First, Romney said this:Mittens goes on to disclaim presidential involvement in this issue. As if...
As Igor Volsky pointed out, throughout the campaign, the exceptions that Romney delineates (and so I don’t have to reiterate, read here my position on exceptions) have never included the health of the mother, only the life of the mother. Health means something entirely different, especially to the anti-choice movement. When the late-term abortion ban was being legislated during the Bush Administration, a guy named Paul Ryan said that such a health exception “would render (the ban) virtually meaningless.” And of course, the Republican platform, which all Presidential nominees basically control, makes no mention of any exceptions in endorsing a full abortion ban.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... . This is a matter in the courts, it’s been settled for some time in the courts.”
I am tired and in pain, and Mitt Rmoney is forcing me to write about abortion. If nothing else clarified what Rmoney would REALLY do regarding abortion if he is elected president, his choice of Paul Ryan, an unabashedly no-exceptions guy on abortion, should tell you all you need to know.
The Supreme Court in Roe did not rule that one or another law protects a woman's right to choose abortion if that is what she thinks best: it did rule, rather, that a woman has a constitutionally protected human right to choose abortion. What is settled is not the political issue; what is undeniably settled is the human rights issue. A woman, because she is a human being, has a right to control her own body.
A government can, of course, take that right away from her by force; it wouldn't be the first time. But if they do so, in this country, in the present day, they can expect my unreserved resistance... by any means necessary... to protect that right.
Same here
ReplyDelete