Romney: It’s My ‘Preference’ That The Supreme Court Reverse Roe V. Wade

Suckers.

If the GOP sincerely meant to overturn Roe v Wade, they've had the perfect opportunity to do so for quite a long time. The answer: They have NO INTENTION of overturning Roe v Wade. It's just too valuable for them to keep it in place and energize the base. IMHO

here through November.

Romney will overturn Roe v. Wade.

Well, I prefer chocolate, but strawberry is at time good as well. And vanilla if i'm eating it with a pie. I guess I'll just say neapolitan

Plaid!

I thought it was clear.

He was as clear as can be. He wants to reverse roe v wade.

Also let's tee up that debate video with Ted Kennedy.

Hope he keeps repeating it

If you're making abortion illegal, you're not returning that decision to the people.

You're not enhancing freedom, you're using the government to regulate it.

Maybe he's trying to tone down the issue?

He just waffles, up down all around town every which way but loose.

if he wants to see roe v wade overturned? That would just remove abortion as a fundamental right. It would then be left to the states to regulate. With the country being pro-choice good luck getting anti-choice laws passed and remain on the books for very long

...if there is one woman out there that has no worries about Mittens and CouponCare...

Think again. Their psycho policies are all about going in Reverse, back to bygone eras and polices...and most
of those policies didn't include women, ANY women.

Stunning.

And a little reminder, from yesterday, here at DU...I say, you can never say never ladies, for those in America that
dream of returning to the days of old...here are those old times:

"50 years ago the host of 'Romper Room' flew to Sweden for an abortion"

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10021303620

affects entire families .. Wake up everyone, including all you men!

The fundies want to create an ultra conservative utopia..One where women would become little Stepford wives, always obedient, always subservient to their male overlords.
This is the Romney, Ryan plan, make no mistake.

Larry Flint wrote an article and showed pics of dead women trying to self abort. We as humans somehow need to be reminded over and over and over again why laws and regulations are put in place. I also remember dimmitt saying something about a family member needing an abortion at some point. That was when he was pro choice. Then he wasn't then he was then he wasn't not sure this minute where he stands. I'm wondering what his relative that needed that procedure thinks about his today.

reality based.

Her name was Ann Keenan. Here is a link to a story about it.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2158739/Story-Ann-Keenans-death-illegal-abortion-Mitt-Romney-pro-choice-emerges.html

Welcome to DU, Lindadem4u! It sounds like you will fit in here perfectly.

If it was up to me there'd be something about the opinion is only valid if it is your own body you are making the decision for. That really is what the issue of choice is all about, IMO.


Peace.



Laura

n/t

you only get to express your opinion - nothing more.

Thing is, this is a group of folks who think they have rights to determine what is right for any woman--ALL women. They do not understand the idea that we are fighting to preserve that ability to make a decision in all cases. I am not pro-abortion. FAR from it. No woman, IMO, should be having to ever face the fear and pain of an unplanned pregnancy. Make no mistake, women do not terminate a pregnancy lightly or happily. Nobody does. We face those unchosen pregnancies, in part due to lack of access to contraceptives, in part due to contraceptive/user failures, and in part due to lack of education. We are better than that, as a nation.

I'd love to see a day when every pregnancy is a chosen one, and no woman ever faces an unwanted pregnancy. If they'd just devote even a quarter of their energy to making that happen, imagine how much better off we'd all be and how much our world would be improved. A lot of us would probably be right on board with that, or at least find it more comfortable. Instead we waste time fighting over a public health issue and a basic human right that was decided already.

We gotta keep on reminding them, I guess.




Laura

To act like men have no say in these matters is counterproductive.
There are women who DON'T believe women should have the right to have abortions.
There are men who DO believe women should have the right to have abortions.

It's a human rights issue. Not specifically a women's issue.

This makes for a snappy catchphrase but it doesn't fly.
There were Whites who believed that Blacks should not be slaves.
There were Men who believed that Women should have the right to vote.
Blacks in slavery couldn't make that decision legally.
Women who couldn't yet vote couldn't make that decision legally.

Right now there are Heterosexuals who believe that Homosexuals have the right to marry.
Should only Homosexuals get to make that call? Like the homosexuals from the Log Cabin Republicans?

When it comes to matters affecting a group, that group should ALWAYS have input but to act like you must exclude all others outside of the group is short-sighted.

All men are not your enemies so quit treating us like we are.
Men & women need each other & always will. Neither can survive by themselves alone.
John Lucas

...that, at least in theory, men should not be shut out of the debate.

On the other hand, I must point out that women have absolutely no say whatsoever in men's reproductive choices. No one cares what women think about these issues, either individually or collectively. A man can choose to get a vasectomy, no one requires him to get his wife's permission. A man can get a prescription for Cialis or Viagra, no one refuses to fill it on moral grounds. While a woman who is pregnant suddenly is a non-person who must submit to medically unnecessary ultrasound if she desires to abort the pregnancy. Or a raped teenager is denied a morning-after pill because the pharmacist has moral qualms.

So I will not condemn anyone who says men need to stay out of it. Of course, I wish the forced-birthers of either sex would just mind their own business. But that seems unlikely anytime in the near future.

Women DO push for men to get vasectomies when the woman doesn't want any more children.
Women DO protest a man getting Cialis & Viagra if they don't want a man horndogging it all the time.

What you say about the medical establishment putting up roadblocks is true & THAT needs to go.
But with ANYTHING pertaining to a couple BOTH parties need input on a decision that will affect both parties: the woman & the man.
That goes for something as little as new wallpaper to something as big as reproductive choices.

I believe in female AND male birth control which avoids the issue altogether.
I DON'T believe in permanent vasectomies to be male birth control & can't wait until they come up with a pill for that.
People should have children they are ready to raise so we can ALL reduce the number of orphans in the world.

Mothers have rights & so do fathers. It takes two to make a baby.

I also believe in fairer family court proceedings which are not biased in favor of women automatically believing them to be the better parent by default. Sometimes the mothers are the abusers & the father is the better parent.
It's all about fairness.

Women SHOULD have their say in issues affecting them. That's a no-brainer.
But men are NOT exempt from having input too.

Having that mindset is childish.
In reality it's not JUST a women's issue. It's a SOCIETAL issue & that affects EVERYBODY: women AND men.
Lots of men can't wait for the day that they won't have to feel trapped by pregnancies by a woman trying lock them into a relationship.
Women are not the ONLY ones who want better reproductive options.

Some of Roe vs. Wade's biggest supporters are MEN.
John Lucas

Vasectomies are a form of birth control and a very permanent one at that. I should know, I had one almost 15 years ago. The chances that I could get a woman pregnant are very slim. Compared to a woman getting a hysterectomy has quite a bit more risk involved in it since it is invasive. Getting a vasectomy is outpatient surgery.

There are biological differences that make things harder or easier for one sex or another.
I'm not arguing that.
Due sympathies & comforts should go accordingly.

I just don't like the notion that ONLY women should have a say in things that affect women.
That playground crap is self-destructive.
What affects women affects men & what affects men affects women.

Men should care about women's issues & women should care about men's issues.
There's no vacuum here. All of this is ecology & every action has a reaction.

I AGREE that women MUST have say in issues affecting women just like any group must have say in what directly affects that group.
But it's not ONLY that group that should have input.

You get a healthier dialogue when you don't do this Girls Club/Boys Club stuff.
Men can help you. They're not the enemy.

There are some jackass men out there trying to Taliban everything, sure, but there are also guys who recognize in some degree what women go through & are empathetic/sympathetic to their cause.
And playing on that Golden Rule mentality, we expect reciprocation when it comes to issues affecting men.
Women can help us.

Black issues are not just Black issues. Because what happens in the Black community will have repercussions in the White community, in the Asian community, in the Latino community, & every other community there is.

Poor Folks' issues are not just Poor Folks' issues. What happens to the Poor Class affects the Middle Class & the Rich Class.

See what I'm getting at here?

Women's issues are not just Women's issues. What happens to Women affects Men & Children.

We're in this together. That's the point I'm making.
Enough of this sandbox talk. We should have left that behind in 2nd grade.
John Lucas

What if the woman and the man are already married, he promised to love, honor and cherish, and he does NONE of those things, and she gets pregnant? Lots of men try to force women to have abortions, when all the man cares about is money. People don't talk about that situation.

They have free government paid abortions for soldiers --

That halted during the first gingrich congress. I was overseas, and even as a male, that pissed me off to no end. Try again, that is verboten for over 20 years now, unless they reinstated it after I retired.

Well, I don't actually make the decision the Supreme Court makes and so they'll have to make their own decision. But, for instance, I'll reverse the president's decision on using U.S. funds to pay for abortion outside this country. I don't think also the taxpayers here should have to pay for abortion in this country.

Well, that should be news to many. "Abortion" is specifically excluded from any use of US funds and has been for a very long time.

Republican stalwarts are all convinced that their taxes are paying for abortions. They don't realize that Congress has investigated Planned Parenthood's books three times and failed to find any tax dollars going into the abortion side of the house. Truth is optional, ask Rush.

Lies & deflection are the only thing the GOP knows.

car elevator and leave governing to those with an eye on freedom and women's rights.

What is Willard's justification for his anti-abortion stance?
If it is based upon his religious beliefs, isn't this a violation of the First Amendment, the separation of church and state. Why doesn't the Press ever discuss this? Why must the Right to Privacy over a woman's body, not the Right to Privacy over Religion be the sole subject?

n/t

In countries that are predominantly Catholic, the Church is the law. I don't want that kind of government here--neither did our Founding Fathers!
Or else they wouldn't put separation of Church and State in the Bill. It is the FIRST Amendment! (of which Article 4 says: "no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification of any office or public Trust under the United States."
Jesus said "render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar's and unto God the things that are God's." Evidently the soulless vampires mashing politics and religion together have read neither the Constitution or the Bible.

Public health is non-negotiable. We can't forget that, EVER.

Women need to vote and (sadly) this year it may be a matter of single issue voting for many. Much as I dislike Romney and Co. I'd like to think that they'll lose based on sheer ass-hattery. This entire issue of rolling back Roe V Wade, however, has gone beyond ass-hattery and into the realms of an active threat to every female in this country. We'll have to win by any means necessary--even if it does include single issue votes.


I really had hoped our country was past this shit.



Laura

"Public health is non-negotiable. We can't forget that, EVER."

...exactly. Ladies, GET F'n MAD!

Women and their families should be making their own choices on Reproduction Rights. A persons Religious Rights and Beliefs are their own choices.

The United States Government needs to be neutral on this subject.

The United States Supreme Court has already decided on Roe vs Wade.


This issue is one of the reasons I cannot vote for anybody in the GOP. They are self centered and completely intolerant to another persons views or beliefs.

regulation - as long as it regulates a woman's health decisions.




Assh*le

you wont release tax forms to back it up if you do, so it really isn't up to you what the taxpayers should or should not pay for since you don't pay your fair share of taxes. You act like it's your money being used and we all know that it isn't.

we've created for you. If you were born really rich, well, not to worry. Otherwise, go eat worms, we don't give a fuck about you or your future. You're a POS in our eyes. Now STFU.

"I do not believe that just because you're opposed to abortion, that that makes you pro-life. In fact, I think in many cases, your morality is deeply lacking if all you want is a child born but not a child fed, not a child educated, not a child housed. And why would I think that you don't? Because you don't want any tax money to go there. That's not pro-life. That's pro-birth. We need a much broader conversation on what the morality of pro-life is."

My husband said that Republican should have to support every baby born instead of aborted until age 18.

That they should also support the pregnant woman through her pregnancy and the postpartum healing period (at a minimum).

When the state claims eminent domain over private property to further what has been declared to be a public good (new/improved roads, etc.), they must provide reasonable compensation to the owner for rescinding their right to that previously private property.

With pregnancy, the same principle applies. If the state intends to seize usage of a woman's body to further a pro-life agenda, they must be willing to compensate the woman with support for restricting her right to operate her private property (her body) to sustain a pregnancy and the healing process afterwards...

And I'm not talking about subsistence support. If market value must be a considered factor in property seizures, then the woman's loss of wages and life activities must be considered for her support. Not any of the "current" minimum wage and poverty guidelines (that haven't been adjusted for inflation in decades) but support based on the real competitive wage impact upon her alteration in lifestyle. That would wind up being significantly more than what TANF, Medicaid, WIC and such provide!

Put your money where your mouth is, or sit down and shut up.

Good points, well said!

He's the "Weeble-Wobble" candidate.
"He weebles, he wobbles, but he won't fall over."

This ginormous asshole has taken every side of every issue for the last 18 years.
Starting clear back when he ran for Senator in 1994, and then for President in 2008, and again this year, this assklown has taken almost every conceivable position on almost every single issue, except the right one . . . that of the Democratic party!

can we reverse Heller vs District of Columbia and Citizens United? Oh, my bad. Those decisions were against godless commies parasitic liberals. Sorry.

being used to pay for "wars of choice" such as Iraq. I don't want my tax dollars being used to pay for Viagra if they aren't used to give a woman a decision over her body, etc. But you know what? I don't have that choice. It is already prohibited for tax dollars to be used for abortions in this country. The use of taxpayer money out of the country is in the overall context of birth control.

Republicans are so worried about the unborn but they don't want to pay for the mother (and fetus) to receive pre-natal care. They don't want to pay for the delivery. They don't want to ensure that the mother has nutritious food, lives in a safe environment, has time off from work to bond and care for her young child. They don't want the child to have adequate pre-K education. They don't want for the mother to have access to affordable daycare. They don't want the child to get a quality PUBLIC education. They don't want to ensure the child has nutritious and adequate food. They don't want to ensure the child has access to health care. They don't care if the child can live in an environment free of drugs, guns and violence.

They don't care enough to ensure every child is given a fair opportunity to make something of himself/herself. They don't care if the child has access to higher education that doesn't leave them tens of thousands of dollars in debt.

They don't care if that young person has access to affordable healthcare, adequate unemployment compensation should they lose their job and follow-on job training.

They don't seem to have a problem putting people to death. Not only is that not a Christian thing to do but we know that our justice system is imperfect. Look at the Troy Davis case. What a travesty of justice that was.

They don't want to ensure the poor have an adequate safety net, access to food support, access to other necessities of life.

They don't want to ensure that seniors have a baseline income in their golden years. They don't want to ensure seniors don't worry about their healthcare and medications.

They do want to be sure no one can make an informed, personal decision to end life. They want to force that person to live on machines or in warehouses until they finally die. But pay for that care? No, they don't want to do that either.

This Republican party is some party of life. NOT....

he wants the GOP to have a nine to nothing repub edge on the SCOTUS.

elderly, the poor, and the infirmed meaning GOPers are deceitful, duplicitous, and mendacious hypocrites imo.

that these douchebags do not stand a chance in hell of winning in November!!!

Or he's playing the anti-abortion groups for suckers.
For years, conservative candidates for office have pledged to appoint judges or introduce legislation to overturn Roe v.Wade in order to gain the vote of religious electorates. I see that Gov.Romney is no exception. While this may endear him to his conservative base, I believe that it is a cynical bait and switch on the part of Gov.Romney to play on the emotions of those people when he should know that the chances of that occurring would be rather slim.
Were he to become the Chief Executive, I think that he would find his powers to be very narrow in scope. While the President is the titular head of all agencies and departments enacted by Congress as well as his Cabinet offices, his "pro-life" polices would probably affect only a few Federal departments directly if any at all.
Which leaves 2 other avenues:
* Legislative
* Judiciary
The Congress could introduce legislation declaring that life begins at conception and would possess all the rights and protections guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution. However at this time, that looks unlikely to be passed through both houses of Congress. Nor do I believe that such a declaration would be universally approved or supported. Which leaves the next possibility; a Constitutional amendment. That seems unlikely, due to the long, arduous process that is outlined in the Constitution to pass an amendment, not to mention the fact that it seems unlikely(IMHO) that there would be sufficient votes in all 50 state legislatures to successfully pass such an amendment. I would point to the failure of the Equal Rights Amendment as the most recent example

Which leads us to the Judiciary. I don't purport to be a legal expert nor am I a lawyer or a law student, I am just giving my opinion on the possibility of actions taken by the Judiciary, if I am in error, please feel free to correct me. As I understand the process, there must first be a controversy at law; a case arising from either the state court or a Federal court brought by a party disputing a law passed by a state legislature and brought to trial. Depending on the losing party, it would wind it's way through the state appellate system to the Federal courts or be brought directly to the Federal court.
Should such a case be brought to that level, the anti-abortion advocates would have to make arguments that would convince at the least a 3 judge panel or 12 judges seated en banc to decide whether or not to uphold the lower courts decision. Should they fail at that, they would have to file for a writ of Certiorari to the U.S. Supreme Court, which the court could decline without stating a reason. But let's say for the sake of argument that it grants the writ. The hurdles that must be overcome stare decisis involve convincing the majority of the court to reverse itself on the decisions:
Griswold v. Connecticut 381 U.S. 479 (1965)
Eisenstadt v. Baird, 405 U.S. 438 (1972)
Bowers v. Hardwick, 478 U.S. 186 (1986)
These cases involve the right to privacy and equal protection under the Constitution. Now given the conservative bent of the Federal judiciary as constituted now, it doesn't seem likely to me that these justices would be inclined to overturn the law and basically "legislate from the bench", as they put it.
But let's say that it does happen. All that would happen if Roe v. Wade was overturned would be that each state would have to enact their own laws regarding abortion. Which would likely result in a patchwork of states that would allow it and some that wouldn't. Which the likely result would be along economic and class lines; those who could afford to travel to those states and those who couldn't.
I don't say this to minimize the possible threat that anti abortion groups pose to the present law, nor do I minimize the threat to women's reproductive rights. I'm merely pointing out the cynicism of those politicians and their campaigns to exploit those people for political gain even though I disagree with them totally.

Preference that Mitt be set adrift on an ice flow.

we would prefer it stays the way it is.

with his tail between his legs.

I'm afraid the Mormons are going to have to wait for another white horse to fulfill their prophecy.

and he is used to getting his "preferences" because he is an entitled little fuckstick

He accomplished one thing, that all-important swing-vote demographic, the Tea Party with its 0.001% swing, is now a locked vote at 100%

when he is to represent the Rethugs.

Some talking point you have there RMONEY.

Rot in hell would you?



& recommend.