Is Mitt a moderate on abortion?
Wikimedia Commons
Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney is airing commercials that portray him as a moderate on the issue of reproductive rights. The ads say he supports abortion in cases of rape, incest and to save the life of the woman. A column published this week in The Nation notes that this standard would nevertheless block more than 90 percent of all abortions in the United States.
Howard Pollack, a professor of health administration at the University of Chicago, argues that while Romney may be more moderate than Republicans like Todd Akin and Rick Santorum, his position would have an enormous impact on women’s health decisions. A 2004 survey found that fewer than 1 percent of women patients at 11 large abortion providers reported that they were pregnant due to rape or incest. Of course, it’s likely that some of those women were reluctant to disclose that they were victims of sexual attacks, but nevertheless the data suggests that a majority of women decide to end pregnancies for other reasons, including concerns they are too young to raise a child, can’t afford to do so or are otherwise unable to do so. Seven percent identified health health problems as the reason for terminating their pregnancies. Pollack writes,
Whatever moderate rhetorical gloss Governor Romney employs, his preferred policies would effectively end women’s right to choose. Allowing states to outlaw more than ninety percent of abortions in America is not a moderate stance.
Pollack also notes that requiring employers to include contraceptive coverage in insurance benefits would reduce unintended pregnancies, but Romney opposes such policies.
October 25, 2012 - 10:35 AM
How the hell could anyone tell? Weather vane spins…
With all the major problems this country is facing, abortion and free condoms is all liberals seem to care about.
No, he is not. He signed Grover’s pledge to not raise any taxes and will elect Supreme Court justices to overturn Roe v. Wade and will sign the Person-hood amendment (could ban birth control) into law.
@2 Surely you jest! Which party (national and state) have been focused like lasers on clinic requirements, personhood amendments, transvaginal ultrasounds, ets… The only reaction the “libs” and the Democrats have had is a recoiling from the right-wing agenda.
Searching for abortion on mittromney.com returns only one result:
http://www.mittromney.com/news/press/2011/10/mitt-romney-delivers-remarks-values-voter-summit
I support the Hyde Amendment, which broadly bars the use of federal funds for abortions. As president, I will end federal funding for abortion advocates like Planned Parenthood. I will protect a health care worker’s right to follow their conscience in their work. And I will nominate judges who know the difference between personal opinion and the law. It is long past time for the Supreme Court to return the issue of abortion back to the states, by overturning Roe v. Wade
You elect a weather vane, you get a weather vane. He has no principles he won’t compromise, change or ignore. Just what this nation needs…
6 – that’s exactly right, Sandi. In the end, since, sh__ flows downhill, his path will be that of the least resistance, and Mitt will do little to stem the slaughter of babies. The abortions will continue apace. You “pro-choice” types have little to fear (especially about the choice being extended to the womb’s occupant).
Us “pro-choice” types” always have something to fear from zealot who want the government in private family decisions like this one. I will believe ‘the right’ is “pro-life” when they want to do more than criminalize desperate women and their health care providers.
#7 “…the slaughter of babies….” Just so you know, 89Hoo, the overwhelming majority of abortions in America occur during the first trimester, when the fetus has not developed enough to feel pain. It isn’t able at that time to have thoughts or feelings of its own and is nothing more than a teeny-tiny blob of meat that has the POTENTIAL — nothing more — to become a full-fledged human being. So most of the time, abortions have nothing whatsoever to do with “the slaughter of babies”, 89Hoo.
Rationalize it any way you want, Stephen, the better to ease your own conscience. Killing a fetus in the first trimester ends a life just as surely as and in the final trimester, or in the first day after birth, our the first year, or the tenth year…it stops a being heart. Period.
And it’s unlikely you’d care, but I can show you the ultra-sounds from my wife’s visit to the doctor last week (she’s ten weeks along) and the little one is much more than just a lump of meat.
Abortion ends a life. Period.
Big deal 89Hoo. We end life all the time for both good reasons and bad. We also fail to support a quality life for most humans because that requires spending money on things like education, health care, etc.
If those on the right supported good quality of the life they work so hard to defend, their position would be much more palatable.
Abortion ends a potential life. Everyone knows there are miscarriages and things can and do sometimes “go wrong” at any point, from conception to any age after that.
It is not rationalizing to tell the truth. And leaaving the choice of abortion or carrying a fetus to term with the owner of the womb and no one else has no bearing on my own conscience any more than when a miscarriage happens, or a child dies in an accident.
Babies have been “slaughtered” since Biblical time. When it is not your womb, it is not your choice.
Big deal? Let’s extend that high regard for human life: a woman raped and killed? Big deal, huh? Innocents killed in drone attacks? Big deal, huh? A family killed by a drunk driver? Big deal, huh? Millions killed by a genocidal maniac? Big deal, huh? Boy the possibilities of endless power are endless once you quit giving a rat’s ass about human life.
That’s a pretty callous approach to life, but at least you are honest enough to admit your bloodthirst.
Yes, miscarriages also end lives, Sandi, on that we agree. So what’s your point? That we can excuse intentionally taking a human life because it might happen accidentally anyway? That’s a much more convoluted journey to the same endpoint as Scott’s absolute disregard for human life. You’re usually relatively honest, Sandi, and this is a diversion for you.
#10 “Rationalize it any way you want, Stephen…” The name’s Steven, NOT “Stephen”. If you’re gonna rag on me, then at least do me the courtesy of getting my name right.
That said, why don’t you “rationalize” this:
http://www.now.org/issues/abortion/120904women-who-died.html
“Abortion ends a life. Period.”
Eating meat ends a life. Period.
Hunting ends a life. Period.
When it comes to dealing with unplanned pregnancies, allow me to paraphrase Winston Churchill: Keeping abortion as a legal option is the worst policy we can pursue…except for all of the others.
14 – apologies on misspelling your name, Steven. I meant no offense.
I assume in all the tragic cases of women dying from illegal abortions, the baby also died. Is that true, at least in the preponderance of the cases?
So, in those cases, the abortion ended two lives; in most cases, I would warrant both lives would have been saved by actually giving birth.
Abortion may be the only medical procedure that is deemed a failure if no one dies.
Which process cares more about life? The one that promotes birth and a live baby, or the one that promises a death and sometimes gets two?
I believe I made my point. No life is guaranteed, that is my point.
Legal, safe abortions are the law of the land and have been since Row v Wade. I do not ask you or anyone else to “excuse” abortion anymore than I excuse torturing poor dumb animals for research, food, or to have a fur coat. Bad things happen. Solomon is not here and women in this desperate situation make the choice for themselves and you are not invited into that choice.
It is “intentionally” ending a pregnancy, there is no absolute “taking a human life”, because yes, it might happen anyway. You cannot know the outcome of any pregnancy ahead of time. We did not create the biological functions that cause humans to reproduce this way, but some of us have decided that they have a right to demand how a woman handles it. I say they have no right.
This is a complicated subject and even a wanted pregnancy is a “convoluted journey” fraught with possible problems. You may think mine is the position with an “absolute disregard for human life”, which is fine because I think yours is the position with absolute disregard for human suffering. I think we are even. There is nothing dishonest in my post. And thanks ever so for your back handed hiding in anonymity “compliment” on my “relatively honest” posts.
16 – geez, Sandi, thanks for the relative honesty.
But we can make things even simpler: since everyone dies – eventually – we can go ahead and justify the killing of babies as speeding up the inevitable. That justifies a whole lot of things.
Some of us hold that the right to life trumps pretty much all other rights; it is one of those, after all, noted by the Founding Fathers as being inalienable (that is, it cannot be removed). Unless, of course, someone wants to kill the baby.
Mrs. Saunders….we all die anyhow, so what’s the big deal?
Mr. K…..we have the right to end human life that is less than ideal within a context defined by the ender.
The latter is a rationalization for eugenics & infanticide.
The first rationalizes murder per se.
I am going to take the sophistry in #17 and #18 as meaning you have no answers and therefore need to rewrite and restate those of others.
May I do the same to your comments?
19 – may I respectfully request that you let us know when you haven’t been re-writing and re-stating the opinions of others? Or is that not sophistry?
#15 Sorry for my late response.
“apologies on misspelling your name, Steven. I meant no offense.” Apology accepted.
“Which process cares more about life? The one that promotes birth and a live baby, or the one that promises a death and sometimes gets two?”
Actually, there’s a third option: The one that promotes birth and a live baby who’s parents can afford to give him/her a truly happy, productive life. You seem to care a lot more about the baby being born, afterwards it seems you couldn’t care less what happens to that baby afterwards given your promotion of free-market-at-all costs economics.
Oh, and I noticed you had nothing whatsoever to say when I pointed out that hunting and eating meat also takes life. How telling.
#20 “may I respectfully request that you let us know when you haven’t been re-writing and re-stating the opinions of others?”
Probably no more often than just about anyone else who posts on these threads, yourself included.
“Or is that not sophistry?” Well, I guess sophistry is as sophistry does, isn’t it?
#18 “The latter is a rationalization for eugenics & infanticide.”
Aaaaaaaaand, cue the usual suspects resorting to the old slippery-slope tactics.
#21 You’re right Steven. We should eat the baby.
21 – “hunting and eating meat also takes life.”
So does eating vegetables and fruits. Aren’t plants life??? Then what the hell are we supposed to eat?
Hey if you can stretch it, so can I.
The issue here is HUMAN life…and you know it.
#24 More slippery slope arguments on your part. Thanks for proving my point.
#25 “So does eating vegetables and fruits. Aren’t plants life???”
Plants don’t feel pain, Other Rick, so there goes your attempt at rebuttal. Oh, and ending one’s sentences with multiple punctuation marks is NOT going to enhance (what you try to pass off as) your arguments any.
A MODEST PROPOSAL (originally, Jonathan Swift)
“Why not eat the remains of aborted fetuses?
After all, in that the procedure is legal with the underlying philosophy that it is not a moral or ethical issue….that the only predicate/manifest question is the choice of the abort-er…..why not?
Hungry people everywhere, why waste the nutrition? If the remnants can be utilized for stem cells, why not a nice stew? Add a whole new meaning to USDA choice.
The meat could be rated by age, like veal. Early production would be more tender, but latter would produce more yield. The cheapest (but perhaps best value) cuts would be from partial-birth.
Lastly, the placenta would make for good soup stock.
Waste not, want not.
Even if you want to ignore animals and restrict our cruelty to “human life” any reasonable person can acknowledge that as a people we have killed innocent children, knowingly and acceptably. We have doubtless put to death innocent people, certainly we have locked them up for life, only to release them 20+years later. We have created and destroyed embryos. We cannot have a slippery slope and not slide. That is the problem.
We have never been “pro-life”. Granted, they used to be back alley, enough money to the family doctor, home remedies and “going away for a visit”, but we have never been “pro-life” and there is no need to pretend that is an ideal we need to go back to. Naturally when you bring an activity out into the open, like gambling, pornography and sexuality, you will get more of it. Abortion has been a choice as long as women have been getting pregnant without wanting to be. It is a personal, private matter that should not involve the government.