“I’m in favor of abortion being legal in the case of rape and incest, and the health and life of the mother."
And
“Recognize this is the decision that will be made by the Supreme Court,” he said. “The Democrats try and make this a political issue every four years, but this is a matter in the courts. It’s been settled for some time in the courts.”
The conservative base knows he will say whatever he thinks he has to in whatever situation he finds himself in, I think Romney knows the conservative base’s hatred of Obama is much worse than their hatred of him (Romney). I don’t think it will frustrate them because I honestly doubt most people think Romney is a true conservative, something like this is to be expected. However this isn’t his true opinion either. Romney was to the left of this when running MA. Romney’s only true opinion on a lot of issues is ‘whatever gives me the support and coalition I need to achieve my goals’, in this case his goal is to win the presidency. He has run 3 campaigns so far. His campaign(s) in MA, his campaign for the GOP primary for president, and his campaign for the US presidency. In each one he will have whatever opinions he needs to win enough votes to win the election. Now that it is the general, he is moving to the left. But again, that isn’t his ‘true’ opinion either IMO.
At this point, since the primary is over, he doesn’t need their support as much. He doesn’t need to be to the right of Santorum anymore to win their votes in a primary, he just has to make sure the conservative base has enough hatred and disgust for Obama to hold their nose and vote for Romney in the general.
He seems to be playing a little dance by saying that abortion isn’t a topic for the political realm since the Court is “the decider” on that issue. Of course, he would appoint justices whose intent it was to overturn Roe, but you’d have to ask him that directly to get him to admit it.
It was a pretty lame attempt to quash discussion of that topic.
Romney’s right that Roe is settled law, although Roe does allow plenty of scope for regulation. Which can easily make abortion unavailable almost everywhere and some Republican legislatures have just figured out that the power to regulate is the power to destroy.
The political calculus behind this is that any topic of discussion other than fiscal and economic issues is taking the campaign off message. Romney wants to keep the focus on the economy and the budget and Medicare.
But there’s a certain segment of his base who wants a LOT of discussion on social issues. Is this all he’s going to give them, in search of swing voters and independents? Or will he have to talk more about them (which, as you say, he doesn’t particularly want to)?
He didn’t literally say “settled law”, but if he didn’t mean that, what did he mean?
I have to admit that “it’s been settled for some time in the courts” is kinda hard to parse as to the exact meaning since it’s very awkwardly phrasaed, but what do you get from that?
But he said it has “been settled for some time in the courts”, not that it should be settled some time in the future. And if it has been thus settled, it’s… settled law. Keep in mind that Romney is a lawyer, so this is not some foreign subject to him.
True. I only saw that in a second read of what he said. But if it isn’t settled, how is it not a valid topic for political discussion?
ETA: I agree with John Mace. But if “settled for some time in the courts” doesn’t equal “settled law,” then again that means the question is not settled and therefore should be treated as not settled.
I don’t understand your point. Why do you think “been settled for some time” cannot mean “they have been in charge of settling issues in this category” for a long time.
Questions over educational curriculum have been settled by state governments for some time.
RUSSERT: But when you say you support a human life amendment to ban all abortions across the country, what would–form would that take? If a woman had an abortion, would she be perceived a criminal? Would a doctor who performed it be perceived a criminal? You talked about your family relative who died from an illegal abortion, and yet President Romney is saying ban all abortion. And what would be the legal consequences to people who participated in that procedure?
ROMNEY: "Well, let’s do two parts to that. First of all, my view is that the right next step in the, in the fight to preserve the sanctity of life is to see Roe v. Wade overturned and then return to the states and to the elected representatives of the people the ability to deal with, with life and abortion on their own. And so…
“But I want to point out that the first step, in my view, is that Roe v. Wade be overturned. And ultimately, as, as an aspirational goal, I would love it if America came to a point where we’re not today, where the people of America would, would welcome a society that did not have abortion. But that’s not where we are, and so I’m not promoting or fighting for a constitutional amendment to ban abortion in all 50 states. I am fighting for an overturning of Roe v. Wade.”
Yeah, it’s tortured phrasing on purpose. Because it means exactly what you want it to mean. To pro-choice independents it might mean “I won’t mess with abortion at the federal level but will let the courts deal with it”. To pro-life folks it could mean “this is an issue where the battle is currently in the courts - I understand that and as a pro-life politician I will wage the battle there”.
Which one is his real position? I’m not sure even Ann knows for sure. But he’s been pretty consistently pro-life so I think we can expect his judicial nominees to support overturning Roe.
Either way, what it really means is “please stop asking what my or my party’s position on abortion is, because I’d rather talk about the economy and if it weren’t for that fucker Akin I wouldn’t have to be explaining any of this”.
He means it’s been settled in the courts, and it will be settled again in the courts differently, and he’ll appoint judges that Eric Cantor and the TEA Party will confirm so they get the settlements they want.
Don’t let “settle” throw you, he means it to indicate “decide.”
Maybe, but being anti-abortion doesn’t cost you women voters. Women are as likely to be pro-life as men. The issue is a wash because the nation is so closely divided:
Right, but there is almost no demographic outside of hard-right social conservatives that feel abortion should be illegal in cases of rape (“legitimate”, or otherwise). And whether Romney likes it or not (he doesn’t, for the record) both his Vice President and his party platform believe that it should be.
I don’t know if the polling bears this out, but the conventional wisdom is that female swing voters are more likely to be pro-choice. My guess is that such voters are mostly whiter and more educated than the average woman, and there might be a bigger divide in that cohort.