The Romney campaign is opening up about its new ad aimed at reassuring women voters that his policies on abortion and contraception would not be as extreme as they've been led to believe. Romney strategists tell the New York Times their goal is to keep President Obama's lead among women in the low single digits. They decided to release the new commercial this week in hopes it will have maximum impact with late-deciding voters.
The ad seeks to make Mr. Romney's stated position on abortion rights sound moderate. "In fact, he [Romney] thinks abortion should be an option in cases of rape, incest or to save a mother’s life,” says the ad's star, Romney campaign volunteer Sara Minto of Ohio.
Romney's record on abortion is a long and winding road.
William Saletan from Slate mapped the whole thing with a pretty definitive history back in August. This year, Mr. Romney's campaign has said the candidate believes abortion should be banned except in cases of rape or incest or if it's needed to save a woman's life, though as recently as last month, Mr. Romney himself put forth a slightly different position which his campaign later clarified. But one thing Mitt Romney has been very clear about this election year is that he wants to see Roe v. Wade overturned.
Michelle Goldberg argues at the Daily Beast that Romney's commitment to ending Roe explains why anti-abortion conservatives haven't gotten their hackles up over the campaign's more moderate tone on abortion and contraceptives this week. "[S]ocial conservatives are willing to tolerate their candidate’s current feint toward the center ... because the possibility of finally getting rid of Roe is so tantalizingly close," she writes.
The New York Times editorial board sees the potential overturn of Roe v. Wade as a real enough possibility that it took time to ponder a post-Roe America on Tuesday.
"Women desperate to end a pregnancy would find a way to do so. ... Women lacking the resources would either be forced by the government and politicians to go through with an unwanted or risky pregnancy, attempt to self-abort or turn to an illegal — and potentially unsafe — provider for help. Women’s health, privacy and equality would suffer. Some women would die."
Amy Davidson at the New Yorker took the thought experiment one step further -- taking Mr. Romney at his word that he'd allow abortion rights for rape and incest victims and women whose lives were at risk, and wondering aloud how laws like that would be enforced. Who would decide, for instance, if a woman's life was enough at risk to make her eligible for a life-saving abortion?
"[W]ould a woman need to prove that the risk to her life—never mind to her health—was over a certain per cent, say, seventy-five? Which bureaucrats would decide who got access to this medical procedure?"
This might be less a theoretical question than an historic one. Before Roe v. Wade established a woman's right to an abortion, the procedure was generally allowed if the pregnancy posed a serious risk to a woman's health. But somebody had to decide who was eligible and who was not; whose abortion was necessary and whose was not. In the 1940s and '50s, hospitals created review committees to serve as a check on doctors' judgments about when a woman should be allowed to have an abortion. A woman seeking a legal, therapeutic abortion had to get a doctor's approval and then the doctor had to get the hospital committee's approval. Leslie Reagan writes about this process in her book, When Abortion was a Crime: Women, Medicine, and Law in the United States, 1867-1973.
"Probably more important than refusing to authorize therapeutic abortion in specific cases, committees discouraged physicians from seeking approval for abortions. Requiring physicians to commit their medical judgment regarding pregnancy and abortion to writing and then submit supportive arguments based on strict medical indications to a committee for review eliminated some cases immediately. The surveillance itself indicated distrust of physicians and distaste for the procedure. ... Moreover, abortion committees discouraged women from seeking therapeutic abortions. ... Consciously built into the review process were procedures that could be expected to embarrass women patients. Women might have to endure both physical examinations and verbal questioning from several doctors before receiving a therapeutic abortion. This policy was justified, in the minds of some, because some women tried to 'abuse' the law and obtain therapeutic abortions for nonmedical reasons. The University of Virginia Hospital's abortion board reviewed cases with psychiatric indications by having each of the board's three members interview the woman, compare notes, and then decide her fate. Women whose cases might pass muster might prefer to avoid this trying process."
In one very famous case in 1962, an Arizona woman named Sherri Chessen was advised by her doctor to have an abortion. She had taken Thalidomide during her pregnancy, not knowing that it could cause serious birth defects. Her abortion was approved by a local hospital board and the procedure had already been scheduled when her story became public and the hospital board essentially revoked its permission and cancelled her surgery. Chessen ultimately had to travel to Sweden for the procedure. In 1966 she recounted her story at an abortion rights conference in San Francisco in a speech that is reprinted in the book Before Roe v. Wade: Voices that Shaped the Abortion Debate Before the Supreme Court's Ruling.
Naturally the thought came to me that if I'd obtained Thalidomide it was conceivable that others had done so. ... It was this concern that made me pick up the telephone the next morning -- it was Sunday -- and call Ed Murray who is the editor of the Arizona paper. ... He wasn't home but I spoke with Mrs. Murray and she agreed that some warning should indeed be published and asked me if their medical reporter, who was preparing an article on Thalidomide, could phone me. I said yes if he wouldn't use my name and she assured me that he would not. So I agreed. Well, the paper kept their promise, but rather than merely an article warning of the drug, the front-page, black-bordered story screamed in bold print: "Baby-deforming drug may cost woman her child here." Well that did it. The story went out on the wire and before the day was two hours along it stirred international interest. London was debating the Thalidomide problem, and here were examples of what their drug was doing in what to them, I am sure, was the remotest corner of the United States. Well, bathed in the merciless glare of national publicity, the doctors cancelled the operation. From this point on they put me in a little hospital bed, and when everybody asks me when did you decide to do this and when did you decide to petition the court, I can truthfully say that I didn't do much deciding. All I did was a lot of arguing as to why I couldn't get out of there, but to no avail. The surgery, they felt at that point, could be challenged by any citizen. Anyone could have gone to the prosecuting attorney and the doctor, the hospital and myself could face criminal prosecution ... So the hospital board and the doctors and lawyers and everyone conferred. They felt that existing laws were so vague -- what did 'life' mean in the term 'necessary to save the life of the mother'? They decided that go gain judicial clarity the hospital would petition the Supreme Court of Arizona for a declaratory judgment prior to doing this. That's when our names became a matter of the court -- and thus public -- record, as we were swept from there into a ridiculous maelstrom of newsprint. The case was dismissed in court without a hearing. ... Now we faced a blank wall in the United States because of the publicity.
Abortion rights advocates often talk figuratively about anti-abortion policies inviting politicians and bureaucrats into your doctor's office. If Roe v. Wade is overturned and Mitt Romney's preferred policy is established -- allowing abortion only for rape and incest victims and women whose lives are in danger -- there still won't actually be politicians in the doctor's office, but there may very well be lawyers and bureaucrats. Because if it's not up to women and doctors anymore, somebody will have decide who qualifies for abortion rights and who does not.
Leave a Comment:
I am so grateful to see abortion again portrayed as a necessary right.
No more wire hangers!
Pre Massachusetts Governor Romney was pro-life. When he ran for Governor the Bishop Romney asked the church for permission to change his position to pro-choice because he was running for Governor. Permission granted from 2003 to 2007. Immediately leaving office he went back to being pro-life. At a May 2007 Republican Presidential debate in South Carolina, Romney stated that "Roe v.
Wade has gone to such an extent that we've cheapened the value of human life." During the 2008 presidential campaign, Romney said that if elected president, he would support an amendment to the U.S. Constitution that would legally define personhood as beginning at conception (Personhood amendments – no abortion – no exceptions – can outlaw some forms of contraception).
For all his anti-abortion claims he had no problem making money from Bain Capital’s investment into a company called Stericycle, a massive medical waste disposal service company, received a $75 million investment from Bain Capital in 1999, their clients included Planned Parenthood and abortion clinics -- waste collected that included aborted. Anti-abortion but has no problem collecting
income from abortions.
Mitt Romney’s son, Tagg Romney and his wife used a surrogate mother and there was a contract. According to TMZ.com the leaked documents included a contract known as a “Gestational Carrier Agreement”, which Tagg Romney signed on 7/28/11. The section of the contract which gave the Romney’s abortion power of the child reads as follows: In the event the child is determined to be physiologically, genetically or chromosomally abnormal, the decision to abort or not to abort is to be made by the intended parents. In such a case the surrogate agrees to abort, or not to abort, in accordance with the intended parents' decision. http://www.examiner.com/article/mitt-romney-paid-for-son-s-surrogate-abortion-contract-right-to-kill-fetus
So he opposes pro-choice for “we the people” but not for his family.
Remember who is top advisor for choosing a Supreme Court Justice is, Robert Bork; . In a 1984 case called Oil, Chemical and Atomic Workers International Union v. American Cyanamid Co., Bork found that the Occupational Safety and Health Act did not protect women at work in a manufacturing plant from a company policy that forced them to be sterilized -- or else lose their jobs. Thus, as Public Citizen put it, "an employer may require its female workers to be sterilized in order to reduce employer liability for harm to the potential children."
As history goes .... back in the 60's and 70's , both parties agreed on everything right down to Rape and Incest ...... The Republicans said it will be our way or nothing so it ended up what you see today ..... And they have been fighting over it ever since , And when the Republicans found out they could get votes because of it they liked it just the way it is and we have had some horrible Republican Presidents over the Roe vs wade law , they had 6 years out of the 8 that Bush was in office to change it but didin't . THEY WANT THE VOTES .
The problem with saying no abortions with the exception of rape or incest...is that by the time the women proves she has been raped or that incest was involved it is too late to have an abortion.
I don't find this position to be moderate at all. Only 3 authorized reasons to get an abortion? Abortions are performed for multiple reasons and it is an agonizing decision for the mother. It's not like women are prancing around and singing joyfully while waiting in line for their abortion.
To put it another way, Cowgirl55, there is no justification for a government to force gestation and childbirth on a woman. People whose so called "compassion for the unborn" leads them to give more rights to a zygote than a living breathing person, can force their own daughters to give birth when they've made a dumb, adolescent decision, when the contraception they did us failed, when giving birth would impair their health or even endanger their lives, or when they've been raped. This kind of action, barbarous as it is, probably doesn't violate the child abuse and child endangerment laws of the various states.
If I can go back to Mitt's ad, let me suggest a counter-ad that's cheap because it has already been produced and filmed: the footage of Mitt telling Huckabee that he'd "absolutely" support a personhood amendment to the Constitution. It only takes a few seconds, so the footage of Mitt grinning as he says he'd sign a bill overturning Roe v. Wade could be spliced on without exceeding the 30 sec. limit. One only needs to pay for the time, the footage has already been produced and is readily available. (I wonder, however, whether applicable election laws would require Obama's campaign to list Mitt as contributor or volunteer of his services. As I think of it, doing so might bring a lite moment into an ugly campaign.)
Trolling this post to say -- the iPhone app is still broken -- it has been stuck on a show from last week (Wednesday I think) since last week... Please fix it, I need my Maddow
You should be able to get it through the internets also app or no app....at least I can on my Android :-)
Also highly recommended Sirius app . MSNBC channel 117 on the go . A Bluetooth earpiece and this app gets me through many a dull meeting.
Oh yes. I believe this just as much as I believed the newly elected 2010 Congressional critters were going to focus solely on jobs (not social issues). Rrrrrighttt.
Willard's stance on abortion is like all the rest of his policies, it all depends on who he's talking to and how bad he wants their vote. NO ONE knows what he will do if he is elected because he never tells anyone what he will do if he's elected until AFTER he's elected.
Willard and the teapubs want smaller government. Small enough to fit in a woman's uterus with a probe. They are pushing this so much I believe they all get a climax just thinking about it.
KNOWING ......... Romney and Ryan , they will outlaw birth control pills if elected .
He's a lot like Hussein in the way he changes his stances, isn't he?
Republicans are generally God fearing people so it makes sense that they would be against abortions except for life or death situations or rape.
I have been on birth control before and no insurance plan I've ever had paid for it. That's okay with me. They would just raise the premiums for everyone and I'd end up paying for it anyway.
And taxpayers should NEVER be expected to pay for contraception or abortions. That's one reason Obamacare just sucks.
You're entitled to think that way if you want, but I couldn't disagree more.
Because you did it and were OK with it does not mean Obamacare should be overturned.
My friend's son is 22 and unemployed. He is on her insurance plan and overturning Obamacare would kick him off her plan.
That would leave him uninsured, less money to insurance companies and more money in the E.R. when he is "not covered", which we all would "pay for". Times unknown cases? That is just ONE reason Obamacare is just wonderful!
I do feel bad for people who aren't insured. I've been there myself and it's a scary feeling. It made me more determined to get a job with good benefits.
I agree everyone in this country should have the right to health care, but Obamacare does cost us - all of us a lot of money. I've done the research and it's not a good policy for this country. And another thing I hate about it is that it's really another one of his Executive Orders.
I hope you're not referring to President Obama's circulating FALSE rumor about Executive Orders.
http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/executiveorders.asp
The Obamacare (PPACA) was done through a Senate procedure, of which the Republicans in the Senate have used an unprecedented number to thwart any bills they want, which was an astronomical number of them, a record.
Wonder what it would be like had the Republicans (McConnell) not decided to obstruct most bills to undermine the President and the American people in the process. We voted for him and he was obstructed, therefore, so were we. That is the bitterness of this. It wasn't just the President denied, it was the voters denied.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/post/the-history-of-the-filibuster-in-one-graph/2012/05/15/gIQAVHf0RU_blog.html
Hussein doesn't care if he's outnumbered, he just signs executive orders. He holds the record for them. Obama, in an argument with a Senator during a meeting said "You're forgetting who won this election. We're going to do it my way." And he does. Reminds me of a dictator.
I'm a voter and I can't afford Obamacare if it gets fully implemented. I can afford my existing HMO, but under Obamacare I would get hit pretty hard financially.
Insurance premiums were going up already. Obamacare helps keep them lower by saying there must be 80% of the premium going to actual health care. I believe the idea is to allow insurance companies to increase their base and reap profit through more insureds, but they must not gouge consumers or government as in Medicare costs. (as they were doing).
http://www.csmonitor.com/Business/Latest-News-Wires/2012/0912/Health-care-premiums-rise-three-times-faster-than-wages
p.s. I'm calling it a night. Good night.
Greenie, you said President Obama has a record number of Executive orders. That is just not the case. Please look at the Snopes article the gives that rumor a False Red and down at the bottom chart shows the claims in one column and the actuals in another. The record is held by President Roosevelt and President Obama has the least- get that- the leeaast.
http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/executiveorders.asp
You made it sound as if he has the record for most, it's the least of those in the 20th century until now.
Please don't believe all the misinformation. Facts matter.
"Amy Davidson at the New Yorker took the thought experiment one step further -- taking Mr. Romney at his word that he'd allow abortion rights for rape and incest victims and women whose lives were at risk, and wondering aloud how laws like that would be enforced. Who would decide, for instance, if a woman's life was enough at risk to make her eligible for a life-saving abortion?"
For that matter, who would decide if a woman was really raped? Given the time frame, it's not as if you could wait until after a trial and conviction to decide on having an abortion- you'd need someone to make a quick judgment on whether she qualified for a rape exemption. Well, I'm sure our elected officials would trust the woman's story and not stoop to questioning the "legitimacy" of her rape allegation.
Best way to make sure everyone understands that Republicans are and will make laws so the government can interfere with your health decisions, is to throw a flurry of economic jabs first and then knock them out with a solid reproductive right. (Tag Romney inspired.) President Obama's plan includes equal pay, reducing healthcare costs, ensuring women don't pay higher insurance premiums than men, reducing child healthcare costs, increasing health care access, reducing unwanted pregnancies by making sure insurance companies cover the cost contraception and last but not least, protecting choice from a government ready to make it for you.
Let Romney and Ryan speak by checking out their records on such things.
Ryan:
Rep. Paul Ryan has a long anti-choice record from his years in Congress.
Rep. Ryan has been outspoken on his anti-choice views:
Mitt:Best to just give you this link that tries to explain his wishy washy attitude..http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/the_conversion/2012/02/mitt_romney_s_abortion_record_flip_flop_or_conversion_.html
I find it amazing that they are in effect saying that "Abortion should be ILLEGAL except under these very specific set of narrowly defined circumstances" and no one is calling them on it loudly and in those terms because that is EXACTLY what they are saying, there isn't any way of equivocating out of it or denying that is what you ment.
I agree with you. The Democrats need to push back harder. Even Rachel has framed it in the terms of "even in the case of rape or incest." While those should go without saying, the very right of women to make her own decisions on her body with her doctor is at stake. If you give these radicals an inch, they'll take a mile.
Need a hint on what he has plan is based on.
Might try following this.- romneys-bailout-bonanza - America For Sale- Flag included
We are going to Flip it to the Chinese and then they can vote in the next election. The Republicans will get there votes from them. The outsourced Republican base parts of the world, can proxy their one vote through a Government hedge funder.
Sure, why not let the Chinese vote? Obama's getting re-elected by a company in Spain which is run by a friend of his. All of the ballots being sent to Obama's friend's company will be coming from blue (democratic) states. That's quite a coincidence - NOT.
Greenie! You sound quite sure of the rumors you're spreading. So far I can refute your assertions. I don't care to search RW sites for what they are putting out, but it sounds like that's where you get your information. Rumors. Easily refuted emails that state rumors as fact.
I hope folks will give some of these claims a second thought. Snopes is really good at being up to date with subject or names in emails.
http://www.snopes.com/ try it on those emails that make claims or some other hearsay.
Even a little search on Factcheck.org http://www.factcheck.org/
It becomes increasingly obvious that all this exception talk is pure politics and an attempt to medicine taste better to the masses. Anyone who truly believes this is the course the Right really wants to take is delusional.
"In fact, he [Romney] thinks abortion should be an option in cases of rape, incest or to save a mother’s life,”
So he still wants to take away your right to choose, and put it in the hands of politicians.
Because if it's not up to women and doctors anymore, somebody will have decide who qualifies for abortion rights and who does not.
Hmmm, sounds somewhat like a death panel to me...
The panel will consist of white male ultraconservative religious extremists.
Who's really on a "death panel"? The way liberals are pushing for abortions and electing candidates based on whether they like the idea of aborting fetuses it's obviously NOT Republicans.
I cannot understand how any woman could vote for the Romney/Ryan ticket...they are against anything that creates more equality for women. I don't understand how in their eyes smaller government=vaginal probes and telling women what they can and cannot do with their bodies.
Speaking of being probed, I heard their big plan is to beam us up into their space ships and plant Republican embryos in all of us.
If the Obama campaign had not made the strategic decision early on to paint Romney as an extreme conservative (which is really harder to prove), but instead chose to go with the truth, which is that he is, in Howard Fineman's eloquent words: "a genial-looking, seemingly polite and gentlemanly man of faith who is, in fact, a ruthlessly ambitious, shape-shifting politician with enormous wealth, even wealthier friends and a proven reputation for using whatever means necessary to destroy anyone in his path and for blithely disregarding numbers, logic and truth in the pursuit of power" they would have a MUCH easier time addressing these "Etch-a-Sketch" gambits late in the campaign. All they'd need to do now is say: "There he goes again. You can't trust a single thing he says." I remember reading months ago that the campaign decided to go with the "too conservative" approach because they determined from their focus groups that "too conservative" would be more effective than "perfectly lubricated weather vane." I'm sure the focus group evidence was correct, but the "too conservative" approach only works if Romney plays along, which he obviously is not doing anymore.
The government should have no say if a woman wants an abortion or not. It is up to her and her ONLY! If you do not believe in abortion than don't have one, but do not push your opinions on others, and then make it a law. I do not believe Romney or Ryan they will do away with abortion completely as well as any form of birth control. I have one question who is going to care for all those unwanted children? and what happens when they put into personhood, does every woman go to jail if they miscarry? and how are they going to manage to know when a woman becomes pregant? This whole thing is scary and EVERY woman should be afraid!
Hussein will probably have abortions funded by taxpayers. Is it right to push abortion rights on people who because of religious beliefs and scientific knowledge are against them and make these people pay for them? So far Planned parenthood does not provide free abortions, although the facilities where they are done are paid for by taxpayers (bad enough), but if liberals get their way Obama will have abortions covered under Obamacare. To heck with God fearing people who believe that birth control is abstinence, right? It's not all about you liberals, okay? The majority of the population happens to be moderately conservative.
NO taxpayer money goes to pay for PP abortions. Your arguement becomes foolish when you state this.
NO one is forcing people to utilise their right to contraception or abortion. But the left is fighting for it to be there if you ever need it.
I will never understand how you can equate offering a service you can choose or not choose to use is considered less free than denying the service to everyone because of the objections of a few. You do know that the VAST majority of Americans are pro-contraception and pro-choice?
You should read this and educate yourself about the hypocrisy that exists in the anti-choice brigade.
http://mypage.direct.ca/w/writer/anti-tales.html
I'll repeat myself:
They give the term "forced labor" new meaning.
Mitt Romney might be better suited as a used car salesman. This is a typical 'bait and switch' tactic. Much the same as his "47%" real thoughts of the American public, and later "oops, I care about the 100%", his true allegiance has been bought and paid for by the extreme right.
He's giving them a 'wink and a nudge' by offering this "inclusive narrative" ad. I hope that women, and men alike are not fooled by his late-in-the-game, never-mind-the-man-behind-the-curtain maneuvers.
Considering how nice that lady's kitchen is...it seems she shouldn't have any problem affording four more years...
What Mitt Romney says today to get elected and what Mitt Romney would do once in office are two completely different things. Mitt would appoint Supreme Court judges that would overturn Roe vs Wade. Then women who had abortions would be charged with murder and sent to prison.
I have never in my life witnessed a candidate who lied and would say anything from day to day to try to win a VOTE!
Vote Obama! Vote to Protect YOUR RIGHTS! Vote as SOON as you can in the state you live. Vote EARLY and VOTE a STRAIGHT DEMOCRATIC ticket!
Why o why are we still fighting this fight? What is the matter with us? Romney wants to make birth control harder to obtain and is also against abortion. How does that make any sense? Oh. It does if you want to go back to the 1950s. I get it.
Actually it is the far right that is forcing this upon us. Mitt is in the same spot his republican congress is in---either get radical or have the radicals drop you like a rock.
Any independent voter that votes republican is in fact a republican that decided to take on the guise of independent to shake the republican party up as their numbers dwindled.
OK. So we force women to have children they don't want. The implications of that are very ominous: increased child abuse/murder rates, more dependence on social services, women who cannot work because they lack child care, all as a result of cuts R&R want to make to "balance the budget." Makes no sense to me. And don't buy the crap that they will shift the responsibility of funding social services to the states. Maybe they will but where will the states get the money? By increasing their tax rates!! I am no economist but you cannot argue the facts. So R&R look like the good guys when in fact the small guy taxpayer will pay more to advance the Republican agenda.
You are looking at it in a pragmatic way. The republican party has no room for logic or even common sense in this era of all hail the evangelistic march off the cliff.(even way back when the pilgrims were fleeing the church in Europe and coming to America, the church made huge concessions to the wealthy and politically connected while treating commoners like sheep to be owned and fleeced.)
Onward Christian soldiers, marching to war! :-/
To all men who oppose contraception, guess what: No birth control for us, no sex for you.
The thing that I find absolutely galling is that Republicans are constantly harping about how they want smaller government and are very much against the government telling people what to do....except when it comes to things like a woman's right to choose or allowing gays and lesbians the right to marry. Well, then its okay to just butt right in. And the sad part? That they are completely oblivious to their own hypocrisy.
It's called a theocracy and it will destroy democracy.
I'm sorry, but the usage of "In fact" in reference to any of Romney's positions has collapsed me to a pile of giggles on the floor.
I am well beyond the age where I have to worry about birth control. I am worried about how these two would attempt to control other rights, however, for both women and men, especially our right not to have to live under an increased threat of additional terrorist attacks when Romney, who cannot show the POTUS the respect he is due, offends foreign leaders with his superior and condescending attitude. They don't have to take his garbage and are more than willing to retaliate for what they perceive as offensive. He offended the British for God's sake! And they are allies!! The man does not have any ability to censor himself. Bad formula for a POTUS.
Americans don't have to do anything to offend Islamist extremists, they hate us anyway. Heck, even non-extremists hate us. Obama is still throwing money at them - yes, he gave Egypt a couple billion dollars a few weeks ago even though Al Quada hung their flag on our Embassy in Cairo. Obama wants to be seen as a nice guy by even the most vicious world leaders and that has not worked well for him or for our country.
A president has to show back bone and have a "don't mess with us" attitude. Obama doesn't have one and that's making our country vulnerable. I honestly believe that one of the reasons Obama and his team kept blaming the killing of our ambassadors in Libya on a video is because he was afraid to ruffle the feathers of terrorists.
Even if Romney were for keeping Roe v. Wade, he's such a two faced coward that the true anti-choice nuts, like Ryan and Akin and the rest will lead him around by the nose if that's what he needs to get the 20% off his taxes! And he won't even say how much that that 20% would make him because he won't release his taxes !... Wonder Why !!
At least the commercial stays consistent in the fact that it starts off about abortions and jumps right into debt crisis without skipping a beat.
Because as we all know, women who are on the operating table waiting for their, at least for the moment, legal abortion, have constantly got the debt running through their mind. I taught Mitt well.
VIDEO - ROMNEY IN HIS OWN WORDS - would allow states to outlaw BIRTH CONTROL. 47 years ago the Supreme Court decided that states didn't have the right to ban birth control. But for some reason, nearly 50 years later, some politicians actually think government SHOULD have a role in saying who can and can't use birth control. Mitt Romney is one of these politicians. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6S6LF_3eHG8
Trying to set the calendar back to those days where Ward Cleaver came home from work and his wife set him down at the table and served him.
Then asked what else can I do for you, bring your slippers, newspaper and pipe?
There's no war on those types of women, just the uppity ones.
The king of the war on femi-nazis cannot stand uppity women, but the obedient and submissive ones are OK for being objects for his pleasure.
Does this sound like the gateway to burkas?
Yes, but those anti abortion activists would try to convince a pregnant mistress to have an abortion.
http://www.mediaite.com/online/pro-life-gop-congressman-pressed-mistress-to-get-abortion-report-says/
All that pro life stuff is for "other people", not them.
Control and authority.
Romney told Mike Huckabee in 2011 that he supports personhood bill....I am old, but this scares the hell out of me for young women.
I'm a fairly intelligent woman. Really, I am. I pretend to understand the issue underlying all this, but I can't. It simply doesn't make sense to me.
Please someone explain to me the benefit to ANYONE of banning abortions and curtailing women's right to reproductive choice. I am seriously asking, because, as I see it, the only benefit of this is to satisfy the sexist and misogynistic whims of a group of old, white men longing for better days that never actually existed, and indoctrinated christians who actually believe they are saving our souls (even if we haven't asked them to)
What benefits can come from a ban that:
1. puts lives in danger from unscrupulous "abortionists"
2. creates a boom in population to an already overpopulated earth, creating more poverty, more violence, and more raping of the earth's dwindling resources
I'm sorry. I just don't understand. Can someone please explain this to me?
If I were writing, this would have been my exact response. It never fails to confuse me that the people who overwhelmingly in support of banning abortion has such limited memory of the times before Roe v. Wade. Backstreet abortions are crude and dangerous, but women will return to the butchers if safe abortion is not available.
To add to that, when I first went on birth control it was because as a teen it helped regulate my periods. TMI, I know, but what other things are there that would be available to girls having that same issue? Just suffer through never knowing when it's going to come?
Well, off the top:
I'm sure that there are other reasons but those are the ones that come first to mind.