Posted on 08/31/2012 9:09:04 AM PDT by Mozilla
(CBS News) In an interview with CBS Evening News anchor Scott Pelley, Mitt Romney said his views on abortion rights are more lenient than those put forward in the Republican party platform.
"My position has been clear throughout this campaign," Romney said. "I'm in favor of abortion being legal in the case of rape and incest, and the health and life of the mother."
The Republican Party is gathering in Tampa, Fla., this week for its national convention, where in addition to nominating Romney for president, the party will officially adopt its national platform. Last week, the party added language to the platform calling for a constitutional amendment banning abortion, with no mention of making exceptions for victims of rape or incest, or to save the life of the mother.
President Obama in an interview Saturday said that if Romney were president, the Republican would not "stand in the way" if Congress attempted to strip women of their reproductive health rights. Democrats have recently stepped up their attacks against the GOP ticket on the issue of reproductive rights, in part because of the strong views held by Romney's running mate Rep. Paul Ryan, and in part because of the controversial remarks GOP Senate candidate Todd Akin made on rape and abortion.
Romney, however, told Pelley that the issue amounts to a distraction.
"Recognize this is the decision that will be made by the Supreme Court," he said. "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."
(Excerpt) Read more at cbsnews.com ...
This position is indefensible. There is at least a logic behind being pro-abortion. But, this position is mere pandering. No pro-lifer should vote for him.
"Health and life of the mother"...very tricksy! Threw that word "health" in there...Almost sounds good.
The voters don’t care. Keep hitting about the economy/jobs/gas prices.
For some reason everyone here on FR seems to think that this is a new position. This is the same pro-life position that’s been held by Republican candidates since Ronald Reagan.
You say the position is indefensible, and I say it is not. It’s the correct and moral position.
Which views would those be Willard. The ones where your pro choice with state funding for abortions?
Romney wouldn't be the first barbarian put into office, nor will he be the last, but you can't claim to be civilized and be in favor of the purposeful killing of an infant.
Being for abortion because you don’t like who fathered the child, is the position of all RINOs. It was also the position of RINO George W. Bush and of course RINO Juan McAmnesty.
The “Life of the mother” or the baby never happens in this day and age. A big red herring.
Really? So when a politician is in favor of abortion being legal for the health of the mother, that's OK? News to me. Seems that's the DemocRATs position. I guess if amniocentesis reveals that a developing fetus is carrying Down's syndrome, and for the mother to bring that child to term would damage her mental health, then abortion is A-OK. That's the nice big loophole you leave for yourself when you use the weasel-word "health of the mother".
No it’s not. “Health of the mother” is different from “life of the mother” because “health of the mother” is used by pro-aborts to justify any abortion on mental health grounds.
Life of the mother is commonsense. No pro-lifer has a problem with that. (Though we would specify that while saving the mother’s life you also try to save the child if it’s possible.)
You are correct that the rape and incest exception has been embraced by a lot of “pro-life” Republicans. But rejected by others. The platform leaves it out. I reject it because it is, of course, inconsistent with the principle that the baby is innocent. Including or not including the incest/rape exception is not new.
But Romney’s use of “health of the mother” is new and it is troubling. But not surprising.
He isn’t “in favor of the purposeful killing of an infant.”
He’s “in favor of abortion being legal in the case of rape and incest, and the health and life of the mother.”
It is the correct and moral position.
If you are in favor of forcing by law a mother to bear the child of her rapist without her consent, then you are no better than her rapist.
Stop playing word games. No sane person is in favor of the purposeful killing of infants.
Only Obama and his ilk are in favor of that.
Exactly. Dr. Ron Paul says he has never seen such a case in all his years of practice.
Romney's the one playing word games, by using the weasel-word "health of the mother." But no one should be surprised by this, since Romney has been pro-abort since he ran against Teddy.
“It is the correct and moral position”
So you think God would kill the child because of it’s father?
“Health and life of the mother” is an Orwellian phrase that has proved to mean any and all abortions that are convenient. All a mother has to do is to say that having a baby would make her feel bad, and, boom, it’s aborted for the sake of her mental health.
Of course, once Romney gets in, he will drop the pretences, just like he did in Massachusetts as governor, and he will support taxpayer funded abortions for any reason whatever.
No, there’s nothing “moral” about killing innocent babies, Mitt.
I wish that were true. However, over the years, I've seen contrary statements, some right here on FR. I'll find the thread, although it might take me a while to search my 11 years of history, but one that sticks out in my mind is the FReeper who said somthing to the effect of, "Pregnant women shouldn't be allowed chemotherapy. She's had her chance at life, so it's the baby's turn."
So, you're saying that considering the termination of the life of the unborn as murder and finding the "well the courts say it's legal" argument repugnant and lacking is the incorrect position?
Let me clarify on why the courts-argument is wrong: The Supreme Court manufactured its ruling out of whole cloth, invalidating [as 'unconstitutional'] all State laws which were in place to protect the life of that state's citizens. (Indeed, the 14th Amendment, Sec I, virtually requires states to protect its citizens.) Further, the 5th Amendment prohibits the deprivation of Life without due process, but by invalidating the States's own protections of the unborn the USSC was condemning the innocent to certain death, when that court cannot legitimately alter the Constitution.
If the USSC could alter the Constitution, then they are not bound by it, but sovereign over it. Furthermore [if what they say is constitutional is constitutional], as decisions are by majority, any dissent is by definition contrary to constitutional law and therefore any action based upon it is sedition.
IOW, not only is the decision itself invalid, but the system which could make such decision is itself so flawed and inconsistent as to be utterly self-destructive.
It’s an interview and the video of the interview is on the site.
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.