:rolleyes: Or it could mean exactly what the words mean. Why is that so hard for you?
Are we talking about the same Romney?
Personal comments don’t belong in this forum, Rand Rover.
I’m sorry, I meant consistently since his conversion. I haven’t seen a significant amount of waffling - more quotes along the line of what Mentor and Liar posted.
He pretty clearly (a) wants Roe overturned and states to be allowed to decide, (b) states to ban abortions in most cases, with (c) exceptions for rape, incest, and (perhaps) the life of the mother.
(a) is his most important goal. (b) is “aspirational”. And (c) is the tricky one - I get the impression that if states (or perhaps even the federal government in the unlikely event an amendment shows up on his desk) outlawed that too he would go along with it in the service of (a) and (b). But there is no way to know that for sure, and I’m inclined to take his word for it that he doesn’t support such a ban at the national level.
Since I can’t countenance (a), it’s just another reason I won’t be voting for him.
I was pretty sure that the sates were forbidden to regulate during the first trimester other than stuff like requiring licensed doctors to perform abortions and meeting safety standards and stuff like that, not forcing women to wait a day or get consent spousal consent or vaginal probes or anything like that.
I agree. He is weaseling.
At this point, I’m going to say I don’t even understand the question. I think I got it right in my first post, and Marley said pretty much the same thing.
Abortion? Why aren’t you asking me why Obama has ruined the economy?
That’s what it means.
It’s a common tactic to change the issue away from abortion. It is settled law, which is pretty much any law that hasn’t been overturned by the Supreme Court. The anti-abortion crowd doesn’t argue that Roe v Wade is unsettled, they’re looking for a constitutional amendment to change it. He’ll use this as a dodge from here on out when asked about abortion. When he gets annointed later in the week the GOP considers that the end of process. Romney will use the traditional means of running toward the center and expecting criticism to be shut down in the same manner Todd Akin was shut down for bringing up the abortion issue. Only this year could be different, there’s dissent within the party, Romney may have to continue catering to the extremists in his party up to the election. This could get interesting.
That was* Roe.* We’ve been under the Casey régime for 20 years, and the states have now found they can pretty much regulate abortion rights away.
We pretty much have thrown it back to the states, because abortion rights advocates are terrified of suing, taking the case to SCOTUS, and having the majority of 5 conservative Catholic men swing hard to the right and abolish abortion nationwide. If abortion rights are to be upheld, their advocates are going to have to fight state by state, like the anti-abortion crowd have been doing. *Roe *couldn’t hold forever.
Can you flesh that out? How, specifically, has Casey allowed states to “pretty much” regulate abortion rights way? In which state is it virtually impossible, legally, to get an abortion. There are certainly states where it is quite difficult to get an abortion, but I’d be interested in hearing you tell us how it is laws, as opposed to simple social pressures, that has caused that.
I agree with John Mace’s analysis. Romney is talking code. What’s he saying is elect me and I’ll appoint a fifth hard-core conservative justice. And then the Supreme Court will decide abortion law and it won’t matter how many Democrats get elected.
That’s the key, you don’t regulate the abortions, you regulate the business. The Gosnell case showed how for political reasons, abortion clinics aren’t regulated much.
The Pennsylvania Department of Health abruptly decided, for political reasons, to stop inspecting abortion clinics at all. The politics in question were not anti-abortion, but pro. With the change of administration from Governor Casey to Governor Ridge, officials concluded that inspections would be “putting a barrier up to women” seeking abortions.
“Even nail salons in Pennsylvania are monitored more closely for client safety,” the report states. “Without regular inspections, providers like Gosnell continue to operate; unlawful and dangerous third-trimester abortions go undetected; and many women, especially poor women, suffer.”
Won’t help. Only Thomas and Scalia are reliable votes to overturn Roe. Kennedy will not do it. Kennedy would have to retire(likely) and then you’d have to be very careful with the selection process, and he would somehow have to bring Roberts and Alito along.
Romney clearly just doesn’t want to talk about abortion. And he shouldn’t. Abortion is not a major issue.
The regulations aren’t being added out of concern for women’s safety, they’re added to force the businesses to shut down so that women can go back to risking their lives with back alley abortions.
Alito would follow Scalia’s lead. One doesn’t know about Roberts.
I don’t think you can say abortion is not a major issue. For many people, it is the only issue. I have a brother in law who bases every vote from drain commissioner to president on that person’s abortion record. He’s far from alone. Romney has their votes in the bag. He can’t risk losing their votes, that’s why he doesn’t talk about it.
There are some one issue voters out there on abortion, but voters never list it as a top issue. It’s probably like gun voters, lots of those too. Except unlike with abortion, the people who vote based on guns are all on one side of the issue.
that first sentence is the important one. Romney doesn’t want to talk about it. It’s no-win for him.
I suspect that Romney’s actual position on abortion is that he doesn’t truly, like most Americans, give a fuck about it (unlike economic and business issues). He’s forced to take a position due to the hot button nature of the issue. But that position changes with political expediency exactly BECAUSE he doesn’t care.
It’s not at all true that Romney’s been consistent on this issue in recent years.
Even just yesterday he said that he is in favor of rape, incest and health of the mother exemptions, and then his people clarified that he misspoke about the health exemption! He has also expressed support for the Personhood position, and has stated that abortions should be banned period.
He’s running for president, for gosh sakes! Don’t ask him to take a firm position.
I’m pro-life, and I think Roe is settled law.
If you believe there is something “hand wavy” about my statement, please explain it.
Politicians pay lip service to the “settled law” so that a pro-choice voter might give them a chance. But rest assured, should Romney win, any Supreme Court appointees would have to promise to overturn Roe, given a chance to do so, or they won’t get nominated. Then when it’s overturned, it will again be “settled law”.
If I were to say, “Obama pays lip service to the Second Amendment, but rest assured, if he gets a second term and no longer has to worry about being re-elected, he’s going to do everything in his power to ban guns!” then I assume I would rightly be asked for some poof of this assertion.