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

Skip to comments.

Romney says abortion legal for mother's health
AP ^ | Aug 27 | DONNA CASSATA

Posted on 08/28/2012 10:21:59 AM PDT by xzins

Romney says abortion legal for mother's health DONNA CASSATA August 27, 2012 6:43 PM EDT Copyright 2012 Lubbock Online. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed. TAMPA, Fla. (AP) — Republican Mitt Romney says he is in favor of abortion in cases of rape, incest and thehealth and life of the mother.

The presidential candidate's addition of the health of the mother is certain to raise questions about Romney'sposition among conservatives. Health can be broadly defined and, in fact, running mate Paul Ryan has challenged the health exception as a major loophole.

Romney commented in an interview Monday with CBS News. The network released Romney's comments before its evening broadcast.

Romney's position on abortion rights has evolved. When he ran for the U.S. Senate in Massachusetts, he backed abortion rights. As a presidential candidate, he has opposed abortion rights and says the Supreme Court should reverse the landmark Roe v. Wade decision that legalized abortion.

(Excerpt) Read more at lubbockonline.com ...


TOPICS: Front Page News; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: elections; romney; romneytruthfile
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 61-8081-100101-120121-133 next last
To: JustSayNoToNannies

“If Mittens appoints another judge like every judge he’s already appointed, will they overturn Roe v. Wade?”


Romney will have a Republican Senate, and he will nominate conservatives to SCOTUS and the rest of the federal judiciary—in fact, I wouldn’t be surprised if he let the Federalist Society do the vetting for him. Romney nominated liberals in Massachusetts because the Senate was 80% Democrat and he wanted his picks to be confirmed. I have no illusions of Romney being a principled conservative, but for once his go-along-to-get-along instinct will inure to our benefit.


81 posted on 08/28/2012 11:55:58 AM PDT by AuH2ORepublican (If a politician won't protect innocent babies, what makes you think that he'll protect your rights?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 73 | View Replies]

To: G Larry
The “rape & incest” meme, is a red herring, never before proposed in legislation, so there’s no point in debating a fraudulent position.”

Could you explain? Thanks.
82 posted on 08/28/2012 11:56:35 AM PDT by kenavi (Obama doesn't hate private equity. He wants to be it with our money.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: sam_paine

You're saying that this RINO man here has sinned, therefore, run headlong into the arms of the Marxist Devil!

What a bazaar thought. We've been fighting the "Marxist Devil" for almost four years now. And, we've installed some fresh fighters into the Legislature (and managed to defeat the Sea Treaty even with the RINOs working for it). We're poised to install more fighters in November. You may view it as running into the arms of the "Marxist Devil", but we view it as continuing the fight we started rather than succumbing to the next wave of socialist advances made unhindered by a member of our own party. Where you see surrender, we see fight. Where you see fight, we see surrender. But one thing we all have in common is the desire to fight.


83 posted on 08/28/2012 11:57:18 AM PDT by so_real ( "The Congress of the United States recommends and approves the Holy Bible for use in all schools.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 66 | View Replies]

To: ynotjjr; SoFloFreeper
“Stop. From what I read, the campaign released a clarification about this statement, and it DID NOT include the controversial “health” language.”

This punk is on Obama’s payroll like the rest of them.

Mittens said it - here's the video (see about 43 seconds in):

http://cnettv.cnet.com/av/video/cbsnews/atlantis2/cbsnews_player_embed.swf?si=254&contentValue=50130190&adPreroll=false

84 posted on 08/28/2012 11:58:24 AM PDT by JustSayNoToNannies (A free society's default policy: it's none of government's business.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 72 | View Replies]

To: ynotjjr
If Obama appoints another judge, will they overturn Roe v. Wade?

If Mittens appoints another judge like every judge he's already appointed, will they overturn Roe v. Wade?

See what I mean? These commie libs want us to support Obama!

Show me where I said that.

You are the lowest life form on this planet. They prey on the weakest among us. Yea, Romney and Robert Bork

When did Romney ever appoint a Bork?

Beware of the LIARS!!!

Indeed.

85 posted on 08/28/2012 12:01:53 PM PDT by JustSayNoToNannies (A free society's default policy: it's none of government's business.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 78 | View Replies]

To: sam_paine; P-Marlowe

SP, I have written articles against Fast & Furious, Obamanomics, Obamaployment, Abortion, etc., right here on Free Republic. I will continue to be a true conservative.

When a conservative is called a turncoat because he calls out ANY candidate for accepting Abortion for the “Health” of the Mother, then the person doing the name-calling is beside himself.

Why are you trying to defend this? Speak up against it. Scream until he backs down!


86 posted on 08/28/2012 12:03:30 PM PDT by xzins (Retired Army Chaplain and Proud of It! True supporters of our troops pray for their victory!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: sam_paine

I am not a one issue voter. Check Romney record on RomneyCare, gay marriage, gay adoptions, cap & trade, his economic failures as Governor, his record of job losses as Governor, etc. etc. etc. You want us to ignore his record. When I vote I at least like to know what I am getting.


87 posted on 08/28/2012 12:08:14 PM PDT by brightright
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: sam_paine
Therefore it doesn't matter wtf any Republican candidate is "for" or "against"

That is a ludicrous statement. You are saying that the belief system of the nominee doesn't matter in the discussion of our right to life!

Courts have also agreed that you can violate the right to keep and bear arms, so, according to you, it doesn't matter what your candidate believes on the subject.

You are spinning so hard for Romney that you're having an out-of-mind experience.

88 posted on 08/28/2012 12:08:40 PM PDT by xzins (Retired Army Chaplain and Proud of It! True supporters of our troops pray for their victory!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: Mr. K

Agree 1000%. I abhor abortion but in the case of rape or a womans life in danger during delivery I think it needs to be an option. My only concern is you’ll get people who will claim they need an abortion or will suffer emotional/mental trauma.


89 posted on 08/28/2012 12:12:19 PM PDT by God luvs America (63.5 million pay no income tax and vote for DemoKrats...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: TexasFreeper2009

The discussion is not about “life of the mother” which we had with the Akin affair.

Romney added “health of the mother” as an acceptable exception in his interview with CBS.

We are not talking about “health of the mother” that threatens the “life of the mother” since that is a separate exception.

We are simply discussing health of the mother as a reason to kill a baby. IOW, “Doc, I don’t want to gain weight during pregnancy, it’s bad for my health.”

Planned Parenthood: “Oh, well in that case, we better get rid of that baby.”


90 posted on 08/28/2012 12:20:54 PM PDT by xzins (Retired Army Chaplain and Proud of It! True supporters of our troops pray for their victory!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 69 | View Replies]

To: xzins

As a ardent pro-lifer, I’ve always left open the option of aborting a baby to save the life of the mother if that was her choice. I tend to think that most, if not all women in that situation would choose the life of the child over their own.

Another scenario would be where the husband would be forced to decide the fate of his incapacitated wife over the life of her unborn child. You’re forcing someone to choose to let their wife or baby die, not something I would ever want to face but not at all unreasonable or evil for someone to choose their wife.


91 posted on 08/28/2012 12:21:31 PM PDT by eak3
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: eak3

see #90

you are confusing “life of mother” with “health of mother”

Health covers everything from common cold to emotional.

Life means someone’s going to die because of a life-threatening, medical procedure/intervention.


92 posted on 08/28/2012 12:30:09 PM PDT by xzins (Retired Army Chaplain and Proud of It! True supporters of our troops pray for their victory!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 91 | View Replies]

To: Mr. K

The fact is that once the standard for legal abortion is lowered to “the health of the mother” then every abortion will be legal. Some quack need only to say so and the deed is done.


93 posted on 08/28/2012 12:30:43 PM PDT by Inwoodian
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: SoFloFreeper

That blog has been superseded by Mitts mouth. In a recent televised interview, he sat right there and said health of the mother was one of the criteria. Depending on the point in the campaign and the crowd in front of him, Mitt Romney will change his position like a chameleon changes his colors.

You blog is out of date. He is currently in the I’m just about to be nominated phase and the Etch-A-Sketch is starting to shake freely.


94 posted on 08/28/2012 12:35:06 PM PDT by Waryone (Definition of idiocy: nominating the father of socialized medicine to replace socialized medicine)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: Clock King; xzins
The VAST majority of women voters have bought in this crap about abortion.

I think what a lot of people (including women) have "bought into" is the idea that abortion is a right not that it is right, as in, "Oh, I could never have an abortion myself, but I don't have the right to interfere with someone else" (yes, I've seen such comments in women's magazines). And of course it is a legal right under Roe. I think far too few people are aware of the distinction between legal right and natural right or moral right.

Of course, it seems many of the same people would deny that a pregnant woman has the right to have a cocktail or smoke a cigarette. I don't think logic is much taught anymore either . . .

95 posted on 08/28/2012 12:45:12 PM PDT by maryz
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: sam_paine

Have you checked the Judges appointed by Romney while Governor. Liberal. His justification for this was they were mostly appointed to lower courts, as if that is where they stay.


96 posted on 08/28/2012 12:46:42 PM PDT by brightright
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 66 | View Replies]

To: Mr. K
Because "health" has been construed to mean things like "emotional health."

Pro-life people refer to the "life" of the mother, whereby any legitimate medical procedure necessary to save the life of the mother which results in the death of the child, is not considered an "abortion."

This is the position of the Catholic Church, btw.

97 posted on 08/28/2012 12:48:40 PM PDT by Trailerpark Badass
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Trailerpark Badass

I’m looking at the title of the article, and it IS correct.
Abortion is currently LEGAL for the health of the mother.

It’s not the correct MORAL position to take, but it is, in current law, legal.

We’re seeing the contrast between man’s law and God’s law here.


98 posted on 08/28/2012 12:51:09 PM PDT by MrB (The difference between a Humanist and a Satanist - the latter knows whom he's working fors)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 97 | View Replies]

To: tsowellfan
tsowellfan: Correction--According to numbers Reagan saved more than 100,000 babies per year by the end of his administration.

Really?

How do you get that from the charts?

And if you can say that, then you must say that REAGAN'S handpicked RINO GHW Bush saved... how many?

And the Guttmacher reports went from 1,500,000/yr in 1992 to 1,300,000/yr in 2000, so what, RAPIST IN CHIEF BILL CLINTON SAVED 1 MILLION BABIES? (The CDC numbers are bs)

Or it could be that abortions tend to increase more when economic times are harder, and more people choose life when the future looks better?

Where is the evidence that the President's preference on abortion has an effect on the number of abortions? In fact, the evidence indicates otherwise!

99 posted on 08/28/2012 12:55:06 PM PDT by sam_paine (X .................................)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 68 | View Replies]

To: Uncle Slayton

>a women who murders her baby with a morning after pill?

With logic like that, every woman who has their period without getting pregnant is murdering their “baby”.


100 posted on 08/28/2012 1:05:45 PM PDT by soycd
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 61 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 61-8081-100101-120121-133 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