Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Mitt Romney Says Americans Ready to Overturn Roe v. Wade
Life News ^ | 15 October 2007 | Steven Ertelt

Posted on 10/15/2007 4:32:14 PM PDT by Spiff

Mitt Romney Says Americans Ready to Overturn Roe v. Wade

by Steven Ertelt
LifeNews.com Editor
October 15, 2007j

Washington, DC (LifeNews.com) -- Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney says Americans are ready to overturn the Roe v. Wade ruling that paved the way to abortion on demand and well over 48 million abortions. However, he said he doesn't think Americans are ready for a Constitutional amendment giving full legal protection to unborn children.

Asked Friday at a Nevada town hall meeting if he would support a constitutional ban on abortions, Romney said, "I would love to see an America where there was no abortion, but that's not where the American people are."

"What I do want to see, and where I think the American people are today, is to see a conservative jurist on the Supreme Court and to see Roe v. Wade overturned," Romney added.

He also criticized the pro-abortion views ofd Rudy Giuliani, the former New York mayor, and said he doesn't represent most Republicans.

"I believe conservatives across the nation and particularly in states where I have been able to take my message, like Iowa and New Hampshire and South Carolina and Michigan and Florida and Nevada, that conservatives that have heard me time and again recognize that I do speak for the Republican wing of the Republican Party," Romney said.

As LifeNews.com reported in August, top Romney officials said the candidate favors a two-step process towards eliminating abortions with overturning Roe as the first step and a constitutional amendment as the second.

Appearing that month on "Good Morning America," Romney told ABC News that he supports the GOP platform on abortion, which calls for a human life amendment that would afford full legal protection to unborn children.

"You know, I do support the Republican platform, and I support that being part of the Republican platform and I'm pro-life," he told ABC.

But Romney came under criticism for apparently flip-flopping and saying he backs a human life amendment at the same time he says the best approach is to overturn Roe v. Wade and let states make the law on abortion.

Romney advisor Jim Bopp, a leading pro-life lawyer who serves as the top attorney for National Right to Life and other pro-life groups, tells LifeNews.com Romney's two positions go hand in hand.

Bopp, who wrote the amendment that appears in the Republican Party platform, said Romney "views the Human Life Amendment as an aspirational goal, which we hope and pray we eventually can achieve."

"In the meantime, the first important step toward that goal is reversal of Roe v. Wade, and thereby returning the matter to the states, through appointment of strict constructionist judges," Bopp added.

Bopp said Romney's approach is not an "either/or" but rather a "two-step process" of toppling Roe followed by a full move to amend the Constitution.

"The reversal of Roe be an important step in that direction," Bopp explained.

He told LifeNews.com the two-pronged strategy is necessary because there aren't enough votes for an amendment in Congress while overturning Roe could be one vote away on the Supreme Court.

It would allow for the protection of as many unborn children as possible in the short term while a human life amendment is pursued.

That squares with the pro-life movement's long-stated goals of protecting as many unborn children as possible as soon as possible -- first through getting judges on the Supreme Court to overturn Roe and also through a federal amendment for long-term legal protection.



TOPICS: News/Current Events; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: mittromney
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-60 next last

1 posted on 10/15/2007 4:32:18 PM PDT by Spiff
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: asparagus; Austin1; bcbuster; bethtopaz; BlueAngel; Bluestateredman; borntoraisehogs; Bosco; ...

• Send FReep Mail to Unmarked Package to get [ON] or [OFF] the Mitt Romney Ping List


2 posted on 10/15/2007 4:32:51 PM PDT by Spiff (<------ Mitt Romney Supporter (Don't tase me, bro!) Go Mitt! www.mittromney.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Spiff

And Kelo


3 posted on 10/15/2007 4:33:26 PM PDT by clamper1797 (Patriotism is supporting your country all the time, and your government if and when it deserves it)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Spiff

Which would just throw the abortion issue back to the States. Right?


4 posted on 10/15/2007 4:33:54 PM PDT by Jorge
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Spiff

What a terrible disappointment for him, what with his recent pro-abortion oath to the Abortion Industry.


5 posted on 10/15/2007 4:34:53 PM PDT by Petronski (Congratulations Tribe! AL Central Champs)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Spiff

Hear, Hear!

Especially if you’re Rudy911........


6 posted on 10/15/2007 4:35:37 PM PDT by TitansAFC ("My 80% enemy is not my 20% friend" -- Common Sense)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Spiff

Americans don’t have a clue what Roe v. Wade means, as evidenced by the fact that most support Roe v. Wade, but feel that abortion should be regulated. They don’t seem to comprehend that Roe v. Wade stands for the proposition that abortion CAN’T be regulated.


7 posted on 10/15/2007 4:36:26 PM PDT by Brilliant
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Spiff
"However, he said he doesn't think Americans are ready for a Constitutional amendment giving full legal protection to unborn children."

Romney is the ultimate dictator NEVER allowing a vote
whether gay marriage, HillaryCARE=RomneyCARE, or apparently anything else.

He should just run as Hillary's VP, or buy his own island.

8 posted on 10/15/2007 4:36:27 PM PDT by Diogenesis (Igitur qui desiderat pacem, praeparet bellum)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Petronski

Yep, still flipping and flopping.


9 posted on 10/15/2007 4:36:30 PM PDT by Missey_Lucy_Goosey
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Spiff

Perhaps. I know they’re getting worn out and tired of killing their babies and pretending it’s just like removing a hangnail.


10 posted on 10/15/2007 4:36:50 PM PDT by the invisib1e hand (arrogance is unlovely in any color.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Diogenesis

Flippity floppity, Willard’s on his way!


11 posted on 10/15/2007 4:37:44 PM PDT by Petronski (Congratulations Tribe! AL Central Champs)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Spiff
Good to hear Governor Romney saying this. As I said before, if he overcomes the "evangelical" hurdle, he has a huge chance of becoming the nominee and even a bigger chance of becoming President, he will destroy Hillary Clinton or whoever is the democrat nominee very easily.

He will win the women vote in the general elections, and once this is done it is an impossibility for the democrat candidate to win because for sure the men vote will go largely to the Republican candidate as usual.

12 posted on 10/15/2007 4:38:37 PM PDT by jveritas (God bless our brave troops and President Bush)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Spiff
Is Steven Ertelt supporting Mr. Romney? I would be surprised by that kind of endorsement, but it would swing some votes.

Bill

13 posted on 10/15/2007 4:39:00 PM PDT by WFTR (Liberty isn't for cowards)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Spiff
My problem with Romney is that what he says one day to one group...he will not repeat with another group. That’s the problem. He says it today...what will he say tomorrow? Thompson is the true and consistent Conservative. He is our only choice for 2008.
14 posted on 10/15/2007 4:39:13 PM PDT by Bobbisox (ALL AMERICAN OLD FEMALE FREEPER! and a FredHEAD!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Spiff
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

If ever there was a need for constitutional amendment that protects human life from conception to natural death, now is the time. Romney is a Country Club Republican twit who wants it both ways -- overturn Roe v. Wade so the states individually can decide on life or murder, but not outlaw the barbaric procedure outright (along with its siblings euthanasia and assisted suicide).

15 posted on 10/15/2007 4:41:54 PM PDT by quark
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Spiff

Title should be:

“This week Mitt Romney says...”


16 posted on 10/15/2007 4:43:01 PM PDT by glorgau
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Brilliant

That’s not what Roe stands for, hence, that’s why abortion has been regulated since Roe. (parental notification, 24 hr waiting period, etc.).

“most laws against abortion in the United States violated a constitutional right to privacy under the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.” Notice, most, not all.

Most importantly, there is a late term exclusion inherent in its holding. “The central holding of Roe v. Wade was that abortions are permissible for any reason a woman chooses, up until the “point at which the fetus becomes ‘viable,’ that is, potentially able to live outside the mother’s uterus, albeit with artificial aid.”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roe_v_wade

Your main point though, “Americans don’t have a clue what Roe v. Wade means” was proven right by your post, no offense.


17 posted on 10/15/2007 4:50:11 PM PDT by enough_idiocy (www.daypo.net/test-iraq-war.html)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: enough_idiocy

Read the case. Parental notification was considered to be such a pitifully minor “regulation” that it did not count. But any significant regulation of the “right” of abortion is prohibited. And I would also point out that the courts have even been very prolific in striking down even parental notification laws.


18 posted on 10/15/2007 4:53:45 PM PDT by Brilliant
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: Spiff

“Mitt Romney Says Americans Ready to Overturn Roe v. Wade”

Mitts’ best and probably ONLY shot is to hit Rudy on the social issues and not let up. Pound him at every turn.

And hope to God(s?) that no one looks into Mitts’ own past record on the same issues.


19 posted on 10/15/2007 4:57:51 PM PDT by Grunthor (http://franz.org/quiz.htm)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Brilliant

I’ve read the case a number of times. You’re statement that abortion cannot be regualted is 100% incorrect. Read the case law after Rvw. Finally, again, the express language of the holding permits state/federal action at the point of viability, which as Justice O’Connor wrote about in a later case, is getting sooner and sooner during pregnancy. This is how and why we’re able to ban late term abortion, which, by the way, is regulating abortion. If abortion was not regulated, women would be able to abort up to 8 months. Seriously, you misstated the holding and it’s impossible to argue otherwise. Please don’t make me waste my time by pulling up the case and copy/paste the language that refutes your post. It should be simple enough to know you’re wrong and accept that by looking at the post-Roe case law and the partial birth abortion.


20 posted on 10/15/2007 4:58:37 PM PDT by enough_idiocy (www.daypo.net/test-iraq-war.html)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: Brilliant

From the westlaw case summary:

410 U.S. 113
The Supreme Court, Mr. Justice Blackmun, held...subsequent to approximately the end of the first trimester the state may regulate abortion procedure in ways reasonably related to maternal health, and at the stage subsequent to viability the state may regulate and even proscribe abortion except where necessary in appropriate medical judgment for preservation of life or health of mother.

“With respect to the State’s important and legitimate interest in the health of the mother, the ‘compelling’ point, in the light of present medical knowledge, is at approximately the end of the first trimester. This is so because of the now-established medical **732 fact, referred to above at 725, that until the end of the first trimester mortality in abortion may be less than mortality in normal childbirth. It follows that, from and after this point, a State may regulate the abortion procedure to the extent that the regulation reasonably relates to the preservation and protection of maternal health. Examples of permissible state regulation in this area are requirements as to the qualifications of the person who is to perform the abortion; as to the licensure of that person; as to the facility in which the procedure is to be performed, that is, whether it must be a hospital or may be a clinic or some other place of less-than-hospital status; as to the licensing of the facility; and the like.”

“With respect to the State’s important and legitimate interest in potential life, the ‘compelling’ point is at viability. This is so because the fetus then presumably has the capability of meaningful life outside the mother’s womb. State regulation protective of fetal life after viability thus has both logical and biological justifications. If the State is interested in protecting fetal life after viability, it may go so far as to proscribe abortion *164 during that period, except when it is necessary to preserve the life or health of the mother.”

Again, I’m sorry, but you’re simply wrong to say there can be no regulation. You went to far. Even your post “such a pitifully minor ‘regulation’ that it did not count” acknowledge it’s regulated, though you discount the extent to which it’s regulated. Moreover, you completely misstate the Court’s opinion of these regulations. The Court, particularly the dissenters in those cases, find this to be intrusive and not a minor regulation.


21 posted on 10/15/2007 5:05:31 PM PDT by enough_idiocy (www.daypo.net/test-iraq-war.html)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: Brilliant

From the westlaw case summary:

410 U.S. 113
The Supreme Court, Mr. Justice Blackmun, held...subsequent to approximately the end of the first trimester the state may regulate abortion procedure in ways reasonably related to maternal health, and at the stage subsequent to viability the state may regulate and even proscribe abortion except where necessary in appropriate medical judgment for preservation of life or health of mother.

“With respect to the State’s important and legitimate interest in the health of the mother, the ‘compelling’ point, in the light of present medical knowledge, is at approximately the end of the first trimester. This is so because of the now-established medical **732 fact, referred to above at 725, that until the end of the first trimester mortality in abortion may be less than mortality in normal childbirth. It follows that, from and after this point, a State may regulate the abortion procedure to the extent that the regulation reasonably relates to the preservation and protection of maternal health. Examples of permissible state regulation in this area are requirements as to the qualifications of the person who is to perform the abortion; as to the licensure of that person; as to the facility in which the procedure is to be performed, that is, whether it must be a hospital or may be a clinic or some other place of less-than-hospital status; as to the licensing of the facility; and the like.”

“With respect to the State’s important and legitimate interest in potential life, the ‘compelling’ point is at viability. This is so because the fetus then presumably has the capability of meaningful life outside the mother’s womb. State regulation protective of fetal life after viability thus has both logical and biological justifications. If the State is interested in protecting fetal life after viability, it may go so far as to proscribe abortion *164 during that period, except when it is necessary to preserve the life or health of the mother.”

Again, I’m sorry, but you’re simply wrong to say there can be no regulation. You went to far. Even your post “such a pitifully minor ‘regulation’ that it did not count” acknowledge it’s regulated, though you discount the extent to which it’s regulated. Moreover, you completely misstate the Court’s opinion of these regulations. The Court, particularly the dissenters in those cases, find this to be intrusive and not a minor regulation.


22 posted on 10/15/2007 5:06:01 PM PDT by enough_idiocy (www.daypo.net/test-iraq-war.html)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: Brilliant

The holding:

“Measured against these standards, Art. 1196 of the Texas Penal Code, in restricting legal abortions to those ‘procured or attempted by medical advice for the purpose of saving the life of the mother,’ sweeps too broadly. The statute makes no distinction between abortions performed early in pregnancy and those performed later, and it limits to a single reason, ‘saving’ the mother’s life, the legal justification for the procedure. The statute, therefore, cannot survive the constitutional attack made upon it here.”


23 posted on 10/15/2007 5:06:35 PM PDT by enough_idiocy (www.daypo.net/test-iraq-war.html)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: quark
If ever there was a need for constitutional amendment that protects human life from conception to natural death, now is the time.

Good luck getting 3/4 of the states to ratify it.

24 posted on 10/15/2007 5:08:59 PM PDT by curiosity
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Spiff

I’m sure there’s some way he could pander more, but I’m at a loss to name it.


25 posted on 10/15/2007 5:10:12 PM PDT by Gurn (Remember Mountain Meadows.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Brilliant
They don’t seem to comprehend that Roe v. Wade stands for the proposition that abortion CAN’T be regulated.

I thought R v W outlawed third trimester abortions, no?

26 posted on 10/15/2007 5:12:38 PM PDT by Go Gordon (The short fortune teller who escaped from prison was a small medium at large.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Spiff
Mitt Romney?

Roe vs. Wade?

This guy?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P_w9pquznG4

27 posted on 10/15/2007 5:14:22 PM PDT by EternalVigilance ('Choosing the lesser of two evils' ...How's that workin' out for ya?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Go Gordon
I thought R v W outlawed third trimester abortions, no?

No, it ruled that states could restrict 3rd trimester abortions provided they weren't necessary to protect the woman's health. Subsequent decisions ruled that this exception had to include "mental health," which in effect makes it impossible to outlaw 3rd trimester abortions, since it's very easy to claim an abortion is necessary for "mental health."

28 posted on 10/15/2007 5:15:18 PM PDT by curiosity
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: enough_idiocy

Yes, but you’ve got to read all of the cases. Read the parental notification cases. Read the partial birth abortion cases. The general rule is that you can’t regulate abortion, and that is what Roe has been held to say. Of course, there are exceptions to every rule. Eventually, the courts found a watered down parental notification law they could uphold (to save themselves from being tarred and feathered) and eventually, they found a partial birth abortion law they could uphold, but not without throwing out a bunch first. The exceptions in the case of the “right” to abortion have been very few and far between.


29 posted on 10/15/2007 5:16:17 PM PDT by Brilliant
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: Spiff

This is why Romney ultimately gets the nomination. Republicans are *not* going to nominate pro-choice (READ:anti-life) Ghouliani.

30 posted on 10/15/2007 5:16:24 PM PDT by yellowhammer ( Mitt Romney '08)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: enough_idiocy
Prior to Planned Parenthood v. Casey, Roe was interpreted as de facto prohibiting regulation. The Casey decision changed that, allowing parental consent laws, informed consent laws, and other such things.

Ultimately, though, it is pretty much impossible for a state to outlaw 3rd trimester abortions.

31 posted on 10/15/2007 5:18:01 PM PDT by curiosity
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: Go Gordon

Second and third. But now it has been expanded to the point where it covers everything up to and including the moment of birth, with the partial birth abortion decisions.


32 posted on 10/15/2007 5:19:11 PM PDT by Brilliant
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: Go Gordon

Pardon me... It did not “prohibit” second and third trimester abortions. It merely said that the goverment could not regulate abortions in the first trimester.


33 posted on 10/15/2007 5:20:14 PM PDT by Brilliant
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: Spiff

I’ll take it....bury Roe v Wade in an unmarked grave


34 posted on 10/15/2007 5:21:37 PM PDT by wardaddy (Behind the lines in Vichy Nashville)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Bobbisox
..what he says one day to one group...he will not repeat with another group.

Got any examples from this current '08 race?

Or is this more RDS (Romney Derangement Syndrome) talking points?

35 posted on 10/15/2007 6:00:28 PM PDT by Edit35
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: glorgau

“This week Mitt Romney says...”

ROFLOL!!

36 posted on 10/15/2007 6:06:19 PM PDT by Osage Orange (911 is government sponsored Dial-A-Prayer.".)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: MojoWire

I’ve heard Romney stick to his stands on these issues in front of hostile New Hampshire voters (probably independents or Democrats) who challenged him directly. One group, for example, pushed him to commit to supporting the Fair Tax. He said he had major problems with it and would want his people to thoroughly vet it before he would agree to back it. I have seen him on many C-SPAN appearances campaigning in New Hampshire, Iowa, and elsewhere. His message and his answers to questions have been consistent.


37 posted on 10/15/2007 6:26:40 PM PDT by WestSylvanian
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: Brilliant

I’ve read the cases.

“The general rule is that you can’t regulate abortion, and that is what Roe has been held to say. Of course, there are exceptions to every rule.” Ok, first it was you couldn’t regulate abortion at all, now you’re shifting the language a bit.

“Eventually, the courts found a watered down parental notification law they could uphold (to save themselves from being tarred and feathered) and eventually, they found a partial birth abortion law they could uphold, but not without throwing out a bunch first.” Again, parental notification is not the only restriction. 24 hour waiting periods. Late term abortions. Procedures used. You’re ignoring additional regulations, let alone the explicit text, which I cited, that says you can regulate later during term as viability emerges.

“The exceptions in the case of the ‘right’ to abortion have been very few and far between.” That’s a reflection of legislature a) not trying to limit it, and b) when doing so not using the right language.

As O’Connor wrote in a recent opinion, as technology pushes the viability threshold sooner and sooner, the right to life will increasingly dominate. Even the first trimester is starting to be thought up for grabs.

Glad to see you’ve modified your position to realize that there is no absolute ban on regulating abortion.


38 posted on 10/15/2007 6:54:38 PM PDT by enough_idiocy (www.daypo.net/test-iraq-war.html)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: curiosity; Brilliant

The opinion’s plain language permits later term regulation, so I don’t know to whom you refer when you say it was interpreted as de facto prohibition on abortion. But you’re 100% correct that Casey had a major impact, as did other cases:

Webster v. Reproductive Health Services
In this case, the Court upheld several abortion restrictions, and modified the Roe trimester framework

Gonzales v. Carhart
On April 18, 2007, the Supreme Court handed down a 5 to 4 decision upholding the constitutionality of the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act.
The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that the term “partial-birth abortion” in the act pertains to a procedure that is sometimes called “intact dilation and extraction” by the medical community.[2] Under this law, “Any physician who, in or affecting interstate or foreign commerce, knowingly performs a partial-birth abortion and thereby kills a human fetus shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 2 years, or both.” The law was enacted in 2003, and in 2007 its constitutionality was upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court, in the case of Gonzales v. Carhart.

The bottom line is, this statement, “Roe v. Wade stands for the proposition that abortion CAN’T be regulated” is entirely false. It can, as expressed in Roe (see my excerpted passages), and has been, see cases above.


39 posted on 10/15/2007 7:03:43 PM PDT by enough_idiocy (www.daypo.net/test-iraq-war.html)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: MojoWire

He is only a Conservative now because of his desire to be President. Sorry...he is no Conservative to me.


40 posted on 10/15/2007 7:14:43 PM PDT by Bobbisox (ALL AMERICAN OLD FEMALE FREEPER! and a FredHEAD!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: Spiff
Why have I been seeing TV commercials with Mitt Romney stating that Roe v Wade has been the law of the land, and that he wants to keep abortion safe and legal?

Then the commercial states that Mitt has "Massachusetts values". Yeah, well Ted Kennedy has Massachusetts values. Who is airing these commercials now?

41 posted on 10/15/2007 10:21:13 PM PDT by Sender (Can I just post until I need glasses?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: enough_idiocy

The Roe opinion itself was limited to the first trimester. But later, they ruled in other cases that the right to abortion applied in the second and third trimester as well, all the way up until the moment of birth. So the baby could be partially born, yet the mother still had a right to abortion.


42 posted on 10/16/2007 4:10:57 AM PDT by Brilliant
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: enough_idiocy

It’s not “entirely false.” That is the spirit of Roe v. Wade. There are minor, entirely negligible exceptions like parental notification and partial birth abortion, which could even be described as non-exceptions. Parental notification applies only to minors. Obviously, a minor has no right to make every decision for herself. But that doesn’t mean she doesn’t have a right to abortion. It just means she’s got to give notification to the person who is legally entitled to make these decisions. As far as partial birth abortion is concerned, I’m not sure I would even call it abortion. More like infanticide.


43 posted on 10/16/2007 4:16:02 AM PDT by Brilliant
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: Sender
Why have I been seeing TV commercials with Mitt Romney stating that Roe v Wade has been the law of the land, and that he wants to keep abortion safe and legal? Then the commercial states that Mitt has "Massachusetts values". Yeah, well Ted Kennedy has Massachusetts values. Who is airing these commercials now?

Those commercials are a deception designed by and paid for by the Log Cabin Republicans - a pro-radical gay agenda organization who is a cancer within the Republican Party. They hate Mitt Romney for his stand FOR traditional marriage and AGAINST gay marriage. They support Rudy Giuliani and they are doing his bidding by running these misleading ads. If you believe those ads, then you're falling for a Giuliani trick paid for by a bunch of pro-gay agenda extremists.

44 posted on 10/16/2007 6:19:43 AM PDT by Spiff (<------ Mitt Romney Supporter (Don't tase me, bro!) Go Mitt! www.mittromney.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: Coleus; nickcarraway; narses; Mr. Silverback; Canticle_of_Deborah; TenthAmendmentChampion; ...
Is he sincere or just another calculating pandering politician......

Pro-Life PING

Please FreepMail me if you want on or off my Pro-Life Ping List.

45 posted on 10/16/2007 7:44:24 AM PDT by cpforlife.org (A Catholic Respect Life Curriculum is available at KnightsForLife.org)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: cpforlife.org
Is he sincere or just another calculating pandering politician......

Ask James Bopp that. You know, the guy who wrote the pro-life plank in the Republican Party platform and who is National Right to Life Council's top attorney. Ask Massachusetts Citizens for Life. They'll tell you that this is no calculated pandering, but authentic pro-life positions.

46 posted on 10/16/2007 7:47:21 AM PDT by Spiff (<------ Mitt Romney Supporter (Don't tase me, bro!) Go Mitt! www.mittromney.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: Spiff

Romney and Thompson are much better than rooty.


47 posted on 10/16/2007 7:50:20 AM PDT by 1Old Pro
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: 1Old Pro; Spiff

“Romney and Thompson are much better than rooty.”

That appears to be true.


48 posted on 10/16/2007 8:22:35 AM PDT by cpforlife.org (A Catholic Respect Life Curriculum is available at KnightsForLife.org)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: Brilliant

“It’s not “entirely false.” That is the spirit of Roe v. Wade.”

Lol. Good one. I feel like I’m debating political issues with a liberal. Sir, you said it’s holding is that abortion cannot be regulated. It’s explicit text says the opposite. Precedent for 30 yrs demonstrates the opposite. I’m sorry but saying it’s holding is that abortion CAN’T be regulated is false and all the spin in a democrat’s speech isn’t going to change that.

The spirt of it. Are you conjuring spirits now like liberal judges? lol.

You keep focusing on one of several regulations at the exclusion of the others, let alone the opinion’s express text, and you’re really stretching. Some “minor” regulation no matter how you slice it is contrary to “NO REGULATION.” As a final point on the parental notification issue, why do you think the legislature passed this law in the first place? Why do you insult the efforts of pro life advocates who got this put in place? This was done to discourage abortion, which it does, and which is why pro abortion people fought/fight it strenuously.


49 posted on 10/16/2007 3:38:58 PM PDT by enough_idiocy (www.daypo.net/test-iraq-war.html)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: Brilliant

“The Roe opinion itself was limited to the first trimester.” Umm, again, you are incorrect. Please read the opinion. The line was drawn at viability not at a trimester. In fact, based on the available scientific understanding then, the Court suggested viability was beyond the first trimester. Even if the Court limited it to the first trimester, that would hurt your argument b/c then regulation could occur after that, which of course would mean saying “can’t regulate abortion” is incorrect.

“But later, they ruled in other cases that the right to abortion applied in the second and third trimester as well, all the way up until the moment of birth.” Where are you getting this from? This is entirely incorrect. The post-Roe cases have eroded Roe, not stregthened it. The line has gone pushed back closer to the first trimester, not close toward birth. Please cite some sources, your characterization of the case law is completely unsupported.

“So the baby could be partially born, yet the mother still had a right to abortion.” What? I’d like to see you post anything from any cases supporting any of this nonsense you’ve posted; otherwise, “Brilliant” I see this is going no where because you’re simply making stuff up at this point.


50 posted on 10/16/2007 3:45:17 PM PDT by enough_idiocy (www.daypo.net/test-iraq-war.html)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-60 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson