistic understanding of the issue.
Also, if you feel that nobody has the right to dictate when life ends then you should not believe in the death penalty, eating animals, or even killing insects.
Roe v Wade will never be overturned. Abortion is a wedge issue that solicits votes for "pro-life" candidates who then get elected and do nothing about the issue. For Republicans, Roe v Wade is more valuable as it stands than if it were actually overturned. If not for being "pro-life" what would these candidates truly have to offer? Not much. Without the abortion issue, most conservative candidates don't have much to stand on.
Consider the current administration, arguably the most "pro-life" administration since Roe v Wade. They have had control of Congress and the Supreme Court and have done nothing but pass an inept "partial birth abortion" ban.
Single issue voters need to move past the abortion issue when deciding on a candidate. Bush and company manipulated the religious right to garner their votes, then threw money at them ( faith based initiatives) but did little to advance conservative religious policy.
I do not have the same oppinions now about certain political issues that I had 10-15 years ago. Am I not allowed to change my oppinion either if Romney isn't? Where's the public firing squad for me because I changed my views too?
Shawnie,
no flip flop THERE eh?
CNN is anti-Romney, don't let their spins fool you.
LDS member's don't beleive in aborton but they do beleive in stealing children through adoption. My son is going through this right now and I'm sick of hearing that a child needs to be raised with both father and mother so a single parent don't need their children. And if Mr Romney wins just what is going to become of single parents.
Yes, let's all compete over who can drag the constitution through the mud more! Just what we need, an amendment to placate a core bloc of religious GOP voters for political purposes only. Does that really make sense for our country? Note to Evangelicals, the GOP plays you like fools every 4 (or even 2) years. They can all say they want it because they know it will never happen, no matter how hard they try. They just want your vote to get elected. Wake up.
Just goes to show what pandering to religious fanatics gets you. Giuliani is doing the same thing. But he does it with a "who me?" look on his face and constant denials that he's trying to have it both ways. Personally, I think that extra level of duplicity makes him the better Republican candidate. Lincoln must be spinning in his grave.
In response to all the demands for a woman's right to choose: ISN'T HAVING SEX A CHOICE? I wouldn't be opposed to abortion in the case of a woman's life being in danger -but I really think it's ridiculous to have sex irresponsibly and then decide to terminate a pregnancy that could have been prevented in so many different ways. (Condoms, IUDs, the pill, etc.) The time to choose is before you get pregnant. Is that so much to ask?
Go look at the youtube video
The Real Romney or Romney on abortion.
He is a complete liar and a fraud. He was pro choice his entire political career and emphatically so.
To Amanda A.
What about the married couples who use the pill and condoms but still manage to get pregnant? Sure combined they are 99% effective, but there is that pesky 1% still there. Obviously that couple didn't want to get pregnant, maybe they aren't financially able to support a child or simply at a point in their lives where they could raise a child should they be forced to carry that child to term? What if they want children just later in life (5 – 10 years later)? Why should sex only be for procreation?
No abortion shouldn't be a first line of defense for birth control but it should be there. If you don't want to get an abortion that's fine but don't tell my wife and I that she can't have one because you don't like it.
The Evangalicals and Mormons elected GW Bush because he would end abortion and overturn Roe V. Wade. He did not get the job done in the eight years he has been pesident. Romney has obviously given that some thought and concluded, as other thinking people have done, that electing a pro life President is not the only answer to dealing with this issue.
I am of the opinion that that those who choose abortion are not all simply choosing the "easy way out." It is an agonizing decision for many. Men are the other half of this issue and their refusal to take responsibility for a girl's plight is often the factor that leads to abortion. The right to choose obviously includes the initial irresponsible choice of unproected sex leading to unplanned parenthood. When will the right to lifers try to legiislate that? Sandy had a good point. Too bad men don't have tell tale signs or other consequences of their ill timed fatherhood. Maybe forcing them to take a pill that would enlarge their breasts and precipitate sudden weight gain as well as forcing them to take financial responsibility would help with this issue.
The Evangelicals and Mormons helped elect GW Bush. After eight years as president, the issue is still there. Romney should have adhered to his original position. This is not an issue that will end with the election of a pro life president . I I am with Sandy. Until men are forced to take more responsibility and/or suffer equal consequences for an unplanned pregnancy, the agonizing decisions connected with birth and/or abortion will still rest solely upon the heads of women.
Lets elect a president who can deal with the pressing issue of our basic rights and freedom connected with the more imminent dangers currently threatening our nation.