Skip to comments.Mitt Romney Says Americans Ready to Overturn Roe v. Wade
Posted on 10/15/2007 4:32:14 PM PDT by Spiff
click here to read article
Which would just throw the abortion issue back to the States. Right?
What a terrible disappointment for him, what with his recent pro-abortion oath to the Abortion Industry.
Especially if you’re Rudy911........
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.
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.
Yep, still flipping and flopping.
Perhaps. I know they’re getting worn out and tired of killing their babies and pretending it’s just like removing a hangnail.
Flippity floppity, Willard’s on his way!
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.
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).
Title should be:
“This week Mitt Romney says...”
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.”
Your main point though, “Americans dont have a clue what Roe v. Wade means” was proven right by your post, no offense.
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.
“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.
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.
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.