Romney Muddles Abortion Stance [Archive] - The Gemstone IV Players' Corner

View Full Version : Romney Muddles Abortion Stance

Gan

08-23-2007, 10:27 AM

2008 Republican Backs State Abortion Leeway Until Federal Ban Possible

By TEDDY DAVIS

Aug. 22, 2007
LOS ANGELES, Calif. —

Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney said Tuesday in a Nevada television interview that he supports letting states "make their own decision" about whether to keep abortion legal.

"My view is that the Supreme Court has made an error in saying at the national level one size fits all for the whole nation," Romney told Nevada political columnist Jon Ralston in a televised interview. "Instead, I would let states make their choices."

Asked by Ralston if it was "OK" with him that Nevada is a "pro-choice state," Romney said, "I'd let states make their own decision in this regard. My view, of course, is I'm a pro-life individual. That's the position I support. But, I'd let states have this choice rather than let the federal government have it."

You can view the video of Romney's interview with Ralston by clicking here (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oeaa5nBp7i4).

Romney Shift?

In his interview with Ralston, Romney was not asked about his support for a Human Life Amendment or federal legislation which would bring unborn children under the protections of the 14th Amendment.

The former Massachusetts governor endorsed both positions -- which would effectively ban abortion nationwide -- during an Aug. 6 interview on ABC News' "Good Morning America."

Asked by ABC News' George Stephanopoulos whether he supports the Republican Party's 2004 platform on abortion rights, which states, "We support a Human Life Amendment to the Constitution and we endorse legislation to make it clear that the 14th Amendment's protections apply to unborn children," Romney said, "You know, I do support the Republican platform, and I support that being part of the Republican platform and I'm pro-life."

You can view Romney's full GMA interview by clicking here. (http://abcnews.go.com/Video/playerIndex?id=3451319)

Romney Campaign Pushes Back

When ABCNEWS.com reported Wednesday that states like Nevada would be unable to keep abortion legal if Romney's ultimate vision were implemented, a Romney spokesman sought to explain the discrepancy by saying that while Romney supports the Human Life Amendment and 14th Amendment legislation contained in the Republican Party's 2004 platform, he does not view either measure as "achievable" at this time.

By contrast, he views overturning Roe vs. Wade, the Supreme Court case which legalized abortion throughout the United States, as a goal which can be achieved more quickly.

If Romney succeeds in overturning Roe v. Wade through his Supreme Court appointments, states would once again be empowered to make their own decisions about abortion rights.

States would retain this power, under Romney's vision, until it is possible to outlaw abortion at the federal level. At that point, they would lose this power.

Romney's camp, however, does not see this day coming any time soon.

"We should aspire to passing a Human Life Amendment when the country as a whole is prepared for it," Romney spokesman Kevin Madden told ABC News. "The American people just aren't there yet."

ABC News' Leigh Hartman contributed to this report.

Copyright © 2007 ABC News Internet Ventures

http://www.abcnews.go.com/Politics/story?id=3511448&page=1
__________________________________________________ __

I had to post this story in order to point something out that just reinforces my opinion of Romney being a panderer for votes.

As stated above...

"My view is that the Supreme Court has made an error in saying at the national level one size fits all for the whole nation," Romney told Nevada political columnist Jon Ralston in a televised interview. "Instead, I would let states make their choices."

Asked by ABC News' George Stephanopoulos whether he supports the Republican Party's 2004 platform on abortion rights, which states, "We support a Human Life Amendment to the Constitution and we endorse legislation to make it clear that the 14th Amendment's protections apply to unborn children," Romney said, "You know, I do support the Republican platform, and I support that being part of the Republican platform and I'm pro-life."

So having a federal law legalizing ALL states to have abortion electives is bad. But having a federal banning ALL states from having the abortion elective is good? Because you know, one size fits all for the whole nation is erroneous thinking.

:wtf:
:banghead:

Stanley Burrell

08-23-2007, 10:33 AM

So let me get this straight...

I think the point here, that you're trying to convey, is that you want the world to know that you're capable of making more than one political thread with a "thumbs-up" or "thumbs-down" icon in the header? Er, :clap:?

Gan

08-23-2007, 10:36 AM

Nieninque

08-23-2007, 10:59 AM

TheEschaton

08-23-2007, 11:04 AM

Ilvane

08-23-2007, 11:07 AM

Romney shift on the issues? Never.

He used to do that all the time when he was Governor. He moulds himself to whatever he thinks people want to hear.

He never really had much to say about his stances when he was here either, he's a lot of fluff very little substance.

Angela

Parkbandit

08-23-2007, 11:11 AM

Ilvane

08-23-2007, 12:47 PM

Nah, Bush perfected the fluff with very little substance playbook a while ago.

:grin:

Angela

ViridianAsp

08-23-2007, 01:10 PM

DeV

08-23-2007, 01:24 PM

Nah, Bush perfected the fluff with very little substance playbook a while ago.

:grin:

AngelaYou mean his ghost playwrighter did.

Republicans have so many successful plays in their own playbook they "borrow" a seemingly substandard play from the Democrats playbook and run an entire campaign around it. :coughyeahrightcough:

To be completely fair, the majority of our politicians are guilty of lack of substance abuse. They are also constantly taking notes from each others playbook. The only noticeable differences are whether our legislatures are picking plays based on a offensive or defensive viewpoint.

Jorddyn

08-23-2007, 01:33 PM

This brings out a good discussion topic:

Should social/moral issues be federal issues, or state issues. If they're truely moral issues, it would imply universality, but if it's merely a matter of taste, it could be a state issue.

Neither should be issues at all. The government should be concerned with creating and maintaining infrastructure, national/state defense, protection of individuals' rights, and assisting those truly in need (read: "My whole town was just wiped out in a tornado, my husband just died, and I have a child in the hospital", not "I don't like working.").

Jorddyn

Gan

08-23-2007, 01:41 PM

This brings out a good discussion topic:

Should social/moral issues be federal issues, or state issues. If they're truely moral issues, it would imply universality, but if it's merely a matter of taste, it could be a state issue.

Then, what are matters of taste versus morality?

Abortion?
Homosexuality?
Guns?
....

Race?

What if things were decided that all these social issues were just a matter of taste, and one day, the people of Mississippi decide, "Well, it's a matter of taste, but we don't like black people, and we're not going to allow them to participate in our state government." Is this acceptable under the ideas of our Constitution?

Interesting question.

I suppose its based on an interpretation of whats a moral issue and what isnt.

I dont consider gun ownership a moral issue. 2nd amendment.
I dont consider race a moral issue. Equal protection under our laws.
I dont consider homosexuality a moral issue. Equal protection under our laws.

Abortion is the only issue I can see that can go either way.
Mother's rights vs. zygote/embryo/fetus/baby's rights. In this issue, science and medicine should be the prevailing guide for politicians and the laws protecting when those rights should be applied.

TheEschaton

08-23-2007, 03:22 PM

Jorddyn, your view of government goes against what the view of government of our Founding Fathers was. TRAITOR!!!!!!!!eleven111

On a more serious kind of critique, government is oft viewed by many as the reflection of the social contract a society makes with itself. A group of individuals acting on their own moralities without more than the "Don't Tread On Me" foundation is not a society. Society has goals, a promise of potential, and so on, and so forth.

To say government shouldn't legislate social issues at all is, in other words, IMO a fallacy.

-TheE-

Gan

08-23-2007, 03:30 PM

To say government shouldn't legislate social issues at all is, in other words, IMO a fallacy.

-TheE-

Until government can legislate social issues without catering to a specific religion or group of people...

Celephais

08-23-2007, 03:31 PM

Neither should be issues at all. The government should be concerned with creating and maintaining infrastructure, national/state defense, protection of individuals' rights, and assisting those truly in need (read: "My whole town was just wiped out in a tornado, my husband just died, and I have a child in the hospital", not "I don't like working.").

Jorddyn

Unfortunatly, a lot of the pro-life camp is saying they are protecting the rights of the unborn child...

I'm also curious as to why people are like "He's just saying what people want to hear!" well... shouldn't he be? Elected representatives are supposed to represent the people... as long as he follows through with what he says then the fact that people want to hear what he's saying is a good thing.

CrystalTears

08-23-2007, 03:34 PM

I'm also curious as to why people are like "He's just saying what people want to hear!" well... shouldn't he be? Elected representatives are supposed to represent the people... as long as he follows through with what he says then the fact that people want to hear what he's saying is a good thing.
Which is the problem, as it seems most of them profess empty promises that are either unrealistic or will take longer than their presidential term to complete. They can have pipe dreams, I just don't want them to be their platform and then wing it when they get the seat.

Celephais

08-23-2007, 03:37 PM

Which is the problem, as it seems most of them profess empty promises that are either unrealistic or will take longer than their presidential term to complete. They can have pipe dreams, I just don't want them to be their platform and then wing it when they get the seat.

right after I posted I was about to edit my post and add an asterisk that said "and I know this part is the problem".

I kind of meant that as the point of my post, is that we need more accountability so that campagining actually means something... although I have no idea how to enforce that.

Gan

08-23-2007, 03:42 PM

Accountability among politicians?

:lol:
:rofl:
:lol2:
:lolwave:

Celephais

08-23-2007, 03:49 PM

Accountability among politicians?

:lol:
:rofl:
:lol2:
:lolwave:

Well you obviously agree, what's the point of elections when they don't have to do anything they say? When really they could just go to work, squat on their desks, and shit on every document that comes their way. Seriously what's to stop someone from running as a democrat in a blue state, then when they get elected be like "Fooled you, I'm a republican! Suck my red rocket".

It's all a big joke... and obviously nothing is going to be done about it.

Warriorbird

08-23-2007, 04:05 PM

I pray the Republicans nominate him. It must be something about the Northeast. He's the Republican Kerry.

I'd most likely vote Republican if you eliminated all their social platforms and some foreign policy shifts occurred. Social policy matters a lot to me.

Stanley Burrell

08-23-2007, 04:09 PM

...

http://www.forum.gsplayers.com/images/icons/icon14.gif

Jorddyn

08-23-2007, 04:25 PM

Unfortunatly, a lot of the pro-life camp is saying they are protecting the rights of the unborn child...

While I am pro-choice and don't believe that a zygote is an "individual", I do have somewhat more respect for attempts to legislate this than to legislate beer on Sundays, as they actually believe they are protecting and individual's rights. Those trying to take away my beer? Evil.

Jorddyn

Celephais

08-23-2007, 04:35 PM

God damn blue laws... dangit I can't find a good screenshot from PCU of the guy getting turned down past 8... (Is it sad I'm happy we have till 9 now?)

Sean

08-23-2007, 04:46 PM

CAN YOU BLOW ME WHERE THE PAMPERS IS!?

Latrinsorm

08-23-2007, 06:38 PM

So having a federal law legalizing ALL states to have abortion electives is bad. But having a federal banning ALL states from having the abortion elective is good? Because you know, one size fits all for the whole nation is erroneous thinking.It is an error now. At some point in the future, apparently, fmr. Gov. Romney's hope is that the nation will be ready for federal pro-life legislation. It's condescending, but it's not really contradictory.
In this issue, science and medicine should be the prevailing guide for politicians and the laws protecting when those rights should be applied.Science doesn't have a good track record for deciding rights issues. Phrenology, anyone? Eugenics?
The government should be concerned with creating and maintaining infrastructure, national/state defense, protection of individuals' rights, and assisting those truly in need You don't think assisting the needy is a social OR moral issue? I can make similar claims about the others, but dang did that ever stand out.
Elected representatives are supposed to represent the people... as long as he follows through with what he says then the fact that people want to hear what he's saying is a good thing.Absolutely not. Reality is not compelled to conform to a majority opinion; what "the people" want has no bearing on what should be done.

Gan

08-23-2007, 07:19 PM

Drew

08-23-2007, 07:21 PM

In all honesty, the politicians should just let the whole adortion platform die.

While I do not support abortion. It's one of the "dead horse" stances, it's time to put the stick down and find another parlor trick.

It's probably a bad idea for Republicans to let it drop at least. It's the number 1 issue that I'm concerned with, I know I'm not alone in that. I would never vote for a candidate who wasn't pro-life.

Warriorbird

08-23-2007, 07:23 PM

Pretty much why I can't vote Republican. I respect pro-lifers who aren't also pro death-penalty and pro-torture more than most of them, however.

Latrinsorm

08-23-2007, 07:42 PM

You're right. The Crusades, The Inquisition period, historical religious oppression of minorities and women, and burning witches at the stake pale in comparison.

Sorry, I'll err on the side of science rather than some religious nutjob.Because "science" and "religion" are the only two choices right??????!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Gan

08-23-2007, 07:42 PM

Because "science" and "religion" are the only two choices right??????!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

This ought to be good...

You have something else in mind?

Latrinsorm

08-23-2007, 07:46 PM

Where (in terms of fields of study) do you think the concept of rights comes from?

Bobmuhthol

08-23-2007, 07:49 PM

I never read this thread or the original post, and I don't really care about the content, but I will say this:

Mitt Romney sucks so bad.

Jorddyn

08-23-2007, 07:55 PM

It's probably a bad idea for Republicans to let it drop at least. It's the number 1 issue that I'm concerned with, I know I'm not alone in that. I would never vote for a candidate who wasn't pro-life.

I always find this stance interesting - not the pro-life stance, but the fact that it is your number one issue. Economy? Education? War/National Defense? Immigration? Welfare? Infrastructure? Privacy/invasion thereof?

Jorddyn

Jorddyn

08-23-2007, 07:57 PM

Originally Posted by Jorddyn
The government should be concerned with creating and maintaining infrastructure, national/state defense, protection of individuals' rights, and assisting those truly in need

You don't think assisting the needy is a social OR moral issue? I can make similar claims about the others, but dang did that ever stand out.

I think it is socially and morally correct to help those in need. However, that's not the reason I think the government should be involved in it. I think the government should be involved in it for the betterment and stability of a society.

Jorddyn

Bobmuhthol

08-23-2007, 07:58 PM

It also is pretty irrelevant what the President thinks of abortion, since the Supreme Court already has an opinion: it's awesome.

Jorddyn

08-23-2007, 07:59 PM

It also is pretty irrelevant what the President thinks of abortion, since the Supreme Court already has an opinion: it's awesome.

:lol:

Gan

08-23-2007, 08:25 PM

It also is pretty irrelevant what the President thinks of abortion, since the Supreme Court already has an opinion: it's awesome.

Not that the President is the one who nominates justices to the Supreme Court means anything.

And many many folks, (even here) were concerned about Alito and Roberts being patsy's for Bush and the religious right.

I'm one to hope that the SC Justices try to remain above the politics, sadly its not always the case.

Bobmuhthol

08-23-2007, 08:26 PM

You can't be fired from the Supreme Court, though. How many new justices do you think are going to be appointed between 2008 and 2012?

Latrinsorm

08-23-2007, 08:52 PM

I think it is socially and morally correct to help those in need. However, that's not the reason I think the government should be involved in it. I think the government should be involved in it for the betterment and stability of a society.In that case I have two questions:
1) What does "socially correct" mean?
2) What is an example of a "social issue" that doesn't impact the stability of a society?

Warriorbird

08-23-2007, 09:00 PM

What does endless biased Socratic questioning mean?

Jorddyn

08-23-2007, 09:48 PM

In that case I have two questions:
1) What does "socially correct" mean?
2) What is an example of a "social issue" that doesn't impact the stability of a society?

1 - Personal judgement. I feel that we as a society should help those in need.

2. That's a nearly impossible question to answer as everything the government does effects us in one way or another, though sometimes in tiny amounts. Closest I can come up with off the top of my head is Congressional Medals of Honor. It's good to recognize those who go above and beyond for their country, but the people who perform those acts likely would have even without the thought of "I might get a medal."

Jorddyn

Gan

08-23-2007, 10:09 PM

Science doesn't have a good track record for deciding rights issues. Phrenology, anyone? Eugenics?

You're right. The Crusades, The Inquisition period, historical religious oppression of minorities and women, and burning witches at the stake pale in comparison.
Sorry, I'll err on the side of science rather than some religious nutjob.

Because "science" and "religion" are the only two choices right??????!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

This ought to be good...
You have something else in mind?

Where (in terms of fields of study) do you think the concept of rights comes from?

Sorry, you have to answer my question first...

Celephais

08-23-2007, 10:30 PM

Pretty sure he's fishing for you to say philosphy... but philosphy is a science.

Gan

08-23-2007, 10:43 PM

He's being typical Latrinsorm.

Bobmuhthol

08-23-2007, 10:45 PM

And you're being typical Gan.

Gan

08-23-2007, 11:09 PM

And you're being typical Bob.

:)

Celephais

08-23-2007, 11:36 PM

And I'm a banana!
http://farm1.static.flickr.com/39/90572191_dfff1f8020.jpg

Bobmuhthol

08-23-2007, 11:38 PM

Huh.

The guy on the left reminds me of the Broodwich episode of ATHF.

Latrinsorm

08-23-2007, 11:45 PM

JorddynI'm not getting how you can say neither federal nor state governments should be caught up in social issues, but then note that the government has a crucial role in social stability and dramatically affects social issues. I mean, the government existing at all is a social and moral issue. What sort of government it is, what sort of stability it encourages (stagnant? repressive?), what sort of defense it proposes (proactive? Orwellian?).

Philosophy is not, in any way, a science. In any event, I wasn't "fishing" for anything, I was curious what Ganalon thought. His position seems to take the form "humans have rights and science/medicine decide what counts as human", and that first proposition seems to appear ex nihilo.

Celephais

08-23-2007, 11:49 PM

Huh.

The guy on the left reminds me of the Broodwich episode of ATHF.

"Rejected" - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vSb-nV8l2QY

It's amazing.

Edit: and I agree, I wouldn't be surprised if Don Hertzfeld guest drew for the broodwich episode.

Jorddyn

08-24-2007, 12:36 AM

I'm not getting how you can say neither federal nor state governments should be caught up in social issues, but then note that the government has a crucial role in social stability and dramatically affects social issues.

I think you're either misunderstanding or misconstruing my point.

By social issues, I do not mean stability of society. I mean social (and moral) in a different manner - such as drinking beer on Sunday - that does not have major effects on the society as a whole.

By saying stability of the society, I mean major issues such as welfare, healthcare, infrastructure.

The former is highly based on and driven by morality, and I see no need for government to be involved. While the latter may be (or may not be) moral, that is not the driver for it.

Hope that clears it up for you.

Jorddyn

Bobmuhthol

08-24-2007, 12:40 AM

"Rejected" - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vSb-nV8l2QY

It's amazing.

Edit: and I agree, I wouldn't be surprised if Don Hertzfeld guest drew for the broodwich episode.

lol, I forgot about Rejected.

The "Broodwich" episode is a direct tribute to indie animator Don Hertzfeldt, whose surreal comedy films were an influence on the show's creators.

Latrinsorm

08-24-2007, 11:48 AM

But isn't saying "such and such issues are major" in and of itself a value judgment? Isn't that what you're trying to avoid?

Warriorbird

08-25-2007, 03:14 PM

So is biased Socratic questioning. What's your point?

Tsa`ah

08-25-2007, 04:48 PM

CAN YOU BLOW ME WHERE THE PAMPERS IS!?

Two points for the PCU reference.

That aside ... it's comical that this is even debated. It's a distraction and nothing more.

Real issues please.

chillmonster

08-26-2007, 03:50 PM

chillmonster

08-26-2007, 04:18 PM

I think it is socially and morally correct to help those in need. However, that's not the reason I think the government should be involved in it. I think the government should be involved in it for the betterment and stability of a society.

Jorddyn

But isn't saying "such and such issues are major" in and of itself a value judgment? Isn't that what you're trying to avoid?

There's nothing wrong with the government getting involved in social/moral issues that are important to citizens as long as the basis for their involvement is strictly secular. That is to say if a decision to act toward some social/moral result couldn't be reached reasonably without religious dogma, then it should not be made law.

That would mean no banning alcohol on Sundays, or rediculous gay marriage initiaves. On the other hand, abortion is a serious moral question that deserves debate irrespective of religion influences. However, blanket statements about abortion is bad because God says so have no place.

ClydeR

01-01-2012, 07:43 PM

Christmas vacation is over! It's time to get back to work.

It just never stops. The latest revelation of Romney's hypocrisy is that his earlier pro-life position was based on polling, not conviction.

During his unsuccessful run against Sen. Ted Kennedy in 1994, Mitt Romney decided that he would run on a pro-choice platform after being advised that a pro-life candidate could not win in liberal Massachusetts.

The revelation comes from a new book, “Mitt Romney: An Inside Look at the Man and His Politics,” by journalist Ronald Scott. Journalist Byron York reported on Scott’s disclosure in an article published Friday in The Washington Examiner.

“According to Scott, Romney revealed that polling from Richard Wirthlin, Ronald Reagan’s former pollster whom Romney had hired for the ’94 campaign, showed it would be impossible for a pro-life candidate to win statewide office in Massachusetts,” York writes. “In light of that, Romney decided to run as a pro-choice candidate, pledging to support Roe v. Wade, while remaining personally pro-life.”

A Mormon who lives in Boston, Scott has known Romney for decades, and even accompanied him on a trip to explain the abortion stance to church leaders in Utah.

More... (http://dailycaller.com/2011/12/30/book-romney-changed-his-mind-on-abortion-based-on-polls/)

Romney claims that he changed his position 10 years later in 2004, but the evidence says that he was still pro-life in 2004.

You should be quite familiar by now with the fact that Mitt Romney gave $150.00 to Planned Parenthood in 1994 when claiming he had always been pro-abortion.

You should also know that in 2004, Mitt Romney says he personally converted to the pro-life position. In fact, according to ABC News on June 14, 2007, “Former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney has long cited a November 2004 meeting with a Harvard stem-cell researcher as the moment that changed his long-held stance of supporting abortion rights to his current ‘pro-life’ position opposing legal abortion. But several actions Romney took mere months after that meeting call into question how deep-seated his conversion truly was.”

More... (http://www.redstate.com/erick/2011/12/30/mitt-romney-didnt-just-give-planned-parenthood-money-he-gave-them-extra-power/)