Posted on 10/15/2007 4:32:14 PM PDT by Spiff
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. Mitt Romney Says Americans Ready to Overturn Roe v. Wade
by Steven Ertelt
LifeNews.com Editor
October 15, 2007j
Then the commercial states that Mitt has "Massachusetts values". Yeah, well Ted Kennedy has Massachusetts values. Who is airing these commercials now?
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.
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.
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.
Pro-Life PING
Please FreepMail me if you want on or off my Pro-Life Ping List.
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.
Romney and Thompson are much better than rooty.
“Romney and Thompson are much better than rooty.”
That appears to be true.
“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.
“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.
No, actually, I’m not making it up. But I agree it’s going no where. I am not particularly interested in spending a lot of time educating you as to these decisions.
Educating me? That’s cute. I got my education in this subject already pal, from professionals and scholars who read the cases like I did.
The difference between you and I is that I can support my arguments, as I did previously by including portions of the case; whereas, you assert things without providing any support at all, not even an online source.
Enjoy your own version of constitutional law, I suppose if everyone is entitled to their own opinions, perhaps you have a right to your own interpretation despite the plain text, history, and subsequent case law.
The people may be ready to overturn Roe v. Wade, but the Republican Party isn’t. They’ve raised way too much money using this issue to kill that cash cow now.
As you know, “largely unregulated” is not entirely unregulated.
We’ve bickered over the word “can’t.” If you didn’t take such an absolutist position, this wouldn’t have continued this long. Your subsequent posts convey your understanding that the holding was not that abortion can never be regulated, but rather that it may be regulated in very narrow circumstances. I can live with that because after all, that’s correct.
There was a point in time--when I was in law school--when we were told that Roe meant abortion was completely unregulated in the first trimester. There were a lot of cases striking down parental notification laws, and the Supreme Court had not yet clearly stated whether parental notification laws were permissible at all. Partial birth abortion was something that was not even yet being argued in the courts, but of course, we were just talking about the first trimester at that point anyway. The simple way that Roe was described was as follows: "The government can't regulate abortion in the first trimester."
You might think that is an oversimplification. At the time, it was not much of one. And if anything, the right to abortion has expanded since then. Now we are talking about the second trimester and the third trimester. Even in the third trimester, during the birth process, there is now a right to abortion.
My original point is a very simple one: Polls show that a majority favors Roe. But polls also show a majority favors regulation of abortion. You really can't do both, though. Those are inconsistent positions. What it really shows is that people don't understand Roe, and thus the poll is meaningless.
24 hour waiting period, partial birth ban, parental notification does not = unregulated. You’re speaking out of both sides of your mouth. On the one hand you said CAN’T be regulated; then on the other, you admit it is, but downplay the significance and extent. None is not the same as a little.
“You really have to be a leftwing looney to be satisfied with the level of regulation....” Nonsense. This has nothing to do with what we’re talking about. This isn’t about what I’m satisfied with. It’s about you criticizing Americans for not knowing what the holding of Roe is while mischaracterizing the holding by claiming, despite it’s plain language, and the restrictions you subsequently acknowledge exist, that the case held abortion cannot be regulated. I haven’t expressed any personal views about sufficiency and you’re simply introducing something that’s not at issue. This thread between us has been about whether Roe held that states cannot regulate abortion. That is WRONG. They can, have, and will continue to, and your only response to this FACT is to minimize the regulations you first said couldn’t and didn’t exist.
“There was a point in time—when I was in law school—when we were told that Roe meant abortion was completely unregulated in the first trimester.” Well things have changed in the past 24 yrs because I know of no one taught that. Moreover, I don’t see how anyone can ignore the plain text of the holding to arrive at that conclusion.
“My original point is a very simple one: Polls show that a majority favors Roe. But polls also show a majority favors regulation of abortion. You really can’t do both, though. Those are inconsistent positions. What it really shows is that people don’t understand Roe, and thus the poll is meaningless.”
I disagree. You can favor legalized regulated abortion. We regulate lots of legalized things from alcohol to tobacco to pollution. We already do it with abortion. The 24 hour waiting period is the best example. Sure, you can have your abortion, but you have to wait 24 hrs before doing so. That’s legalized, but regulated. I think they’re trying to do the same thing with guns (implement a waiting period).
Your gripe is with the degree of regulation, not its absence. That’s a different matter and I agree with you, it is minimally regulated and extremely difficult to regulate. I’d also agree that there is a strong movement towards abortion on demand “anytime anywhere” (Obama); however, I have faith in technology which will advance the viablity side of the equation and provide stronger ground to advocate the life side of the balance. At the end of the day, you can and we do have legalized regulated abortion; however, it’s not nearly regulated as greatly as it perhaps should be (putting aside the obvious that some would argue it shouldn’t be legal in the first place). I don’t see us so far apart on this, so long as you appreciate that there is some, albeit minimial, regulation of abortion, which is in line with Roe, despite how the case may have been perceived 24 yrs ago when it’s impact was not yet fully understood.
If you want to call a very limited, almost non-existent partial birth abortion ban and a very limited parental notification requirement applicable only to minors “regulations on abortion” then it is regulated. Personally, I do not, and I don’t think that’s what the poll respondents meant when they said they wanted abortion to be regulated.
If you want to call a very limited, almost non-existent partial birth abortion ban and a very limited parental notification requirement applicable only to minors “regulations on abortion” then it is regulated. Personally, I do not, and I don’t think that’s what the poll respondents meant when they said they wanted abortion to be regulated.
Better than nothing...
Kansas Planned Parenthood Clinic Charged
“misdemeanor counts of providing unlawful late-term abortions”
http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D8SB7KPG0&show_article=1
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.