Obama's response:
That sounds terrible:
“If Roe v. Wade was overturned, Congress passed a federal ban on all abortions, and it came to your desk – would you sign it? ‘Yes’, or ‘no?’”Ban all abortions? Including abortions that would save the life of the mother? Did Romney really say that? The Weekly Standard prints whole context:
“Let me say it: I’d be delighted to sign that bill.”
QUESTIONER: Hello, my name is AJ. I'm from Millstone, New Jersey. I would all of the candidates to give an answer on this. If hypothetically, Roe v. Wade was overturned, and the Congress passed a federal ban on all abortions and it came to your desk, would you sign it? Yes or no?That is kind of a weird answer by Romney, and I don't blame the Obama campaign for pulling out that quote. I can see why, fighting for the Republican nomination and pushed and cornered like that, he said "I'd be delighted to sign that bill." Notice that the idea is that we'd be in some hypothetical other America, and if we had arrived there, it would be terrific and delightful, but that's not where we are, so there's no immediate prospect of seeing that bill.
COOPER: Mayor Giuliani?
GIULIANI: If Congress passed a ban on all abortions throughout the United States?
COOPER: If Roe v. Wade was overturned and Congress passed a federal ban on all abortions and it came to your desk, would you sign it, yes or no?
GIULIANI: I probably would not sign it. I would leave it to the states to make that decision.
(APPLAUSE)
I think that that -- the problem with Roe against Wade is that it took the decision away from the states. If Roe against Wade were overturned because it was poorly decided, if the justices decide that, it would them go back to the states, and it would seem to me that that would be the answer.
The answer is that each state would make a different decision. I don't believe, in the circumstance that you asked before, that it should be criminalized. I think that would be a mistake unless we're talking about partial birth abortion or late-term abortion.
I think you should have parental consent. I think we should have access to adoptions instead of abortion. But, ultimately, I think these decisions should be made on a state-by-state basis.
COOPER: Governor Romney?
ROMNEY: I agree with Senator Thompson, which is we should overturn Roe v. Wade and return these issues to the states.
ROMNEY: I would welcome a circumstance where there was such a consensus in this country that we said, we don't want to have abortion in this country at all, period. That would be wonderful. I'd be delighted.
COOPER: The question is: Would you sign that bill?
ROMNEY: Let me say it. I'd be delighted to sign that bill. But that's not where we are. That's not where America is today. Where America is is ready to overturn Roe v. Wade and return to the states that authority. But if the Congress got there, we had that kind of consensus in that country, terrific.
The Romney campaign wants to say, it's not a realistic present-day threat — which is true — and it's not what Romney is really talking about when not pushed and cornered by the formidable Anderson Cooper — which is also true. When free to put his policy in his words, Romney prefers to leave the matter to the state legislatures. Of course, that involves overturning Roe v. Wade, which he's open about. It's an anti-abortion position, though not as anti-abortion as the way it comes out in Obama's ad.
Bottom line: Those who are considering voting for Romney ought to understand exactly how anti-abortion Romney is, but it's up to Romney, not Obama to do that precision work.
Posts
246 comments:
«Oldest ‹Older 201 – 246 of 246I don't think that an abortion for sex selection is any worse than an abortion for no reason, or because the woman doesn't want to be fat in the summer, or because her boyfriend took off, or because she just forgot her birth control.
I know people who kept having kids until they finally got a girl or finally got a boy when they may have been happy with one of each, and there may be significant *economic* reasons to want two girls or two boys instead of one of each.
If "I can't afford a child" is a good enough reason, then "I can't afford three bedrooms" is also a good enough reason.
If "I don't want stretch marks" is a good enough reason, then "I don't want a girl" is also a good enough reason.
Estimated number of abortions averted by Planned Parenthood contraceptive services each year: 277,000
estimated number of abortions averted by lousy pick-up lines: 1,239,000
estimated number of abortions averted by sodomy: 963,000
" I don't believe any young woman should be forced to give her baby up for adoption, just because she is young. "
Just abort it, eh ?
How many adopted people do you know ? Adoptions are getting rare except for Chinese girls, because those young mothers just abort those babies. The black social workers association is now opposed to transracial adoptions. This when 70% of black pregnancies are aborted.
" Saint Croix said...
estimated number of abortions averted by sodomy: 963,000"
That's like my favorite lawyer joke. White babies are brought by storks and black babies are brought by crows. What brings no babies ?
Swallows.
The girl asked her GYN if you could get pregnant from anal intercourse.
He said, "of course, Where do you think lawyers come from ?"
Michael, Many. I volunteer in the Foster Care System.
Adoptions are rare, because girls keep their babies. Parents do not lose their children for neglect or abuse, not age.
The parents who lose their children do not lose their children because they are poor, they just get housing, shelter, and job training. Parents lose their children, because they care more about drugs or mental illness. Sad. The parents even admit it, they love their kids, but the drugs just get the best of them.
All this fuss over the potential for a hypothetical woman's medical emergency.
No fuss whatsoever for the late term abortions that happen every day.
There is a middle ground, and that's where I stand. If Romney wants to take the polar opposite view of the Faculty Lounge Feminists, that's fine with me.
Abortion is pretty damn low on my list of priorities today.
If I was a pregnant teen, why doesn't this 'loving family' take teenager in with the baby. Why take my baby and throw me out on the streets?
Because they don't want to adopt an irresponsible pregnant teenage girl? They want to adopt and raise a child as their own without the interference and baggage of a teenage girl, who even if not pregnant is a paid in the butt to raise with all of their emotional and illogical thinking.
YOU are supposed to be an adult or close enough to an adult that you should be able to accept the consequences of your actions. Your innocent baby....not so much.
If you decide to abort you have many other chances to make decisions about your life. Your baby....no chance....ever.
If you decide to adopt instead of abort...again. You are free to continue on with your life....AND so is your child who will now have a chance at life with another family.
Saint Croix,
Fair enough, but I'm dealing with a more expansive definition of federalist: there are still plenty of things the fedgov should leave to the states, or the people, that are not strictly speaking unconstitutional.
DBQ, Teens can have a chance in life, with the baby. She isn't irresponsible, if she loves her baby. She isn't irresponsible, if the dad abandoned her or family member pressure her to abort.
Teens are really adults, the concept of being a teen is only 100 years old. We live in a culture that teaches young adults, that really they still children. I have a few family members that were teen moms, all turned out fine, some even married the dads. Yeah, the mom was dependent on others for some necessities and a hand in babysitting. It's family, that is what families do.
The biggest thing for children is identity, that means kin. Children belong to their own family, most of the adoptions I see are kinship. Not random people who want a baby.
Screenlock, chicklit. On the 1st click.
Text stayed, so I clicked again and it (Blogger) responded.
So delete the extra one instead of just talking about it.
I think Althouse is wrong on the issue of whether Congress can enforce equal protection for unborn infants. They can! The 14th Amendment frickin' gives Congress the authority to enforce the 14th Amendment.
Will Congress? No. Can they? Yes!
But as a pragmatic matter, Althouse is right. For people concerned about abortion, the issue in this campaign is who will replace Ginsburg (or Kennedy, or Scalia)?
Here are people a President Romney might nominate to the Supreme Court: Brett Kavanaugh or Frank Easterbrook or Alex Kozinski.
It doesn't matter much what Romney thinks. What matters is who he nominates!
He could nominate Janice Rogers Brown, who wants to bring back Lochner. In and of itself that might scare liberals away from "substantive" due process. Or perhaps he might nominate Priscilla Owen or Edith Jones.
Michael McConnell would be a terrific nominee.
Romney is not going to nominate any pro-choice nominee. But he might nominate a "stealth" candidate and we don't know how they will vote.
(The liberals are always grilled on their abortion views and always, always, toe the line).
The only danger with Romney is that he might nominate an O'Connor, a Souter, a Kennedy (or a Brennan, or a Warren). A secret supporter of abortion might vote to uphold Roe v. Wade.
So Romney might make a bad pick, from a pro-life point of view. And that may or may not hurt him in 2016.
A Romney pick almost has to be better than an Obama pick, though, since Republican jurists are the textualists these days, and Hugo Black is dead.
Saint Croix:
Allowing for exceptions is th GOP's standard idea of being prolife.
The prolife movement's standard was only life of the mother, which is actually a misnomer, as a life saving operation or treatment that unavoidably results in the unborn child being lost is not an abortion. The "rape and incest" exceptions are incoherent.
Ronald Reagan and George HW Bush both upheld the true prolife positions, and won decisively with it. No one seriously claims Bush lost in 1992 because of that.
And it is simply false to assert that it was easier to take that position in 1988; polling shows a stronger prolife position now, than then, and the prolife movement is, I would argue, better mobilized.
The "rape and incest exceptions" being "standard" is a legacy of Bush II.
SC:
Also, there is plenty in Mr Romney's history and recent behavior to justify calling his stance dodgy.
Teens can have a chance in life, with the baby. She isn't irresponsible, if she loves her baby. She isn't irresponsible, if the dad abandoned her or family member pressure her to abort.
Teens are really adults, the concept of being a teen is only 100 years old
Agreed. However, not only do I not want to pay for her abortion, I really really don't want to be on the hook and pay for her to raise her baby.
Keep the child, adopt the child, abort the child and yes she should not be forced to abort or adopt against her will...HOWEVER .....accept the responsibility and stop forcing others to pay for your choices.
Go to a church or charity. Have some friends and family help out.
STOP asking my tax dollars to pay for her mistakes or her decisions. Taking my money and giving it to her and her kid for the rest of their lives is NOT charity. It is EXTORTION.
there are still plenty of things the fedgov should leave to the states, or the people, that are not strictly speaking unconstitutional.
I agree! And I do not think Congress should attempt to outlaw all abortions. They don't have that authority (unless they can make a commerce clause argument).
My point is that Congress has 14th Amendment authority to enforce equal protection for babies. If states start killing newborns, or the incompetent elderly, or babies in the womb, Congress can step in and put a stop to it.
My argument is that Congress can force the states to obey their own laws. For instance, you can't allow an abortion if it's a homicide under your own laws (i.e. your death statutes).
Can a state still outlaw abortion, or allow it? Yes! They just can't allow it if it's a homicide under their own rules. And all states have rules on the books in regard to when people die.
That still recognizes federalism. States still define when death happens. That just have to apply their rule to all people.
And states can still define if early abortions are crimes or not crimes. My point is that the homicide issue needs to be addressed. And defining babies as property isn't working. Recognize the baby's humanity. Equal protection helps us figure out when abortion is a homicide. And that's a question that needs to be answered. And the failure to answer it is what has unsettled this debate so much.
The "rape and incest" exceptions are incoherent.
They're emotional rather than logical. We want to help rape victims and we're aghast at the idea of a woman being forced to carry the rapist's baby to term.
But it's illogical if abortion is a homicide. For instance, do we allow a rape victim to go nine months through a pregnancy, give birth to a baby, and then shoot the baby in the head?
No. Being a victim of a rape does not entitle you to kill an innocent baby.
So pro-lifers who recognize a rape exception need to explain why it's okay. I think it's defensible in cases where abortion is not a homicide. And to answer that question, you have to look to our death statutes.
If the baby has any activity in her brain stem or cerebral cortex, then the abortion is a homicide.
Brain activity starts 6 weeks after conception, 8 weeks after the last menstrual period. So many abortions are homicides, but some early ones are not.
And this is not my rule, it's our rule in regard to when people die. I'm just arguing that we should apply our rule to the unborn. It's equal protection.
So a pro-lifer can rationally allow early abortions that are not homicides, without offending the pro-life cause.
What I much prefer is emergency contraception. The day after pill is not an abortion. It's identical to the birth control pill, and works the same way.
I believe every rape victim should have easy (and free) access to emergency contraception.
Also, there is plenty in Mr Romney's history and recent behavior to justify calling his stance dodgy.
You identify W as a bad pro-lifer, but he put Roberts and Alito on the Court. I'm happy with both of them. Indeed, far happier than with Reagan's picks (O'Connor and Kennedy) or Bush the elder (Souter).
The key is not Romney's position, but the position of his nominee. We can't know that. It's a leap of faith. But the odds are a heckofa lot better than Obama's nominee.
Romney hasn't lied to me yet, so I'm voting for him.
Althouse: That is kind of a weird answer by Romney, and I don't blame the Obama campaign for pulling out that quote.
But I thought lefties were into nuances. Deleting the nuances from Romney's answers is flat out unethical, but then lefties are into that too - aren't they?
SC:
It's a little early, don't you think, to count Roberts and Alito, as successful prolife nominees. They haven't ruled on Roe, and after Roberts' surprise turn on Obamacare, what would be your basis for confidence he'll overturn Roe?
And I don't agree that it all comes down to The Court, if that is your point; but I will say, how trustworthy Romney is on this (or any) commitment bears on even whether he'll really go to the trouble to select someone solid on privacy. It won't just happen; he has to make a real effort to select a justice who won't just go along with the current, too expansive notion of privacy.
"if the intent was to kill the child"... that is the difference between abortion and premature induction to save the mother's life. Abortions are not medicine, abortions are murder. The mother's life can be saved without the intent to kill the unborn child.
Saint Croix,
"... JRB ..."
Be still my beating heart!
But yeah, Owen or Jones or McConnell or Kozinski would be fine too.
And on to your other point: ok, I think I understand it better now, and it is starting to make sense to me; thanks for elaborating.
I disagree with Ann about the audio cut being fair/moral. However, as a Romney supporter I ask, "What in hell was he thinking?" Mitt, you do not need to play to your social conservative base; they will vote for you regardless of how you answer the question. Do you realize you said you, as president, would disregard the 10th Amendment if Congress passed the unconstitutional bill? That was STUPID!
Personally, as a libertarian, I do not believe that pre-viablity abortion should be illegal under any circumstances. I also believe that even in cases of viability, the health of the mother (yes, she is a mother then), rape, and incest should be the only cases when abortion is legal. Viability should be defined as the end of the second trimester.
Obama defines personhood as beginning about 5 minutes after birth. Romney defines it as at conception. My preference, for legal purposes is at 25 weeks.
There is zero chance, regardless of the Supreme Court's makeup, that pre-viabillity abortions will be made illegal during the next 100 years.
As the father of two daughters and one son and the grandfather of three girls and three boys, I am much more concerned with voting out our incompetent president than I am about the zero probability that the religious right will get what they want on abortion. It's not going to happen.
"He supports legislation to allow babies that survive botched abortions to be neglected and discarded when they die. There are some adults who fit that description having survived abortions."
Curious, at what point does it become illegal to let a baby like that die. Could you throw them in the dumpster at say 5 years old?, 70?
Saint Croix,
I don't think that an exception for rape is at all illogical. If it's seen in the context of our basic self-defense right, both "life and health of the mother" and "rape" apply. (If I wanted to do away with one of the usual exceptions it would be incest.)
Life and health of the mother is self-defense, pretty obviously.
But a woman can be raped with nary a bruise and no threat at all to her life and she will still have the absolute right to kill her rapist to stop it happening. We don't say... but he wasn't *hurting* you.
People recognize that there is an element of psychological brutality to rape and that, for some women, being forced to bear her rapists child is truly too much to ask. We might hope she finds the strength to do so, but accept that she may not. No, the child is not guilty, but it still may well be self-defense.
SC:
Building on the incoherence of the rape-and-incest exceptions, they are also legally incoherent. Because if you make an allowance like that, particularly for rape, then the key question becomes, how to you prevent every woman seeking an abortion from claiming either rape or incest as their justification for the abortion?
I'm not saying there isn't some way to craft the law; I'm sure there is. But there will be problems in crafting the law and applying the law, and the political problems of actually getting to an enforceable exception may mean a loophole through which vast numbers of abortions are driven.
"Inga said...
I don't know of anyone besides Curious George from a Western country that is in favor of sex selection-ultrasound abortion mills, and he a conservative!!"
I have no idea, other than the fact that you are a fucking moron, where this comes from. I am pro-life. So I am against all abortion, which certainly including sex selection.
My point dumbass is that you don't understand that Roe v Wade eliminates the possibility of sex selection abortions.
So you say Curious, so you say......
In your secret heart of hearts you have a business plan all set up for one of these ultrasound abortion mills, dontcha? Just waiting for the opportune moment. You seem to have some fixation with the subject of sex selection abortions, you bring it up every single time there is an abortion discussion.
It's a little early, don't you think, to count Roberts and Alito, as successful prolife nominees.
Both Alito and Roberts voted against abortion in Carhart II. Kennedy is all alone now, as the Catholic jurist who hates D&E abortion and yet continues to call it a constitutional right. I think Kennedy has felt a lot of guilt about abortion. His Carhart opinions are the closest thing we have to a pro-life judicial opinion. He concedes that it's a homicide. He makes D&E abortion sound horrifying. Those opinions are almost like a confession.
I don't think any of the Supreme Court Justices have a pro-life jurisprudence, by the way. They're opposed to Roe v. Wade as constitutional law. But they don't see abortion as a homicide. I criticize Scalia here for his illogic.
Of course Roe is a very bad opinion, and there's a lot of stress on it. When it goes, I think even the liberals will be happy to see it off their docket. You notice they didn't want to touch assisted suicide with a 10-foot pole.
The problem with Roe is that even the liberals are now calling D&E "horrifying." You just can't keep saying the Constitution requires a horrifying medical procedure.
Sooner or later, this opinion has to fall.
We might have the opportunity in the Romney administration to replace Ginsburg. I don't see Obama helping here, but Romney might. And I really don't see how he can make it worse.
Life and health of the mother is self-defense, pretty obviously.
Not health! Read Roe v. Wade for how Justice Blackmun defines "health."
Maternity, or additional offspring, may force upon the woman a distressful life and future. Psychological harm may be imminent. Mental and physical health may be taxed by child care. There is also the distress, for all concerned, associated with the unwanted child, and there is the problem of bringing a child into a family already unable, psychologically and otherwise, to care for it. In other cases, as in this one, the additional difficulties and continuing stigma of unwed motherhood may be involved. All these are the factors the woman and her responsible physician necessarily will consider in consultation.
Roe allows health abortions up until birth. It's get a note from your doctor stuff. (That's why Romney's campaign quickly backtracked after he slipped up and said "health" as an exception).
A woman can be raped with nary a bruise and no threat at all to her life and she will still have the absolute right to kill her rapist to stop it happening.
I actually think of rape as always involving a threat to your life. It's a violent attack. I think the law presumes that your life is in danger.
People recognize that there is an element of psychological brutality to rape and that, for some women, being forced to bear her rapists child is truly too much to ask.
It's a horrifying hypothetical, it really is. We hate rape and we hate abortion. I can't even imagine the horror, really. And there's also the trauma of killing the baby--if you are killing the baby--on top of the rape.
I really, really, really prefer emergency contraception. That should be a fundamental part of sex education. All girls should know about it, so they don't have to face that horrible choice.
OK ... watching these commercials ... I think I have figured out the logic of the left.
If you abort your children ... there are no children to inherit the national debt ... and therefore the debt is NOT a problem.
Strikes me a circular ...
Saint Croix:
In both exceptional cases, including involuntary exploitation (i.e. rape), which would initiate a criminal investigation; and superior exploitation (e.g. incest), which should also be a criminal act; your criteria would offer a strictly limited period during which a woman has an opportunity to terminate her pregnancy.
While organic life begins development from conception, it is reasonable to distinguish between the body and consciousness. Whether the latter originates or is expressed through the brain, attributing consciousness to brain activity is an objective standard which exhibits strong correlation, and perhaps dependence, with the defining attribute of human life.
So, we can preserve the dignity of women, we can preserve the dignity of her child, and we can preserve the intrinsic value of human life. This seems like a win-win-win proposition.
Saint Croix:
Nevertheless, Roberts and Alito have not ruled on Roe. They may yet vote to overturn Roe, but they haven't yet. Before Kennedy reversed his vote, and sustained Roe, he was counted as a sure vote.
And about abortion being justified--not saying by you--in the case of rape, the "self defense" argument doesn't apply to the child. The unborn child is not the aggressor, nor a threat to her mother's life.
The question I want to ask is this: why do people assume that an abortion helps a rape victim? It doesn't undo the harm; and the woman knows that child is also her child. She now has a hole in her conscience, because she will know that, in order for her to deal with violence committed against her, she cooperated in violence against her own child.
I agree, it's emotional not logical. And I can't imagine what it would be like to have a pregnancy originate that way. But the question remains: how does a second act of violence--against an innocent unborn child--"heal" the prior act of violence?
"I actually think of rape as always involving a threat to your life. It's a violent attack. I think the law presumes that your life is in danger."
The law and common sense presumes that your life is in danger in the same way that it presumes your life is in danger in a home invasion. It would probably also do so for kidnapping if that's what it took to get away.
Because you don't have to wait until after your rapist/invader/abductor kills you to reasonably believe that someone who rapes/invades/abducts is entirely likely to be willing to kill you.
I only meant to point out that the harm of these things may not be physical and that psychological harm is still harm and I think that even if you knew absolutely that a rapist wasn't going to kill you, you'd still have the right to prevent yourself being raped with lethal force because of that understanding of the trauma of being raped.
Yes, it is a horrible thing to consider and an abortion doesn't make the rape go away. But you had said that people who agree with the exception need to explain it.
That's my explanation.
how do you prevent every woman seeking an abortion from claiming either rape or incest as their justification for the abortion?
You could pass a law that any doctor who performs an abortion has to report it to the police. Thus doing an abortion is like removing a bullet from a gunshot victim. The police have an interest in investigating the crime. You investigate the shooting to find out who was shot and who shot them. You investigate the abortion to find out who was raped and who raped them. And of course we think of abortion as private--and maybe rape too--but rape, like any crime, is a public wrong. Society has an interest in punishing rapists and keeping them off the streets.
Of course the problem is that some women might be comfortable saying they were raped to their doctor, but not the police. Sometimes sex is a gray area (particularly when alcohol is involved). So we might have an increase in false rape claims. Particularly since, under this law, rape victims are getting a benefit that other women do not get. On the other hand, maybe some rapes go unreported and this rule would help bring rapists to justice.
I think the application would be kind of dangerous. Jane Roe in Roe v. Wade claimed that she was raped, in order to get sympathy. But it was a lie. The Supreme Court ignored rape in their opinion. I wish they had discussed emergency contraception and talked about the issue. I wish Roe was a small, narrow opinion as opposed to the big and bold disaster that it is.
Texas, by the way, defined pregnancy as beginning at implantation. So while they didn't allow a rape exception, a woman had at least a week to go to a hospital and swallow a pill.
Conception can happen anywhere from 30 minutes after an ejaculation to 5 days after ejaculation. And implantation is 7-9 days after conception. What this means is that a rape victim has a legal right in Texas, or any other state, to go to a hospital and swallow a mini pill, for instance. A mini pill (or progestin-only birth control pill) is 95% effective as birth control, if taken in the 24 hours after sex or rape.
Obama's ad is perfectly valid, and here's why:
1) The next President will likely get the opportunity to replace Justice Ginsburg, allowing for a possible redux of Roe v. Wade.
2) There have been more than a thousand state bills concerning abortion (e.g. transvaginal probes, ultrasounds, forcing doctors to make false statements to their patients) since the Tea Party surge of 2010. The GOP platform is solidly against abortion.
3) Romney has vowed to defund Planned Parenthood.
4) Unpopular bills can still pass Congress, e.g. Obamacare. I have no doubt that, given the slightest opportunity, the GOP congress would ram an abortion ban down the nation's throat, and probably even be joined by several "pro-life" democrats.
tarheel: " Mitt, you do not need to play to your social conservative base; they will vote for you regardless of how you answer the question."
This was a 2008 primary debate.
"Inga said...
So you say Curious, so you say......
In your secret heart of hearts you have a business plan all set up for one of these ultrasound abortion mills, dontcha? Just waiting for the opportune moment. You seem to have some fixation with the subject of sex selection abortions, you bring it up every single time there is an abortion discussion."
My only "fixation" is pointing your moronic position out. Like most liberals your biggest maladies are being stupid, and hypocritical. Stupid paints you in a corner, so the only thing left is being a hypocrite.
So you make these declarations of being "100% Pro v Wade", because you are too stupid to understand that it eliminates legislation that prevents gender selection abortions.
Then you harp on Romney being a "flip flopper" on abortion, but when faced with your own moronic position, say you are "evolving".
Your best hope for evolution is from going from an idiot to a imbecile.
rheel said.
"As the father of two daughters and one son and the grandfather of three girls and three boys, I am much more concerned with voting out our incompetent president than I am about the zero probability that the religious right will get what they want on abortion. It's not going to happen."
Abortion is a side issue. These ads are meant to distract from the real problems.
Andrew Ross Gordon said...
Obama's ad is perfectly valid, and here's why:
1) The next President will likely get the opportunity to replace Justice Ginsburg, allowing for a possible redux of Roe v. Wade.\
Good. we can use more conservative justices. Original intent is important.
2) There have been more than a thousand state bills concerning abortion (e.g. transvaginal probes, ultrasounds, forcing doctors to make false statements to their patients) since the Tea Party surge of 2010. The GOP platform is solidly against abortion.
A thousand? Really? All Republicans? Really? All of them? Every one?
3) Romney has vowed to defund Planned Parenthood.
Good. It's a private company it should stand on its own . Besides it seems like its primary focus is eliminating children of color from the world.
4) Unpopular bills can still pass Congress, e.g. Obamacare. I have no doubt that, given the slightest opportunity, the GOP congress would ram an abortion ban down the nation's throat, and probably even be joined by several "pro-life" democrats.
Look how well that worked out for prohibition. Not gonna happen.
Meanwhile, unemployment is high. Nobody is hiring. We're up to our eyebrows in debt, and this administrations foreign policy agenda seems to be, Meh.
Darn right Bob. Maybe seceding should be brought into play.
The Civil War should have not been fought in the meantime, although it might have been eventually as western state would choose to join either the slave states of the free states.
Nevertheless, an interesting what-if. My bet if the South would have split, by 1900 it would have turned into an economic disaster thanks to their feudalistic system and worship of ignorance.
Someone should have told doofus Romney that the Al Smith dinner is for self-deprecating humor, not a celebrity roast.
krshorewood said...
Someone should have told doofus Romney that the Al Smith dinner is for self-deprecating humor, not a celebrity roast.
Someone should have told doofus Obama not to play the straight man.
The jokes. It's like they write themselves.
Post a Comment