Uh huh, so the fact that whenever this issue gets voted on by the people the pro-choice side has won would of course mean settling it in a DEMOCRATIC way would mean leaving it pretty much the way it is under Roe v. Wade escapes his "logic".

The problem with this issue is that you have to look at what is at the base of it. It's the idea of a right to privacy Vs enforcing morality. If you look at Abortion as a keyhole issue and see past it you run into things that range from Gay issues to birth control to whether or not people can legally purchase sex toys (as trivial as that sounds its actually a real issue). Its a question of whether or not one groups moral views can be enforced on the rest of the country and does the federal government have the authority or duty to do that. I think that the vice president framed it perfectly when he said that he couldn't do that.

Joe's answer to this issue was spot-on and expressed with heartfelt sincerity, unlike Ryan's. Many people's faith includes a belief that life begins at conception, and because of that they would never choose themselves to have an abortion. Other's people's faiths do not include that same belief. It would be wrong, therefore, to impose your own - or a group's - belief upon them, especially with decisions that are so very personal and important.

Nobody wants more abortions to take place. So why do Republicans want to reduce or eliminate the things (contraception and insurance coverage for it) that help prevent unwanted pregnancies? It defies logic.

I thought Biden's response to the same question was one of his high points, which made Ryan's extremism look even worse.

We don't think that unelected judges should make this decision...

Ryan may not be aware of this, but the judicial branch is actually part of our government all the time, not just when it is convenient tool for the Right wing's own agenda.

Not the debate but yesterday's show...Stephanie Cutter's interview was informative but had one flaw/mistake that should be avoided. A number of times she used the term "pro-life" to describe those who are introducing new anti-abortion/anti-choice legislation. By allowing the other side to own the "pro" prefix you automatically reduce your own side to be "anti"... In a debate language specificity is extremely important

So, they say there is no use for the Judicial Branch to make determinations about the laws, whether they are constitutionally consistent or not.

Whomever says unelected Judges cannot make these determinations does not understand the role of the Supreme Court. The federal level judges are appointed and seeing the way they are blocked by Congress would seem one set of elected Congress won't even let the elected Executive make appointments, as it removes Consent.

Those same people would appoint unelected Judges to overturn Roe and wail at any denial of consent. They only say unelected judges when the judge is not "on board with" their views on Roe or Corporate personhood.

The personal rights are denied to breathing people in order give rights to a blastocyst or a corporation. They are arguing that women cannot decide, the court cannot determine, but big government decides and determines.

Whomever it was (TC or Entropy) that said freedom of religion is a shield and not a sword is right. I am in agreement there. The Court's ruling was written that way. Thank you very much.

http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2012/10/01/931671/bush-appointed-judge-rejects-catholic-employers-challenge-to-birth-control-access-rules/

I am still baffled at the fact that no one in politics has ever answered these questions the most common sense way (the way I feel). If that question was asked of me, my answer would be simple: "I am a man. Since I do not possess the anatomy to conceive or bear a child, I don't feel I have the right to tell a woman what she is allowed to do with her body. Period."

For a completely ludicrous analogy, here goes. This would be like a baseball player weighing in on what padding football players should be forced to wear - who cares what his opinion is? That is how I look at it - the wrong people are being asked for their opinions. I don't look to women to give me advice on my man parts, so I wouldn't expect a woman to look to a man to tell her what to do with her women's parts (unless of course that man/woman is your doctor).

The real question is why should government officials, elected OR appointed, be dictating very personal medical decisions for (slightly more than) half the population?

@Sandy, completely agree. Ryan must not have attended civics class in school. It is exactly the point of the Judicial to rule (supposedly) impartially and in keeping with the Constitution and not be held hostage to the majority view. The Courts specific job is to protect the Constitutional rights of the minority in the face of majority pressure. The Court has already ruled that the implied right to privacy provides Constitutional protections for health care, including female reproductive cases. Unfortunately this radically right leaning court is turning judicial history on its head. A vote for Obama is a vote for the return of the Supremes to a more centrist make-up and a return to sanity.

Biden wasn't psyched, he was psycho. Clearly off his meds, Joe came across as unstable on the national stage. And this is the man who is a heart beat away from the presidency. Joe is the best insurance policy Mr Obama has to avoid a lunatic attempting to cause him harm. Who would put Joe Biden in the oval office?

I'm sorry but the party of 'small government' ALWAYS wants to limit what they don't LIKE...everything they play this game they get caught.

"...that people through their elected representatives consult with their doctors in reaching a consensus in society private decision through the democratic process intensly personal doctor-patient relationship should make this determination."

Wait a minute. At what point then, and on which issues, should judges be involved in anything? Ryan seems to be saying, effectively, that "majority rules" on all social issues.

Has he actually read the Constitution?

Well see, if you elect judges then they can be purchased directly! It cuts out the middle man and encourages more trickle down peeing on the lower caste(s)!

If Mitt wants to legislate morality he can run for president of his church. If there is a god, and he sits in judgment, we act in the possibility of later consequences, just like in real life. There is seldom actions without consequences, good or bad. You are free to have your own relationship with your higher power. When you run for office in America, you are signing on to represent Americans, not just your religious beliefs. If this conflicts you too much, find another job.

San Diego that home of Darrell Issa the witch hunter. That's all the Reps. have is the great ability to castigate. Forget compassion, forget understanding, just bring on Torquemada!

Did anybody notice how all news channels were declaring Willard the clear winner of the debate when he lied and didnt give facts. Joe Biden wiped the floor with Ryan and he kept sipping at his water nervously. How come we are not shouting a Biden win when it was so obvious he was the real deal and for the middle class like no other.

Here's what I think- I think men and women who bring crack babies into the world or abuse or neglect their children should be sterilized. That being said I would not expect my opinions to become Constitutional law. Where do these guys get off dictating their phony morals on the rest of us? They need to get their noses rubbed in a dose of reality and start showing some basic understanding of the human condition before they polish their halos.

It seems that Biden was the only one there last night that understood the SEPARATION of Church and State...

Oh Rachel I dont know if you read this blog but I really think you need to cover Jerry Tetalman for congress because Daryl Issa is an unamerican shameful grandstander who is only trying to protect the rich which he is a very rich one and their destructive agenda to get romney elected. that is all it is. Tetalman is for us and I think he needs more coverage because people dont understand how is the best choice for all americans.

And while we are on the subject. It seems that this election is about the antiquated decision made by man (as in the male gender) back even before the middle ages. Men needed to dominate and own womankind. Protect them, sure, but basically women needed to be owned and kept isolated to do their womanly job. That way a man had his woman to himself and by supporting her, he had his way (whatever his way was and sometimes it was very violent). It was felt to be important for the survival of the species.

Now, we have overpopulation and womankind is required to stop having so many children and go out on their own and support themselves.

The antiquated dragons of the old ways see this as womankind needs to be re-subjugated and it is their Christian, Muslim or whatever (put in your own version of the religion you think is doing this) duty to stop this and put womankind where she belongs. You can’t have it both ways. Women are out of the box you took them out of when the necessity of world war II made them go to work and support the war, our country and men and they aren’t going back.

I don't know why Democrats are not calling the Republican,Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan's position on abortion "UnAmerican". First, Ryan doesn't think that "unelected" Judges should be making decisions about American. What!!! Last time I looked, the Supreme Court was one-third of the Constitutional government. Does he think the Supreme Court is irrelevant? No, he only thinks its relevant when their decisions agree with his point of view. Second, the Constitution guarantees freedom of religion. Paul Ryan thinks that his belief about when life begins and what constitutes personhood is the belief that should guide everybody's behavior in the US. What arrogance. He is entitled to his belief but has no right to legislate how I should act. There have been many wild accusations about Democrats being Socialist or Communist but here is a fact. By passing a law saying that no woman has the right to choose what she does with her body is Fascist. Paul Ryan for all his "cutesy" appeal is nothing but a closet Fascist and, if he had his way, he would clearly like his "small government" to come into our bedrooms and doctors offices and tell us what is right and wrong. The greatness of America is that we have the right to believe what we want and to act in the way we want as long as our behavior doesn't break laws. Paul Ryan wants to pass laws that will make our freedom to believe and act in our own way illegal. That is Fascist mentality and he should be exposed for what he is.

God forbid Ryan decides to run for President some day. He will have the Pope as his running mate. The two of them will go hand in glove to drag us back to the dark ages- or should I say whip and chain us back! Joe Biden's statement about abortion shows so much more understanding of the world around us. It is a more enlightened point of view for certain.

Now here this, women are sick of being bullied and abused at the hands of the supercilious. Any woman with and ounce of self esteem and self respect should NOT vote Romney/Ryan!

Almost no one has discussed what the Vice-Presidential debated are really about: the readiness to assume the Presidential role should it become necessary. This is not an idle issue since 9 vice-presidents have had to assume the role. In addition, several Presidents have had heart attacks while in office. Mitt Romney is not a young man. At 65, he could die within the next year. So the cliche', a heartbeat away is not an insubstantial question. Is there any objectively thinking person who after seeing the debate thought that Paul Ryan looked Presidential? He looked like an lightweight, wonk who has virtually no knowledge or experience with world affairs. He had no gravitas. Can you imagine him sitting down with Vladimir Putin or Angela Merkel and negotiating anything? They will walk all over him like wet toilet paper. "Oh, let me tell you my 97 point economic plan for settling the Mid-East crisis. I can't tell you the exact way to implement it but as rationale men, we'll work it out." Joe Biden looks and acts Presidential. He has been in government at the highest levels for almost forty years. Shouldn't our experience with Sarah Palin have educated us to the dangers of electing a Vice-President who is incapable of dealing with the most difficult job in the world? Has the American public been so enamoured of "honey boo-boo" shows that they think anybody can be Vice-President as long as he's cute or pretty with an engaging personality?