October 14, 2012

And Some people that support Abortion Rights are Still Considering Voting for this Anti Abortion Turkey?

Posted by Pat Richards under Abortion, Abortion Candidates, Abortion Centers, Abortion Doctor, Abortion Heroes, Abortion Information, Abortion Pill, Abortion Rights, Abortion RU486, Methotrexate, RU486 | Tags: , , , , , |
[24] Comments 
Romney Abortion

Romney Abortion

Okay, now I am totally confused about Mitt Romney’s ever-moving position on the abortion issue.  You don’t think he is trying to cater to as many people as possible, do you?

In the past, I’ve written about how when Romney was Governor of Massachusetts he was pro-choice straight down the line.  And not only was he pro-choice in terms of legislation, he actually met regularly with staff people from the Massachusetts branch of the National Abortion Rights Action League to strategize.  They were buddies.

Romney Abortion

Romney Abortion

Then, when Mitt decided to run for President, his position on this very basic issue started to “evolve.”

Now, I can see how over a period of years someone might change their views on certain economic models or on the pros and cons of rehabilitating prisoners.  There are a lot of fuzzy areas in those issues so one could become more educated over time.  But abortion?   Gimme a break!  What is more fundamental than whether or not to allow a woman to terminate her pregnancy?  I mean, there’s something living inside the woman’s body and, if she gets an abortion, that once-living thing is no longer living, pure and simple.  How does an adult “evolve” on that basic issue?  Did Romney suddenly learn how pregnancies work?

Romney Abortion

Romney Abortion

Of course, the answer is he had to be pro-life to get the Republican nomination.  That’s because the nominating process in that party is totally dominated by right wing nut balls and you gotta pander to them if you hope to have any chance of securing the nomination.  And Romney did pander.  Oh, no, I’m sorry.   He “evolved.”

So now that he has the nomination, he’s had to shift gears again to cater to the independent voters. And to do that you have to move to the political middle.  So, the other day Mitt Romney actually declared that ““There’s no legislation with regards to abortion that I’m familiar with that would become part of my legislative agenda.”

What the hell?

Is Romney telling us that when the new Congress comes to town and pro-life Congressman James McNabb from Podunk, Illinois introduces legislation banning third trimester abortions or requiring women to get the consent of their husbands, he will have absolutely nothing to say about those bills? If the Republican House of Representatives decides to pursue one of those “personhood” measures on a national level, is Mitt Romney actually going to resist the incredible amount of pressure from the pro-life lobbyists and not take a position on that issue?

Poppycock.  He just continues to pander to anyone who will listen.

I will give him some credit, however, in that he is actually being candid when it comes to Planned Parenthood.  He has said unequivocally that he will “cut off funding for Planned Parenthood”  and that is certainly an extreme position that might not go over well with independent voters.  The irony, of course, is that Planned Parenthood clinics probably prevent thousands of abortions each year but then Romney probably still has not “evolved” on the issue of birth control.  Give him 20 more years to catch up.

Hopefully, the American public, and especially those who for some unfathomable reason are still undecided, will not buy into this “it’s not on my agenda” bull crap.  Indeed, if Obama is not in another coma during the next debate, this is an issue that he should jump all over.

Related articles
 

September 23, 2012

Romney and Abortion

Posted by Pat Richards under Abortion, Abortion Clinic, Abortion Information | Tags: , , , |
[67] Comments 
Abortion

Abortion

Well, we have officially entered the silly season of the presidential campaign.  And even the abortion issue has somehow got caught up in all the hyperbole and downright nastiness.

Take, for example, the latest outrage, at least according to press releases by the pro-life movement.   Did you know, they scream in horror, that the president of United Airlines actually hosted a fundraiser for a Texas-based Planned Parenthood affiliate?  OMG, what is this world coming to?

Then there’s the latest out of Hollywood, that den of iniquity whose residents support abortion up to the moment of high school graduation.  It seems that the Obama campaign is actually “tapping celebrities” for his re-election effort and the pro-life movement apparently thinks it’s important for the American public to know that actresses Jessica Alba and Natalie Portman have joined Obama in his support for “abortion on demand.”  Oh, the outrage!  (And don’t get me started on Clint Eastwood)

On the macro level, the abortion issue has been the source of some very interesting – and disappointing – turn of events.  Indeed, I must say how disappointed I am in the Obama campaign.  Yes, you heard me right.

Abortion

Abortion

At this time, it is extremely clear (at least to me) that as President, Mitt Romney would outlaw all abortions unless the woman’s life was endangered or if the pregnancy was the result of rape or incest.  Now don’t get me started on how abortion isn’t “murder” when it was the product of rape or incest.  I still don’t get that rationale.  But a few weeks ago, a commercial produced by the Obama campaign caught my attention.  Accompanied by the usual foreboding music and grainy photographs reminiscent of the one of the Loch Ness monster, a voice says that “Romney Ryan” would outlaw all abortions except when the woman’s life was endangered.  Yep, it says very clearly that Romney and running mate Paul Ryan have “both backed proposals that would outlaw abortions even in cases of rape or incest.”

This is an accurate reflection of Ryan’s position but, as for Romney, the Obama folks are pushing it.

What the Obama campaign points to is that at some point Romney also said he supports legislation that defines life as beginning at conception and that legislation is normally interpreted to be a ban on all abortions.  Now, not to defend Romney, but he is not a smart guy and like so many others he gets tongue tied when it comes to the abortion issue. He clearly has not thought about the implications of defining when life begins in a legal sense because all of his other statements make clear he supports some exceptions.  Even Mr. Ryan has acknowledged that he will support Romney on that one.

Romney’s obvious confusion about abortion was also in evidence when he recently said that he would ALSO support abortions if a woman’s “health” was endangered.  As all pro-lifers know, that is the third rail of their movement because they believe you can drive a Mack truck through that “loophole.”  They suggest that abortions could be performed if a woman had a headache, as it would affect her “health.”  Indeed, I am shocked that I have not seen screaming press releases from the pro-life movement condemning Romney’s comments.   Hello out there?

So, Romney is all over the board, like he is on so many other issues.  But, getting back to the President and his team, I really think they are stretching it a bit.  Romney has said over and over again that he supports rape and incest exceptions for abortion, despite his confusion about when life begins.  He is just not a smart man.  But the President is a smart man and he has no reason to play these kinds of games.

The commercial is misleading, Mr. President.  You don’t need to go down that road and get in that gutter.

Related articles
 

March 25, 2012

Birth Control May Decide This Election

Posted by Pat Richards under Abortion, Abortion Information, Abortion Law, Abortion Pill, Birth Control, Catholic, Romney, Santorum | Tags: , , , , , , |
[26] Comments 
Abortion Law

Abortion Law

Many years ago, the U.S. Supreme Court declared that unmarried people were actually allowed to use birth control.  Can you believe it! Yes, on March 22, 1972 the Court confirmed this outlandish notion in Baird v. Eisenstadt – a case that was seen as the precursor to Roe v. Wade, which legalized abortion just a year later.

And now it’s fifty years later.  Since that decision men have walked on the moon, the computer was invented, it was discovered that there are homosexuals in our community, we started drinking non-fat milk and the Red Sox finally won a World Series.  And, amidst all of this progress, today the Republican candidates for President are talking about birth control again.  Talk about going Back to the Future.

Abortion

Abortion

Now, to be fair I have yet to find any of the candidates declare outright that they would “ban birth control,” although that is what many Democrats and left-leaning pundits are suggesting.  But where Rick Santorum, et al made a mistake is that they just started talking about birth control in the context of the Obama health care bill – and their opponents jumped all over it.

Santorum has acknowledged that he and his wife do not use birth control, hence his seven kids.  Good little Catholic he.  And ole Mitt Romney has said, well, I haven’t checked today to see what he said last night.  I’ll get back to ya on that one.  But the fact that they are even talking about this issue boggles my mind, especially in light of the fact that 95% of the Catholics in this country use birth control anyway – the Pope be damned.

R v W March

R v W March

But there is a method to their madness.  They are talking about this issue and religion in general because, to get the Republican nomination, they need to go as far right as possible.  I mean, to the right of Genghis Khan.  You’ve heard the speeches:  “I am a true conservative in this race, I’ve always been a true conservative, I wear conservative shoes and use conservative toothpaste.”  And, early on, they learned that if they just mentioned birth control and religion and Obama’s secret plan to deport every Catholic, the right wingers at the rallies sucked it up big time.  Hey, this is a good stuff, I gotta keep this up!

It’s gotten so crazy that a few days ago Ron Paul made headlines in certain media when he announced that, when he was a practicing Ob-Gyn, he actually – I hope you’re sitting down – PRESCRIBED birth control.  OMG!  A Republican running for President actually participated in this pernicious practice (one, by the way, that would reduce the number of abortions).  Lynch him, cried the Tea Partyers!

Of course, the good news is that all of this talk about birth control – in any context – is welcome news to the Obama gang.  They’re just sitting back and having a hell of a good laugh.  And I’ll betcha anything that they got the commercials in the can right now warning women that the nominee is gonna take away their pills.  The good news is that Republicans talking about that nasty little pill may win them the nomination, but it will lose them the election.  Keep it up, boys.

 

November 27, 2011

Herman Steps in It

Posted by Pat Richards under Abortion, Abortion & Religion, Abortion Advocates, Abortion Candidates, Abortion Discussion, Abortion Heroes, Abortion Information, Abortion Law, Abortion Medical, Abortion Pill, Herman Cain | Tags: , , , |
[50] Comments 
Herman Cain Abortion Position

Herman Cain Abortion Position

It must be the post-Thanksgiving blahs that are clogging my brain because I keep going back and forth on what to write about this time around.  Should it be the inside scoop on the partial birth abortion issue?  Should I talk about sex selection abortions, the Army of God, a new form of birth control?  So many things to discuss, back and forth, back and forth.  I just keep flip-flopping around….

And speaking of Herman Cain!

How about the Caininator, huh?  Mr. 9 – 9 – 9 (which actually sounds like something Adolph Hitler might have said when his generals suggested Germany surrender).  Mr. Godfather’s Pizza, a possible sexual predator, the guy who couldn’t remember where Libya is.  And now the abortion issue has bit him in the butt.

In an interview a few weeks ago, Mr. Cain actually said that abortion should be a decision left up to the individual, not the government:  “So what I’m saying is, it ultimately gets down to a choice that that family or that mother has to make. Not me as president. Not some politician. Not a bureaucrat. It gets down to that family. And whatever they decide, they decide.”

Abortion Face the Nation

Abortion Face the Nation

Welcome to our side, Herman!   Ah, but then the proverbial poop hit the fan and within a day he was “clarifying” his stance on “Face the Nation” where he said that he is “pro-life from conception, period.”  He then added that “My answer was focused on the role of the president. The president has no constitutional authority to order any such action by anyone.”  Well, that certainly clarified things!   He went on to remind the extremists in the Republican Party that he once said that Planned Parenthood was engaged in “planned genocide” and that their mission was to “help kill black babies before they came into the world.”  Then, to demonstrate that he really hated Planned Parenthood he said that he would “oppose government funding of abortion. I will veto any legislation that contains funds for Planned Parenthood.”  As if that were not enough, he ended the frenetic week by telling Fox News that abortion should not be legal, but the “family can make the decision to break the law.”

Phew!  Is everything clear now?

Abortion

Abortion

I think deep down ole Herman is actually pro-choice but he and his staff were just too stupid to do some research or else they would have discovered that you have got to be absolutely, 100 percent pro-life to get the Republican nomination for president.  And if that means doing a total switch, like Mitt Romney has, that’s what you got to do.  Heck, remember George Bush the First?  When he was in Congress he was practically in bed with Planned Parenthood, leading the fight to provide them with family planning funds.  Then he decided to reach for the Taco Grande and suddenly he became Mr. Pro-Life. And these switches worked the other way as well.  For years, Jesse Jackson was pro-life until he decided to seek the Democratic nomination for President, then bingo, he’s pro-choice!  It’s all part of the game.

Herman stepped into it because he is like the other 99.9% of the politicians in this country who do not want to talk about abortion.  That’s because they, like the American public, are a little confused, they know it’s not always black and white, it’s not always right or wrong.  But those seeking higher office need to cater to the purists in each party because they are the ones who run the nomination process.   So, when the question comes up you can just see them start to squirm, they get red in the face and they spurt out a real quick answer to assuage their extremists.

Morality

Morality

It’s a sticky wicket, one that Mr. Cain got caught up in.  But I personally think it is too late for him.  He planted seeds of doubt within the pro-life community and now they do not trust him.  And that’s a big deal in the state of Iowa.

Related articles
 

June 21, 2011

The Rape and Incest Exception – Trying to Have it Both Ways

Posted by Pat Richards under Abortion Information | Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , |
[158] Comments 
New York Times on Abortion

New York Times Abortion Article

In 1997, I told a reporter with the New York Times that I thought abortion was a “form of killing.”  I said it in the context of a story he was writing about the “partial birth abortion” procedure.  The quote wound up at the bottom of the story on page 17.  In other words, it did not create headlines and millions of women who had had abortions in the past did not come forward to demand their money back from the abortion clinics because they were snookered.  I got a total of one email from a clinic owner who was upset at my quote.  Never heard a word from the pro-choice groups.

Of course, we all know that the anti-abortion movement wants to make the procedure illegal because they also believe that abortion is not only killing, but murder.  When that doctor performs that abortion, he or she is “killing a baby,” pure and simple.  That’s where the line is drawn.  Indeed, a few have gone so far as to kill a (already alive with a family) doctor who performs abortions.

And now here comes Mitt Romney, a Republican candidate for President who years ago used to be pro-choice when he was Governor of (the liberal state of) Massachusetts.  At some magical moment, Romney got “educated” on the issue, coincidentally at the time when he was seeking the nomination in a process that is dominated by pro-life advocates.

Suddenly, Mitt Romney became pro-life!   Today, Romney believes that abortion should be “limited to only instances of rape, incest or to save the life of the mother.”

Mitt Romny and abortion

Mitt Romney and Abortion

Hmmmmm.

First of all, kudos to this compassionate man who cares so much about women that he would grant them the ability of have an abortion as long as they can prove that they would DIE if they didn’t have one.  Good for you, Mitt!  Bravo!

But he would also allow the abortion if the woman were raped or a victim of incest.

So, what am I missing here?   What happened to the focus on that little 7 week “baby?”  Aren’t we supposed to STOP THE KILLING as the posters say outside the abortion facilities?  No matter what you call it, that entity that is inside the woman is alive, right?    And, if not aborted, it will continue to grow, right?  And the woman is going to the doctor to stop that process, right?

So, what’s with the rape and incest exception?    Killing is killing is killing, is it not?   Does it matter how that poor little ole baby, floating around serenely in the uterus, was conceived or by whom?  Doesn’t the anti-abortion movement want to protect that “baby?”

Of course, the answer is politics.  It’s a way for Romney (and other pro-lifers) to try to appear compassionate and moderate.  He’s trying to have it both ways.   And I suggest that it is the height of hypocrisy.

For many years, the Congress, led by the late Congressman Henry Hyde, passed a rider to an annual spending bill prohibiting federal Medicaid dollars from being used for abortions unless the woman’s life was endangered.   Then, in the 1980’s, after an intense lobbying effort, they added the rape and incest exceptions.  To me, that was also a hypocritical vote, a welcome one nonetheless.  While we were lobbying for the additional exception, it was clear that a number of heretofore “pro-life” members of Congress were uncomfortable and it because a very political vote.  Personally, I admired more those pro-life Congressmen who voted against the rape and incest exceptions.  At least they were being consistent.

So, Mitt Romney is trying to have it both ways.  We’ll see if his strategy works.