As the final weeks of the 2012 Presidential election campaign draw to an end Barack Obama is pinning his hopes for re-election on an increasing few number of things. One is Big Bird. The other is scaring women into believing big bad Mitt Romney
is going to take away their right to an abortion. But a close examination of the abortion issue should put to rest most of the concerns Obama is trying to raise.
First of all Mitt Romney has softened his position by recently stating that he has no plans to pursue any abortion legislation once in office. Democrats, liberal media and, of course, Obama campaign officials jumped all over this as another flip-flop by a man they’ve been able to label a flip-flopper saying not pursuing legislation to outlaw or seriously restrict abortion is contrary to his position in the Republican primaries that he would sign any bill put before him that did so. For the truly stupid and inept reading this let me make clear there is no inconsistency in the two statements. There is a difference between “pursuing” something and signing that which someone else pursued, achieved and stuck in front of you.
But the reason this whole issue is a red herring designed to scare women and really sensitive men is because of a little thing called the United States Supreme Court. In 1973 in the case of Roe vs Wade the Court ruled abortion to be legal throughout the land. Furthermore, attempts in legislatures around the country to impose restrictions on abortion access have met with mixed results at best. It’s noteworthy that Reagan Supreme Court appointee Sandra Day O’Connor
in Casey vs Planned Parenthood and Webster vs Reproductive Health Services, twice voted to strike down portions of state laws restricting access to abortions. And O’Connor was joined in fellow Reagan appointee Anthony Kennedy and George H.W. Bush appointee David Souterin the Casey decision.
If my point is not obvious let me be pointed by saying we’ve had three Republican Pro-Life Presidents since 1980 occupying office 20 years and in spite of their Supreme Court appointments Roe vs Wade remains the law of the land, with only a few reasonable restrictions having been OK’d by the court since. Abortion is here to stay. And Mitt Romney being elected President isn’t going to change that. So all naive and alarmist voters who buy into Obama’s scare tactics can take a deep breath and vote for Romney with a clear conscious.
Under the Pro-Choice/Democrat/Obama worst case scenario in order for abortion to be made illegal in this country here is what would need to happen:
1. Mitt Romney would have to win election. Even though odds of this are looking better every day, its far from a slam dunk.
2. Mitt Romney would have to stick with his position during the republican primary season to sign a bill banning abortion rather than revert to his position to protect abortion rights when he was running for governor in 2002.
3. One of the five liberal to moderate Supreme Court Justices would have to die or retire in the next four years.
4. President Romney would have to name and win appointment of a Pro-Life Justice to The Court to replace the Liberal Justice who departed. Not such an easy task when Pro-Choice advocates would be fully aware and would strongly oppose such an appointment, knowing such a successful appointment would conceivably tip the balance of the court into overturning Roe vs Wade.
5. Some city or state would have to overcome popular opinion and pass a law banning abortion or restricting so much that a court challenge would be inevitable.
6. A court challenge of such a law would have to be brought. And in being brought it would still face between 2-5 years before actually reaching the Supreme Court (and who knows what the configuration of the court would be at that time).
7. The newly configured Supreme Court would have to rule to overturn Roe vs Wade, something it has specifically chosen not to do in 9 different rulings since 1973.
8. With 70% of Americans believing some form of abortion ought to be kept legal; Congress would have to ignore that HUGE demand from the electorate and NOT immediately pass a new Constitutional Amendment allowing some form of abortion.
Common sense and basic math says the likelihood of all those things happening is astronomical. And if it did happen it would still be many years from now.
Democrats present themselves as the protectors of women’s abortion rights. And maybe they are. But they aren’t going away any time soon, though many of us sometimes wish they would. So just like its been for the past forty years abortion will remain legal. Even electing a Pro-Life President, like Mitt Romney says he is (now) doesn’t mean any justice he names to the Court will win appointment; and upon winning appointment to this life-time post there is no guarantee that same Justice won’t do as O’Connor, Kennedy, and Souter did previously and uphold Roe vs Wade.
So go ahead ladies. Don’t be stupid. Don’t fall for the red herring. Vote for Mitt Romney.
Thanks for visiting. Comments are welcome.
- Could Romney Overturn Roe v. Wade? (news.yahoo.com)
- Jane Roe of ‘Roe v Wade’ Airs Anti-Obama Ad in Florida (Video) (thegatewaypundit.com)
- Should Romney decide Roe v. Wade’s fate? (current.com)
- Romney: I Want the Supreme Court to Overturn Roe v. Wade via Life News.com (loopyloo305.com)
- Romney: Abortion is not ‘part of my agenda.’ Romney campaign: Oh yes it is. (dailykos.com)
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.