Romney says Ryan won't oppose abortion in rape cases (Romney supports both rape & incest abortion)

JS Online ^ | Aug. 20, 2012 | James Rowen

[xzins]

Odious remarks by GOP Missouri Senate candidate Cong. Todd Akin about how few pregnancies result from "legitimate rape" have done more than outrage people across the country and doom Akin's bid to move up from the House.

It motivated the Romney campaign - - already trailing among women voters in recent polls - - to distance itself from Akin by assuring voters that Romney and Paul Ryan - - the "Romney-Ryan administration" - - should they win in November, would not oppose raped women's access to abortion.

"Governor Romney and Congressman (Paul) Ryan disagree with Mr. Akin's statement, and a Romney-Ryan administration would not oppose abortion in instances of rape," Romney spokeswoman Amanda Henneberg said.

You'd probably say that sounds reasonable and humane - - except it was just three days ago that PolitiFact devoted a lot of space to this issue and found that while Romney backed abortions in cases of incest and rape, Ryan did not.

And had been an abortion opponent throughout his entire political career - - backing an exception only when the life of the mother was at stake - - thus earning a perfect score from a leading anti-abortion organization on this basic tenet of conservative ideology and practice.

News coverage of Ryan’s first congressional race in 1998, as well as statements he made to the National Right to Life Committee, a leading anti-abortion group, show Ryan has taken a stricter anti-abortion view than Romney.

The only anti-abortion exception Ryan favors is situations where an abortion is needed to save the life of the mother, the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel reported. The National Right to Life Committee concurs, based on information the group says it collected in 1998 and 2000 from Ryan as a candidate.

[paul544]

Well said... I’m shocked at the threads here actually trying to defend this idiot. Not only has he lost this seat in MO. but he has, again, moved the focus to the “War on Women” and forced Romney to comment on this... Which then picks the scab between Romney and the far right. This is a DISASTER no matter how anyone tries to spin it. He should be literally kicked out of the party.

[xzins]

The study does not define rape.

Do you see a difference between these types: violent rape, statuatory rape, spousal rape, date rape, unreported rape, etc.?

Now, does it matter how much of the 5% fell under each category.

My point is simply that without a tight definition of rape, then it becomes merely a loophole.

The same with the “health of the mother” exception. Cold, flu, psychological distress, emotional distress, hanging fingernal, and tiny booboo are all “health”.

And is a 15th cousin 5 times removed incest? And if it isn’t what law says it isn’t?

[xzins]

This is a DISASTER

Not at all. It's a major gift to Romney. He now gets to show that he's a moderate advocate of reasonable abortion.

He WANTS to move left, p544, don't you see that? He wants to contrast himself with those crazy conservatives.

He can't help it if they support him. It's not his fault.

[sickoflibs]

RE :”well weigh that against Obama who is for all abortion even late term.”

Well this Akin sure helped Obama.

Personally I don't like abortion used as a Federal government issue, I believe abortion laws like marriage should be at the state level, as with lot of other stuff.

I think defunding abortion at the Federal level is a worthy fight that Republicans seem intent of losing. It should be an easy win.

I cant blame Romney on this one

[sickoflibs]

RE :”I am questioning his credentials ...I am also weighing them against Obama’s.”

Do you equally weight both of them?
If they both take exactly the same position on something (once elected in real actions) you disagree with is that equally as bad to you?

[sitetest]

Dear xzins,

Oh, c’mon, xzins, you can do better than that, LOL.

There's no inherent contradiction between not wanting to reinterpret the 14th Amendment as protecting unborn human beings, to avoid constitutional controversy, and supporting adding an amendment to the Constitution, through the usual process that explicitly protects unborn human beings.

Even many pro-lifers - I mean REAL pro-lifers who have been pro-life consistently for many years - are skittish at the idea of doing something that smells a lot like the mirror image of Roe, a kind of bizarro-Roe, which is to “get our way” by a clever reinterpretation of the Constitution.

In any event, my original points stand: Gov. Romney's current positions are well within the bounds of those opinions we usually accept as “pro-life”; Even Rep. Ryan's position isn't perfectly consistent with that of pro-life "purists"; and Gov. Romney's current public views have been on the record since at least 2005, in media outlets such as the Boston Globe.

sitetest

[xzins]

You didn’t pay attention to the video.

Romney has been back and forth on this for years. And just last year, he affirms he doesn’t see babies covered under the 14th amendment. He’s lying, sitetest.

What don’t you see about that?

[Vigilanteman]

Rape and incest abortions make up what? .03% of the total?

This kind of talk reminds me of the stark raving moonbats who helped dump Rick Santorum for Bob Carey Jr. on the grounds that he was an anti-hunting gun grabber.

Said claim was based on some obscure bill where Santorum voted for the equivalent banning deer hunting with army tanks.

[Sopater]

Would anyone who believes that the GOP is going to do anything at all about abortion in this counry please stand up?

[sitetest]

Dear xzins,

The video was cute, but quite unpersuasive.

Here's a long article from Slate that does a much, much better job of making the case that the video lamely tries to make:

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/the_conversion/2012/02/mitt_romney_s_abortion_record_flip_flop_or_conversion_.html

It's a long read, but well worth it.

It is, in many ways, quite damning generally of Gov. Romney. But while it hardly sugar-coats things for the governor, it offers a fuller picture than one sometimes gets from sound-bites and bumper stickers. And silly videos.

“And just last year, he affirms he doesn’t see babies covered under the 14th amendment.”

So what? Many pro-lifers don't view that as a good path, either, for exactly the same reason as the governor gives: it would provoke a constitutional crisis.

Is he lying? I think the article provides a reasonable facsimile of the truth: in many of the particulars of how he's gotten to where he's gotten on the issue of abortion, Gov. Romney has lied. Or at least, twisted and bent the truth often beyond recognition. In terms of whether or not he's actually, currently pro-life, in some important ways, he's telling the truth.

But that wasn't the point of your original post, which was to emphasize, it seems, that his current position isn't “pure.” That he accepts abortion in cases of rape, incest, and the life of the mother. You further stated that your purpose was to let folks know this, as you believed that Gov. Romney hadn't spoken to the particulars of his views.

But I've shown you that: being in favor of those exceptions is hardly to place oneself outside the mainstream of the pro-life movement; even Rep. Ryan compromises a little bit from the “purist” position; and Gov. Romney's position on these exceptions have been out there since at least 2007, and easy to find.

sitetest

[Vigilanteman]

Studies have previously shown that women have about a 5% chance of ending up pregnant after being raped.

Forgive me for doubting here. But my wife and I have been married more than 28 years. If you give us the national average of having sex twice a week, that's about 3,000 times.

If you count our first several years of marriage, it was a lot closer to twice a day than twice a week. But I digress.

Furthermore, we've discovered years ago that our favorite position for intercourse is her on her back, legs spread wide, buttocks elevated with a pillow/rolled towel or two and me penetrating deeply from the top with gentle but repeated thrusting. Not only totally ecstatic and completely wonderful for you younger kids who haven't tried it, but the most efficient way to get pregnant, according to my cousin, an internationally known OBGYN.

So, by your calculations, Mrs. Vigilanteman should have gotten pregnant a minimum of 150 times with all of our unstressed, relaxing, consensual intercourse, most of it in the position we find most enjoyable and is most efficient for getting pregnant. The actual number is three or 0.1%. I suspect most married couples would report similar results.

Do we really want to start a thread checking your math?

[Leep]

Should we hide what he believes???

---

I believe that is at the heart of the matter. If I had to guess, based on the primaries, about 2/3 of the voters who will vote for Romney would have sooner had almost ANY other choice than Romney.
If you have a choice to be shot in the head or your shoulder..you are going to take the shoulder shot.
But don’t fool yourself into thinking you are not in possible danger. Especially if you continue to ignore the wound.
At the risk of going schioid I think I can now vote for Ry..I mean, Romney.
That is as long as Romney, or his team, don’t shove things down our throats.
IF Team Romney gets the economy back on track and appoints a solid conservative to the SC. Then I will personally do my best not to speak ill of him.
However, until he PROVES himself he is John Kerry in a Republican suit.

[sam_paine]

xzins: Romney supports both rape & incest abortion?

Did Ronald Reagan also support abortion?

Approximately 10-12 MILLION babies were aborted in the US during Reagan's term, while he was appointing SD OConnor and promoting statist GOPe GHW Bush for president (The trend only started down during GHW Bush's term, and then got even better under "pro-abortion" Clinton).

Whether Romney "supports" abortion or not, it will not change the trends which suggest that there would be at least 6-7 million babies aborted from 2012-2020 regardless of who's the president. 30-40% less than when Reagan "opposed" abortion.

Does that matter, or is it just important for you to assist Obama in publicly funding infanticide with Obamacare?

Reagan was the best conservative presidential candidate we've seen in our lifetime, would you really vote for Ronald Reagan today against Obama, based on the record?

[skinkinthegrass]

!

[xzins]

Thanks to Akin, sitetest, Romney had to go from near silence on the subject of abortion to a door cracked open in public to state his support for rape and incest exception.

Why is that significant?

Because of Romney’s long history of being pro-abortion.

The video was a 59 second review of that history that was part of the primary campaign in South Carolina. It’s a quick reminder of the flip-flops of Mitt Romney. It does it well.

What does all this say? Mitt’s been pro-abortion in the past. Mitt has changed and re-changed his mind in the past. Now we hear Pro-abortion exceptions widely disseminated.

What this all has in common: abortion.

Mitt will slide further left.

[NKP_Vet]

We all know Obama’s abortion on demand stance. But Obama is not running as a republican. Willard Romney is.

“I am pro-life. I believe that abortion is the wrong choice except in cases of incest, rape, and to save the life of the mother”.

THIS IS NOT PRO-LIFE!

I despise any republican that claims he’s pro-life, but believes in selective murdering of the young.

[Vigilanteman]

Good point. And of course those falling numbers and ratios are mainly a reflection of our aging society demographics.

Ditto for falling crime rates.

But watch ObaMao try to claim credit for bringing both down.

[darrellmaurina]

12 posted on Mon Aug 20 2012 07:36:35 GMT-0500 (Central Daylight Time) by Titus-Maximus: “Unemployment is worse in 44 states! That is my observation. This discussion is a waste of time. The return from the abortion culture is in small steps.”

19 posted on Mon Aug 20 2012 07:49:54 GMT-0500 (Central Daylight Time) by gore_sux: “Oh good, another tangent that diverts attention away from the terrible state of the country under Obama. Thanks Mr. Akin!”

No, no, and no! This discussion is **NOT** a waste of time!

My point is not that we ought to vote for Obama or for a third-party candidate. My point is that anyone voting for Romney needs to do so with eyes wide open and understand that we have to somehow figure out a way to keep his obviously problematic views under control.

I'd say the same about Romney's waffling on gun control and homosexuality, though both are lower priorities to me than killing babies. That is as bad as it can get.

The economy is important, but killing defenseless babies is much worse. Prior to the 1960s, virtually everyone in the United States would have agreed, including Democrats. The fact that some conservatives today think the economy takes priority over people who wants to dissolve babies with chemical burns or hack them into tiny pieces just shows us how far America has fallen.

Ronald Reagan found out what happened in California when anything other than “life of the mother” was allowed as a ground for abortion.

I recognize that Mitt Romney, unlike traditional Roman Catholics or evangelical Protestants, has a different religious view of when abortion is allowed. I can respect that.

But if he wants votes from conservatives who are evangelical or Catholic, he'd better tell us what kind of judges he will appoint. Unfortunately, I'm afraid he just did.

[NKP_Vet]

When Reagan was president, abortion was not the hot potato issue it is now. The devastating effects of Roe w. Wade had not been felt. Jimmy Carter and Reagan were pro-life.

[sam_paine]

When Reagan was president, abortion was not the hot potato issue it is now.

Then you weren't paying attention in the 80s.