Election will impact Roe v. Wade
October 14, 2012
Lost in all the chatter about Democratic Vice President Joe Biden’s over-the-top laughter and Republican Veep nominee Paul Ryan’s perplexed look during their debate last week was the revelation that Roe v. Wade could well hang in the balance.
If Mitt Romney, the Republican nominee for president, and his running mate, Ryan, win the Nov. 6 general election, the 1970 U.S. Supreme Court ruling that made abortion legal will be in jeopardy.
Here’s what Ryan, a congressman from Wisconsin and an opponent of abortion in all circumstances, answered when moderator Martha Raddatz raised the issue:
“ … if you believe that life begins at conception, that, therefore, doesn’t change the definition of life. That’s a principle. The policy of a Romney administration is to oppose abortion with exceptions for rape, incest and life of the mother.”
But it was when Raddatz asked if Americans who believe that abortion should remain legal should worry about a Romney-Ryan administration, he replied: “We don’t think that unelected judges should make this decision; that people through their elected representatives in reaching a consensus in society through the democratic process should make this determination.”
That comment could be dismissed as wishful thinking on the part of a strident anti-abortion advocate, but for this reality: Whoever is president over the next four years will, in all probability, get to appoint one or two justices to the Supreme Court, given the age of a couple of the justices on the bench.
If Romney is president, he undoubtedly will nominate individuals who share his political ideology. While presidents and presidential candidates insist that there is no litmus test for selecting Supreme Court justices, it would be naïve to believe that a conservative Republican would tap a liberal Democrat. Likewise, no Democratic president would pick a conservative Republican.
Vice President Biden, who like Ryan is a practicing Roman Catholic, said during the debate that while he personally opposes abortion, “… I refuse to impose it on equally devout Christians and Muslims and Jews, and I just refuse to impose that on others, unlike my friend here, the — the congressman. I — I do not believe that we have a right to tell other people that — women they can’t control their body. It’s a decision between them and their doctor. In my view and the Supreme Court, I’m not going to interfere with that.”
It will be interesting to see if Romney, who seems to be embracing a moderate position on abortion even though he is pro-life, and President Obama, who believes in a woman’s right to choose, will be asked about this highly emotional issue during Tuesday’s town hall debate.
Posted by walter_sobchak (anonymous) on October 15, 2012 at 8:55 a.m.
Shameless playing of the abortion card. Ryan said nothing different than what the pro-life people have been saying all along. Laws should not be made by the courts, but by the legislature, subject to judicial review.
BTW, Roe v. Wade was issued in 1973. Did you ever hear of google, you moron?
Posted by saddad (anonymous) on October 16, 2012 at 12:06 a.m.
Laws made by the legislature and subject to judicial review is exactly what Roe v Wade presented. The Court said that the legislation banning abortion could not stand. Without the Court there would still be Jim Crow laws, anti-union laws, and any number of laws criminalizing private acts between consenting adults. The cry that it is Republicans that protect individual freedom is just plain ridiculous
Posted by gdog4766 (anonymous) on October 16, 2012 at 6:19 p.m.
You know when JFK ran for president the fact that he was a catholic concerned a lot of people. The notion was that the pope would heavily influence his decision making. But now you have a Mormon running and it isn't an issue. Yet a Mormons every waking hour is guided by their beliefs and teachings. You are certainly going to see (if elected) many of his decisions and choices based on the Mormon church. And if you don't think so you don't know any Mormons.
Posted by Knightcap (anonymous) on October 16, 2012 at 7:09 p.m.
Idiot and a bigot.
Posted by gdog4766 (anonymous) on October 16, 2012 at 8:05 p.m.
Dude, I'm not your father.
Posted by Knightcap (anonymous) on October 16, 2012 at 11:37 p.m.
I was referring to your pervert family.
Posted by saddad (anonymous) on October 16, 2012 at 11:57 p.m.
Cogent Knight. Thanks for bringing that level of analysis to the discussion.
Posted by Dagwood (anonymous) on October 17, 2012 at 11:12 a.m.
Run for the hills gdog4766, the Mormons are coming!, the Mormons are coming! To knock on your door and ask you to donate to the Church of Latter-day saints. I wonder what Rev Wright would ask for if he knocked on your door?
Roe vs Wade stances will not decide this election, its the economy, jobs, and national security. I'll take the successful Morman politician/businessman, over whatever faith Obama is following today and his failed policies and self agendas.
Posted by fomoco (anonymous) on October 17, 2012 at 1:25 p.m.
What a pair, the misinforming Mormon and Alfred E. Newman!
Posted by uselesseater (anonymous) on October 17, 2012 at 4:25 p.m.
Roe vs. Wade was a terrible decision. Never should have happened.
The poor woman central to the Roe vs. Wade case has come out in recent years to say she is anti abortion.
Even though it might seem insensitive and out there, the only true exception where an abortion should be an option is where the mother's life is in grave jeopardy.
All the other reasons for abortion are just more political hay. Abortion isn't a woman's right, it is murder.
I know plenty of women who in their teens and 20's went through the abortion mills. Now in their 30's, 40's and 50's they sure aren't feeling so nice and warm about their youthful mislead ways.
I look at abortion the same way I do when some gangbanger goes robbing a family in their home and shoots the 4 year old to death. As a murderous, predator, exploiting the power paradigm for their own often financial gain and preying upon a defenseless human being.
Posted by DSquared (anonymous) on October 17, 2012 at 9:18 p.m.
Better to be ruled by a Mormon than by the Muslim Brotherhood!
Posted by saddad (anonymous) on October 18, 2012 at 11:30 a.m.
Useless-What are you trying to do in your last paragraph? You managed 4 statements on the issue before sounding like a dangerous nut. You are not helping your cause.
Posted by politicalpoo (anonymous) on October 18, 2012 at 12:37 p.m.
It will take an act of congress to change Roe Vs. Wade. It has already been found constitutional by the Supreme Court. All the fighting and crashing have been done long ago. This is no longer a valid political argument, but merely a distraction. You all should learn how your government works. When Bertram says something, remember he usually only has half the information and he thinks he is the only intelligent, worthy person on the planet. Like Slush Bimbaugh, I read his nonsense for a laugh.
Posted by uselesseater (anonymous) on October 18, 2012 at 12:47 p.m.
I don't have a cause to help. Not me pushing for your vote, nor am I passing the donation plate around to fleece the population.
Is it soooo dangerous and nutty to equate murder of a defenseless child to the equal brazen and careless actions of a gangbanger?
If anyone is nuts and dangerous it is the liberal minded murderers. I don't kill people for fun or recreation or proceeding such deeds. Don't worry about me, worry about the children and the mislead mothers who are doing the killing.
That's the problem with our politically "correct" but morally devoid culture. You make sensible folks the enemy defending this bogus right to murder. It is a page directly out of the Communist Manifesto. Taken directly from a barbarian Commie culture like the Chinese who are forcefully aborting 35k defenseless children every day, under mandates and force of the government.
Face it, vast majority of abortions are sought by otherwise mothers because of their instilled fear of their own financial survival. The pursuit of money trumps the value of life.
Posted by CasLee (anonymous) on October 18, 2012 at 10:46 p.m.
October 16, 2012
Hello, my fellow American voters!
I watched the Oct. 3rd and Oct. 16th presidential and Oct. 11th vice-presidential debates.
1st Romney-Obama debate covered 7 topics: jobs; budget deficit/debt; social security/entitlements; federal regulation of economy; healthcare; federal government role in economy; partisan gridlock.
2nd Romney-Obama debate covered 11 topics: college graduate jobs; gas prices; taxes; equal pay; Bush policies; Obama’s record; illegal immigrants; Libya; assault weapons; jobs; candidate misperceptions.
Ryan-Biden debate covered 10 topics: Libya; Iran; economy; medicare/social security/entitlements; taxes/tax reform/spending/budget cuts; military policy; Afghanistan; Syria; abortion; negative campaign tactics.
As an INDEPENDENT female feminist (egalitarian) voter, I support the Romney/Ryan ticket.
Romney and Ryan won all three debates, although Obama improved some in the 2nd debate.
Ryan won despite Biden’s consistently rude/disrespectful behavior during the debate
(Biden interrupted Ryan often, laughed often while Ryan was talking, pointed his finger often).
Biden’s tactics to evade issues/truth were disrespectful to Americans interested in facts, figures, forecasts, and solutions for real people with real problems.
Romney and Ryan won with substance, directness, integrity, respect, clarity, facts, commitment, inspiration, and leadership.
These debates confirm that Romney and Ryan are the best persons in terms of qualifications and character to lead our country to solve problems and make life better for all Americans.
I am inspired by Romney/Ryan, and I hope that you are too!
Posted by gdog4766 (anonymous) on October 20, 2012 at 1:44 a.m.
You idiots have no idea what's roaring down the pike at you. You will deserve everything that's going to happen to you. And it will be,self inflicted. What short memories you idiots have.
Posted by newsmaker1 (anonymous) on October 21, 2012 at 6:30 a.m.
This election is not about abortion, it's not about Mitt Romney it's all about Obama's dismal record on the econony and his turning the entire Middle East into one big HATE AMERICA cause.
Obama told the Turks, America is not a Christian country and Obama backed it up with his continued attack on the Catholic Church. Just shred the Constitution--Get Obama out of there, NOW
Posted by jojuggie (anonymous) on October 22, 2012 at 3:06 p.m.
gdog is not a bigot & idiot, he's a DEM COMMITTEEMAN.
Posted by jojuggie (anonymous) on October 22, 2012 at 3:08 p.m.
Did you ever hear a woman say she is going to abort (execute) a baby? No, she always says she will abort (execute) a FETUS.
Posted by jojuggie (anonymous) on October 22, 2012 at 3:15 p.m.
It is illegal to destroy an eagle’s egg. Fines are as high as $5,000 and imprisonment up to 3 years. An eagles egg is not an eagle, many may argue. Regardless of what side of the political or social fence you sit, most would agree this law is a good thing. However, most laws protecting endangered species are driven by and supported by more Liberals than Conservatives. That doesn’t mean to say Conservatives love animals less than Liberals, just that Conservatives have chosen other causes over these, such as support of Pro Life (human life) instead.
An abortion cost around $750, is readily available in most major cities through Liberal supported organizations such as Planned Parenthood.
Many may argue that a fetus is not a human life, as many argue that an eagles egg is not an eagle.
Posted by jojuggie (anonymous) on October 22, 2012 at 3:57 p.m.
gdog says "you will deserve everything that's going to happen to you."
Are you kidding me? The last 4 years couldn't be any worse. Even Carter could have done a better job.
The new media barons of America's eighth-largest city are upfront about wanting to use their newspaper to promote their agenda of downtown development and politically conservative causes — and they are making their points in a brash, bare-knuckle style.
Douglas Manchester and his partner John Lynch gave their 143-year-old newspaper a new slogan — "The World's Greatest Country & America's Finest City" — ran a front-page editorial that declared their plan to reshape the city's downtown waterfront their highest priority, and forecast doom if President Barack Obama wins re-election.
Manchester, who became wealthy building hotels during the dawn of San Diego's downtown renaissance and insists on being called "Papa Doug," bought The San Diego Union-Tribune last year and its most serious competitor, the North County Times, this month. As he and Lynch eye expansion to Los Angeles and other major cities, they are frank about seeking to use their new platforms to advance their agenda — and they think they can make a profit while they're at it.
Lynch calls the editorial viewpoint pro-family, pro-military and pro-America.
"We think our country is on the edge of real, real danger, and you have to stand up, and that was a huge part of why we bought this," said Lynch, vice chairman and chief executive officer of U-T San Diego, the newspaper's new name.
The editorial page named Obama the worst U.S. president and predicted a second term will result in "Arab terror states" attacking Israel, "death panels" rationing health care, income tax rates between 60 and 70 percent for many Californians and an attempt to get taxpayers to pay for late-term abortions. It warned of an effort to erase "In God We Trust" from U.S. currency.
Posted by jojuggie (anonymous) on October 24, 2012 at 7:40 p.m.
White House e-mails blow up its Libya cover story
By Jennifer Rubin
President Obama is playing the media and, in turn, the American people for fools on the Libya scandal. Reporters and columnists who carried his water have been hung out to dry. The White House cover story — namely that CIA got it all wrong and the White House (in urging us to believe the murder of four Americans was the result of a video riot gone bad) was telling us what it knew, when it knew — has been severely undercut. Three e-mails sent to the White House within two hours of the attack identify it as a terrorist operation and inform the White House that local jihadists with al-Qaeda connections claimed responsibility. Reuters reminds us:
U.S. Ambassador Christopher Stevens and three other Americans were killed in the Benghazi assault, which President Barack Obama and other U.S. officials ultimately acknowledged was a “terrorist” attack carried out by militants with suspected links to al Qaeda affiliates or sympathizers.
Administration spokesmen, including White House spokesman Jay Carney, citing an unclassified assessment prepared by the CIA, maintained for days that the attacks likely were a spontaneous protest against an anti-Muslim film
This was false. And we know now the White House knew better. Three separate e-mails were sent to the White House on Sept. 11:
The first email, timed at 4:05 p.m. Washington time — or 10:05 p.m. Benghazi time, 20-30 minutes after the attack on the U.S. diplomatic mission allegedly began — carried the subject line “U.S. Diplomatic Mission in Benghazi Under Attack” and the notation “SBU”, meaning “Sensitive But Unclassified.”
The text said the State Department’s regional security office had reported that the diplomatic mission in Benghazi was “under attack. Embassy in Tripoli reports approximately 20 armed people fired shots; explosions have been heard as well.”
The message continued: “Ambassador Stevens, who is currently in Benghazi, and four ... personnel are in the compound safe haven. The 17th of February militia is providing security support.”
A second email, headed “Update 1: U.S. Diplomatic Mission in Benghazi” and timed 4:54 p.m. Washington time, said that the Embassy in Tripoli had reported that “the firing at the U.S. Diplomatic Mission in Benghazi had stopped and the compound had been cleared.” It said a “response team” was at the site attempting to locate missing personnel.
A third email, also marked SBU and sent at 6:07 p.m. Washington time, carried the subject line: “Update 2: Ansar al-Sharia Claims Responsibility for Benghazi Attack.”
The message reported: “Embassy Tripoli reports the group claimed responsibility on Facebook and Twitter and has called for an attack on Embassy Tripoli.”
Yet the president and his advisers repeatedly told us the attack was spontaneous reaction to the anti-Muslim video and that it lacked information suggesting it was a terrorist assault.
Posted by jojuggie (anonymous) on October 24, 2012 at 11:38 p.m.
Comments (1)Charlie Rose interviewed former National Security Advisor General Jim Jones on Tuesday and heard something that contradicts the President’s opinion of our foreign policy record, especially in the Middle East.
During last Monday’s final debate, the president stated that his policies in the Middle East were working and progress was being made in the region. Beyond the killing of Osama bin Laden, Obama also claimed that al-Qaeda has been significantly diminished, and extremism was waning. Romney countered with the obvious mention of the embassy attacks in Libya and Egypt, plus the prolonged unrest in Syria and North Africa.
For the record, Ret. Gen. Jones served as National Security advisor for the first two years of the Obama Administration from 2008-2010. When Jones retired, President Obama praised his work in a Rose Garden ceremony saying:
“Serving as national security adviser is one of the most difficult jobs in government. But through it all, Jim, like the Marine he has always been, has been a dedicated public servant and a friend to me.”
Here’s what Gen. Jones has to say about the current conditions of our foreign policy:
The whole set up for analyzing the world we faced was based on an initial premise that we need to take, us, size up the problems, talk to the people that were historically causing us difficulties, and see if there were some way to proceed ahead. We now know, in some cases, we made some progress. I would cite the START Treaty as a successful couple of years of hard work with the Russians. On the other hand, with the Middle East and Iran, we’re probably right back where we were three or four years ago.
Posted by 1Marine (anonymous) on November 1, 2012 at 9:22 a.m.
Let's hope that Roe v Wade will be affected....
Posted by jojuggie (anonymous) on November 1, 2012 at 1:52 p.m.
The GOD who gave us life gave us liberty also.
What liberty does a fetus have?