…they will insist that Mitt Romney must be elected. Even when he has publicly endorsed legal abortion in cases of rape, incest, the life of the mother, and (drum roll for the part you can drive a dump truck through) the health of the mother. No woman considers abortion without being in an incredible state of mental stress. Therefore in the name of mental health Mr Romney assures us that the option is open.
Even when he has a campaign ad touting how flexible he is on the subject. Even when his surrogates assure voters that Roe V Wade is safe:
Did you get that?
“President Bush was president eight years, Roe v. Wade wasn’t reversed. He had two Supreme Court picks, Roe v. Wade wasn’t reversed. It’s not going to be reversed.”
His sister said it. His ad said it. Now another supporter has said it. This election is not about abortion. Make your decision based on the other important issues.
But there will still be way too many “prolifers” who will still tout Romney as the “lesser evil” and idiotic prelates will still say that to vote for anyone else is a sin.
Reliably, the satirists get it right:
Romney Says He Favors Abortion in Cases Where It Makes People Vote for Him
KETTERING, Ohio (The Borowitz Report)—Hitting the campaign trail one day after the arrival of Superstorm Sandy, Republican nominee Mitt Romney tweaked his position on abortion today, saying he now supports it in cases where it makes people vote for him.“I would make an exception for abortion in cases where the life of my campaign is at stake,” he told a crowd in Kettering, Ohio.Sandy, which slammed into the East Coast last night, was such a powerful weather system that it prevented Mr. Romney from changing his position on abortion for twenty-four hours.
“It was important for Mitt to come up with a new position on abortion today,” said his campaign manager, Matt Rhoades. “It sends a message to the American people that in the aftermath of Sandy, things are getting back to normal.”
Mr. Romney made no reference to his comments about eliminating FEMA, which have been declared a disaster area.
Lord have mercy.
Yes, sure, the President selects Supreme Court nominees, but Justices are meant to interpret the law, not create it. We can see this in the way post-Roe v Wade Republican Justices have voted on the matter when it comes up, they’ve generally voted to uphold Roe v Wade because it reflect the legal consensus on the issue given the US Constitution, law, and precedent.The Supreme Court should never have been about abortion, and the Presidency should definitively not be.
Roe v Wade should have been fought with a Constitutional Amendment, and the by Congress passing laws, and only then over the Presidency should there have been an unlawful veto of a Constitutional law banning abortion or severly limiting it.
The Republican Party did not want to do that. No one wanted to do that. Or, no one thought it would get the required support . The focus on the Presidency when it comes to abortion is the proof that Roe v Wade is refelective of the law and mind of the land. (The fact the Left focuses on the Presidency reflects their understanding that there is deep, principled opposition to abortion that would likely mean they couldn’t get an Abortion Amendment passed either.) That abortion is morally wrong is a different matter altogether: abortion being legal requires no one have an abortion. There are all sorts of legal things that aren’t moral, we aren’t trying to pass laws against all of them, e.g., the unforgiveable sin against the Holy Spirit is legal. The problem is, as always, in the human heart. No Supreme Court Justice can help that, not really.
Absolutely! Glad someone is saying it.
Bonus trivia question: Which constitutional amendment ended racial segregation as a matter of positive law in the US?
Unless I’m mistaken it wasn’t a Constitutional amendment at all. The Brown decision did it as regards public schools and the Civil Rights Act of 1964 or 65 as regards public accomodations.
I believe it would not even take a constitutional amendment. It would take merely a law defining the meaning of the word “person”. The constitutional amendment already exists- #14.
I finally looked at my ballot. Very depressing. I don’t think I can vote for any of these people. I live in the exurbs in a blue state and I get to choose between establishment incumbent Republicans who never mention the “a” word (abortion) even though they are endorsed by pro-life groups (they are from the right team, the GOP) and pro-abort Democrats.
For the presidency, besides Obomey, there are the Green and Libertarian candidates. In 2010 I voted Green across the board in protest without knowing much about them (I know that’s irresponsible but in this state, neither the Dems and Repubs can be trusted) . But this year I know the Green candidate is pro-abort so she’s out. I wouldn’t consider supporting the Libertarian candidate anyway but turns out he’s pro-abort too. I guess I could write someone in but who?
Meanwhile I keep hearing on Relevant Radio how this is the MOST.IMPORTANT.ELECTION of our lifetime and how Romney is pro-life and Fr. Sirico can help us to understand what the Church really teaches us about the role of government in the economy and how the Pope just doesn’t understand how great America is, blah, blah, blah.
Sigh…Like Mark Shea keeps writing, I just want to vote in a way that won’t send me to hell.
Relevant radio cheapens their mostly good message by saddling themselves to such an empty vessel like Mitt the Shit & being generally shills for the Republican Party. They throw away their dignity & integrity for nothing. What a shame. Same with the Pro-Life movement. It saddens me to see prolife orgs allow themselves to be deformed into Republican front orgs. What else can you say after whoring themselves for pro-abort jerks like Mitt & Sen scott brown of Mass.
Jessica et. al., for what it’s worth I’m writing in Joe Schriner. He’s like my dream candidate; pro-life (look under “Life Issues” in his policies page, here’s the first bullet point:
“No abortion.”
Period.)
…but not a shill for the vampires of capitalism:
Under “economy”:
“De-emphasize financial speculation (Wall Street) and other extraneous paper shuffling that doesn’t contribute much, if anything, to the necessary stuff of life. (Many of these extraneous paper shuffling jobs, and the like, have evolved in the last century.)”
If you’ve got a few minutes go over and look around. Obviously he’s not getting more than a few thousand votes, but I’ve vowed never to vote “defensively” again.
No, I don’t work for his campaign, and he has no idea I exist. I just want my vote to mean something beyond throwing up my hands in despair.
I voted for Joe Schriner also – the only candidate who exemplifies the positions I believe in. It’s too bad so few people have heard of him; I think most Catholics would be able to support him.
I did likewise, even though he’s not an “official” write-in candidate in Ohio, so I guess my vote won’t be counted.
My vote doesn’t count either. I live in CA, which Obama will win easily.