Posted on 08/29/2012 12:26:07 PM PDT by Hilda
Mitt Romney’s eldest sister, who has backed prominent Democrats for office and is in Tampa showing support for her brother, had some reassuring words Wednesday for women concerned about the Republican Party’s hard line on abortion.
Mitt Romney would never make abortions illegal as president, Jane Romney said when National Journal asked her about the subject after a “Women for Mitt” event. "He’s not going to be touching any of that,” she said. “It’s not his focus.”
Democratic warnings that abortion rights are under threat are an ungrounded fear tactic, Jane Romney said. “That’s what women are afraid of, but that’s conjured,” she said. “Personally, I don’t think abortion should be used as a football in the political arena.”
Democrats have not lacked fodder for their charges. Vice presidential candidate Paul Ryan and Rep. Todd Akin, R-Mo., who is running for the Senate, are among the many Republicans who oppose abortion with no exceptions for rape or incest. And the Republican platform adopted this week explicitly calls for a constitutional ban on abortion, saying that "the unborn child has a fundamental individual right to life which cannot be infringed." It does not specify any exceptions.
But as Jane Romney put it, “Mitt’s much more in the middle” when it comes to abortion.
Mitt Romney has said he supports legal abortion in cases of rape and incest, and when the life of the mother is in danger. As for the fate of abortion rights, “Recognize this is the decision that will be made by the Supreme Court," he said in an interview with CBS News this week. "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."
Jane Romney said she believes “life is sacred” and suggested those seeking abortion should be required to undergo counseling. But she also said that abortion should “absolutely” be safe and legal. “Every woman needs to be left to make her own choice,” she said.
A ban on abortion is “never going to happen” under a Romney administration, Jane Romney said. “Women would take to the streets. Women fought for our choice, we’re not going to go back."
Little is known about Jane Romney, who said she is an actress in Los Angeles, and she is not a presence on the campaign trail. Unlike Ann Romney and the Romney sons, she has not been deployed as a surrogate. According to a Romney biography by Ronald B. Scott, a journalist for Time in the 1970s and a distant cousin of the candidate, Jane Romney supported California Democratic candidates like Sen. Barbara Boxer and Gov. Jerry Brown.
Jane Romney said that her brother can empathize and understand women from all walks of life. She said that he was there for her when she went through a divorce and raised four teenagers on her own. “Mitt and Ann are the right people at the right time for this country,” she said.
I’m shocked!! I mean look at his record!! oh...um, ok I’m not so shocked.
Abortion is not going anywhere. Sorry. Educating people is how you stop abortion, and also not funding it.
But asking politicians to flat out ban it is as realistic as asking them to take away women’s right to vote. Its not gonna happen.
Do you think Romney will pass pro-choice policies?
She's right, he won't. That isn't an enumerated federal power. Per the 9th Amendment, it is up to the STATES to decide whether they want to ban it, and Roe v. Wade unconstitutionally establishes a new power for the FedGov: policing abortion.
Abortion is being beat back at the state level. We must focus on getting more power to the states. Sick as it is, I think Romney was being honest when he said that RomneyCare was OK for Mass, but not for the US. I think he was expressing the difference between state powers and federal powers.
The President can’t wave a wand and ban abortion.
RIGHT ON!
“Mitt Romney would never make abortions illegal as president, Jane Romney said when National Journal asked her about the subject after a “Women for Mitt” event. “He’s not going to be touching any of that,” she said. “It’s not his focus.” “
Translation:
Mitt Romney would never make abortions illegal as president, Jane Romney said when National Journal asked her about the subject after a “Women for Mitt” event. “He just had to support it by saying the right things to get the nomination,” she said. “Conservatives believed him! Ha!”
Then fight it at the state level, or fight to overturn Roe v Wade, the source of fedgov's unconstitutional power to force abortions on states.
Presidents do not overturn SCOTUS decisions. They put in justices that do that.
Balderdash.
I’m thinking you’ve never even read the Ninth Amendment, much less understood it.
And you obviously don’t have a clue about the basis for this republic, which is the self-evident truth about equal God-given, unalienable rights, starting with the right to live.
Other than the supreme right, the right to life, which other of our God-given rights do you believe states can alienate if they want to?
Of course he cannot ban abortion outright but he can reverse every pro abortion move Obama has made...and that is quite a lot.
I see a whole lot of anti freepers who are almost always soft on culture issues slinking back in...wonder if they still post at the alt sites with their vitriol for us and their cruel comments on JR
they have a lot of gall to cruise back in now with our uber moderate nominee and lecture us on shutting up on social issues
in case ya’ll missed it...I detest you...and you all know who you are
you may be able to fool freepers who just came on the last 4-5 years but the rest of us remember you
but if you are gonna be here acting like Romney walks on water you can at least donate to the freepathons...that would be a help
“I wasn’t aware that the president could ‘ban abortion.’”
Exactly! But what he can do is appoint only Supreme Court judges who will overturn Roe v. Wade. Another way: Congress can take the issue out of the Court’s jurisdiction. This would put the issue back in the states, where it belongs under the Constitution.
States can do whatever they want with the abortion issue, under the Constitution (correctly read). Roe v. Wade invented things which are not in the Constitution, and should be ignored and overturned. It would be simple for a President just to say, we will not enforce Roe v. Wade. Unfortunately, no President has the guts to do this.
Kennedy and Scalia will never retire if Obama is reelected but these two almost assuredly will in the next eight years if Romney is elected.
Liberals appoint liberal SC Justices it not rocket science folks.
Unconstitutional court opinions don't change the chief executive's sacred obligation to God and his country to support and defend the Constitution of the United States one iota.
Ryan needs to distance himself from Romney tonight so he can run effectively in 2016.
http://www.pollingreport.com/abortion.htm
Gallup Poll. May 3-6, 2012. N=1,024 adults nationwide. Margin of error ± 4.
“Do you think abortions should be legal under any circumstances, legal only under certain circumstances, or illegal in all circumstances?”
Always legal 25%
Sometimes legal 52%
Always illegal 20%
Unsure 3%
I have no idea of the accuracy of this poll but the link has more results.
I appointed conservative judges. 75% of the judges he appointed were extremely pro-abortion & pro gay. That means 25% are conservative, so being the lawyer he is, technically he did appoint conservatives; but only 25%.
better...Dems haven't had to say shite really
That line is getting quite old and dated. It bespeaks a time before science and technology. It dates a women's understanding to that of the mid- to early-20th Century when there was lack of sufficient visual and microscopic evidence that the earliest stage of human development is, in fact, a little person, not a blob of flesh which could be called by a nondescript word, "fetus," or, that the "fetus" is, in fact, a separate entity.
That line dates a woman's intellectual understanding to a time before cameras could record the actions of the little child in the womb, allowing them to see that child reacting to noises in the kitchen where dinner was being prepared, the child burping or sucking its thumb.
Indeed, the word "choice," as it applies to the question of life before the usual delivery time, is a unique and misleading term.
Why does the law declare a "right to choose" to be necessary and proper for women who, that same government insists, cannot possess an identical "right to choose" the school where that child, if delivered must receive its education?
That line leads one to wonder: what about the "choices" of all the millions of women who were aborted in the womb, when they were just tiny miracles of the Creator and endower of life and rights?
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.