If 'legislation' regarding abortion is not on Mitt's agenda, is he really pro-life?


#1

If ‘legislation’ regarding abortion is not on Mitt’s agenda, is he really pro-life?

ALAN KEYES — Yesterday, someone sent me the link to an essay in which a person well known for his pro-life convictions says that Mitt Romney is “pro-life and upholds the Biblical family…” As stated, this is simply untrue. It would be accurate to say that Mitt Romney says that he is pro-life and claims to uphold the Biblical family… **(more)
**


#2

Your links show an RO url.


#3

REALLY??? Have you never heard Romney saying he was pro choice as governor of Mass? NEVER???


#4

I don’t believe Romney is really pro-life, as Paul Ryan informed us he supports exceptions in cases of rape and incest.

In other words, he doesn’t comprehend the idea of a fetus being a human life. Otherwise, no moral person could support exceptions allowing murder.

He did change his position right before running for national office, so that might be very telling. However, I don’t think he is really pro-choice either, I just don’t think he takes the issue seriously.


#5

It’s the end game. He’s changing his positions to get as many voters as possible.


#6

[quote=“Bigfoot_88, post:4, topic:36542”]
I don’t believe Romney is really pro-life, as Paul Ryan informed us he supports exceptions in cases of rape and incest.

In other words, he doesn’t comprehend the idea of a fetus being a human life. Otherwise, no moral person could support exceptions allowing murder.

He did change his position right before running for national office, so that might be very telling. However, I don’t think he is really pro-choice either, I just don’t think he takes the issue seriously.
[/quote]So, are you of the opinion that I should have let my wife die, rather than authorize an abortion?
I am as pro life as anyone. I do not accept rape and incest as an excuse. I do, however, believe it to be an acceptable option, if the mother’s life is in immediate danger.
I agree that Romney is not pro life. He claims to be, but then votes and acts contrary. I believe he thinks he is, just like Jazzhead thinks he is. Facts are difficult things. If you believe it is a woman’s right to murder her offspring, especially for convenience/birth control, you are pro abortion, simple. You can claim all day long that you are pro life, but that is just words. When you decide that a child isn’t a child until it passes some point of no return, you have a cold view of life, and you will never be allowed around my kids/grandkids. I will not associate with those who prefer to address the woman’s preferences, and ignore the baby’s right to live.
Oh, I understand why the baby gets the shaft. It cannot vote. It cannot put up a stink. It cannot hire a lawyer, or protest. Hell, it cannot even scream for help.
Liberals who stand in my face and claim a baby is not a person, can expect dental bills.


#7

Yet somehow you trust him on his tax plan, his own taxes, and many other things that he expects us to “trust” him about.

Weird…


#8

[quote=“Centered1, post:7, topic:36542”]
Yet somehow you trust him on his tax plan, his own taxes, and many other things that he expects us to “trust” him about.

Weird…
[/quote]The man has made more money on accident, than you have on purpose. That is his area of expertise. Only a fool doesn’t listen to someone who has been successful in creating jobs, and making money, for over 4 decades, when it comes to finances.


#9

I really don’t consider it to be abortion if you are saving the life of the mother. You have no choice and have to pick one of the two. There is no way that should be illegal. I would choose my wife(if I had one) without a second thought, personally. Still, it is sad that a person had to die.

I agree with your post. Last night Biden said he didn’t want to impose his views. He should have been asked if laws against murder should be changed to suggestions against murder.


#10

Well said. Well thought out.
I appreciate your candor. Thanx.


#11

I care about OUR country and it’s people way too much to “make money” the way Romney did and does.

Making money accidentally and running a nation are 2 very different things.


#12

I fixed the url. I’ve seen and fixed this kind of thing before here on RO. If you (any RO member) use the Link button when composing a post, be sure to paste the full url into the dialog box. It may be that the forum SW assumes an RO page if the http and actual source (RenewAmerica in this case) are not part of the url pasted in the dialog box.

As for Gov. Romney’s legislative plans re abortion, right now Roe v. Wade and Doe v. Bolton strictly limit what Congress, the POTUS and states can do. And if Mr. Romney also believes that regulating abortion is something states should do, that is another limit on what Mr. Romney could/would do. I respect Alan Keyes, voted for him in the 1996 and 2000 R primaries, but he seems to have ignored or discounted the legal context in which a Pres. Romney would be governing.


#13

With Texas electing Ron Paul’s replacement (He is retiring) this November, it would seem that the Sanctity of Life Act he introduces annually will be dead.

Thankfully, the great man who originally wrote it in 1995, Steve Stockman, will be headed back to Congress and is actually going to represent part of Ron Paul’s old district. He has been endorsed by Paul as well. I expect him to continue to carry the torch keep this bill going in Congress.

For some reason, no more than 5 people, all Republicans, decide to co-sponsor this bill every year.

Yes, it would be controversial, but it is constitutional. Basically, the supreme court has no authority, and the states are free to outlaw abortion. Many states would outlaw it immediately, and others within a few years. That doesn’t mean we have to stop working for a constitutional amendment either.

Bill TEXT is here: Bill Text - 110th Congress (2007-2008) - THOMAS (Library of Congress)

Great article on it: Personhood and Ron Paul - The Personhood Initiative

Also similar is Ron Paul’s “We the People Act”. Except it not only removes federal jurisdiction from abortion, but also marriage, sexuality, and establishment of religion, unless challenging a llaw. I’ll let the bill explain for itself below; it gives the Constitutional justification for such a measure. Bill Text - 111th Congress (2009-2010) - THOMAS (Library of Congress)

A BILL

To limit the jurisdiction of the Federal courts, and for other purposes.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This Act may be cited as `We the People Act'.

SEC. 2. FINDINGS.

The Congress finds the following:
    (1) Article III, section 1 of the Constitution of the United States vests the judicial power of the United States in `one Supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as Congress may from time to time ordain and establish'.
    (2) Article I, section 8 and article 3, section 1 of the Constitution of the United States give Congress the power to establish and limit the jurisdiction of the lower Federal courts.
  **  (3) Article III, section 2 of the Constitution of the United States gives Congress the power to make `such exceptions, and under such regulations' as Congress finds necessary to Supreme Court jurisdiction.

**
** (4) Congress has the authority to make exceptions to Supreme Court jurisdiction in the form of general rules and based upon policy and constitutional reasons other than the outcomes of a particular line of cases. (See Federalist No. 81; United States v. Klein, 80 U.S. (13 Wall.) 128 (1872)).
**
** (5) Congress has constitutional authority to set broad limits on the jurisdiction of both the Supreme Court and the lower Federal courts in order to correct abuses of judicial power and continuing violations of the Constitution of the United States by Federal courts.**

    (6) Article IV, section 4 of the Constitution of the United States guarantees each State a republican form of government.
    (7) Supreme Court and lower Federal court decisions striking down local laws on subjects such as religious liberty, sexual orientation, family relations, education, and abortion have wrested from State and local governments issues reserved to the States and the People by the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States.
    (8) The Supreme Court and lower Federal courts threaten the republican government of the individual States by replacing elected government with rule by unelected judges.
    (9) Even supporters of liberalized abortion laws have admitted that the Supreme Court's decisions overturning the abortion laws of all 50 States are constitutionally flawed (e.g. Ely, `The Wages of Crying Wolf: A Comment on Roe v. Wade' 82 Yale L.J. 920 (1973)).
    (10) Several members of the Supreme Court have admitted that the Court's Establishment Clause jurisdiction is indefensible (e.g. Zelamn v. Simmons-Harris, 536 U.S. 639, 688 (2002) (Souter, J., dissenting); Rosenberger v. Rector and Visitors of the Univ. of Va., 515 U.S. 819, 861 (1995) (Thomas, J., concurring); Lamb's Chapel v. Center Moriches Union Free Sch. Dist., 508 U.S. 384, 399, (1993) (Scalia, J., concurring); and Committee for Public Ed. And Religious Liberty v. Regan, 444 U.S. 646, 671 (1980) (Stevens, J., dissenting)).
    (11) Congress has the responsibility to protect the republican governments of the States and has the power to limit the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court and the lower Federal courts over matters that are reserved to the States and to the People by the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States.

SEC. 3. LIMITATION ON JURISDICTION.

The Supreme Court of the United States and each Federal court--
    (1) shall not adjudicate--
        (A) any claim involving the laws, regulations, or policies of any State or unit of local government relating to the free exercise or establishment of religion;
        (B) any claim based upon the right of privacy, including any such claim related to any issue of sexual practices, orientation, or reproduction; or
        (C) any claim based upon equal protection of the laws to the extent such claim is based upon the right to marry without regard to sex or sexual orientation; and
    (2) shall not rely on any judicial decision involving any issue referred to in paragraph (1).

SEC. 4. REGULATION OF APPELLATE JURISDICTION.

The Supreme Court of the United States and all other Federal courts--
    (1) are not prevented from determining the constitutionality of any Federal statute or administrative rule or procedure in considering any case arising under the Constitution of the United States; and
    (2) shall not issue any order, final judgment, or other ruling that appropriates or expends money, imposes taxes, or otherwise interferes with the legislative functions or administrative discretion of the several States and their subdivisions.

SEC. 5. JURISDICTIONAL CHALLENGES.

Any party or intervener in any matter before any Federal court, including the Supreme Court, may challenge the jurisdiction of the court under section 3 or 4 during any proceeding or appeal relating to that matter.

SEC. 6. MATERIAL BREACHES OF GOOD BEHAVIOR AND REMEDY.

A violation by a justice or a judge of any of the provisions of section 3 or 4 shall be an impeachable offense, and a material breach of good behavior subject to removal by the President of the United States according to rules and procedures established by the Congress.

SEC. 7. CASES DECIDED UNDER ISSUES REMOVED FROM FEDERAL JURISDICTION NO LONGER BINDING PRECEDENT.

Any decision of a Federal court, to the extent that the decision relates to an issue removed from Federal jurisdiction under section 3, is not binding precedent on any State court.

This is article 3, section 2 of the Constitution:

The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority;—to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls;—to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction;—to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party;—to Controversies between two or more States;—between a State and Citizens of another State;—between Citizens of different States;—between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects.

In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction. In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make.
Trial of all Crimes, except in Cases of Impeachment, shall be by Jury; and such Trial shall be held in the State where the said Crimes shall have been committed; but when not committed within any State, the Trial shall be at such Place or Places as the Congress may by Law have directed.

This is our solution to abortion, not hoping that the Supreme Court will overturn Roe v. Wade one day: it won’t. Waiting for a Constitutional amendment is not viable either, but as I said keep working for it.

State nullification of Roe v. Wade is another possibility and legal, however no state has had such courage to nullify while remain in the union since President John Adams passed the Alien and Seditions Acts, and Thomas Jefferson and James Madison wrote and established the legal precedent for state nullification of unconstitutional, tyrannical federal laws. Actually, I am wrong, South Carolina and John Calhoun did nullify federal tariffs, however they ended up with a compromise. Jefferson and Madison won.

The Republican House and Mitt Romney can show that they are pro-life by passing either the Sanctity of Life Act or the We The People Act, or they can show they care more about being uncontroversial than doing something morally imperative.If

Jane Roe of Roe v. Wade can become a staunch pro-life advocate after originally tring to make abortion legal, and endorse both of Paul’s bills to end abortion, Mitt Romney should be able to do it as well.


#14

#15

Is Mittens Pro-Life? Well let me make an announcement…

I have in fact personally seen the handwritten note by his mommy and she assures is that he was pinky swear serious when he awoke one morning in 2007 and decided he would no longer donate to, attend or support Planned Infanticide rallies and is serious this time, no really he is. Yep, it is true, i’ve seen the note from Mommy Romney, he’s Pro-Life now.


#16

Exactly… the only thing I’d add is the counterpoint. Mr. Biden was quite clear about what Romney appointing conservative judges would do to Roe v. Wade…and why THAT was a great reason to vote for Obama.


#17

Aside from the tinfoil hat arguments of the fringers you mention, all of which are unconstitutional…this Constitutional Article III/2 argument shows a patent misunderstanding of the article and the plain words and grammar it uses. **
The FIRST line highlighted in RED tells where the judiciary has power. In other words :
EVERYWHERE AT LAW AND UNDER THE CONSTITUTION**.
The SECOND highlighted text does NOT allow Congress to make exceptions to this power as you imply.
It EXCLUSIVELY reserves to Congress** the right to decide additional TYPES OF CASES where instead of APPELLATE jurisdiction the Supremes will be authorized to provide ORIGINAL jurisdiction. **
It decides nothing about the types of cases the court may hear. Only how quickly they get there…right away…or through the lower courts.

There are only two ways to overturn Roe/Wade… Amend the Constitution… Have the Court overturn itself.


#18

Nope…the Supreme Court was never intended to be the most powerful branch of the federal government. Read Federalist #78.

The actual term for what this bill utilizes is an important check on judicial power, a legal term called curtailment of jurisdiction. It is also known as the “Exceptions Clause” in the Constitution.

There are precedents for this, and the Supreme Court has recognized it, however Congress has hardly ever passed judicial limitations.
AJS [American Judicature Society] - Curtailment of Jurisdiction

Abortion is not within the original jurisdiction of the Supreme Court and is fair game.

This isn’t just Ron Paul’s idea, Newt Gingrich and Michele Bachmann advocated jursidictional stripping during the campaign, but for different reasons.


#19

[quote=“Centered1, post:11, topic:36542”]
I care about OUR country and it’s people way too much to “make money” the way Romney did and does.

Making money accidentally and running a nation are 2 very different things.
[/quote]That’s a load of hooey.
What is the biggest issue facing this country? The economy. Who is more experienced in regard to finance? Romney.
Obama has not had one budget passed, even when Dems controlled both houses. He has spent more than all presidents put together. He has squandered money on failed green energy companies, invested in foreign green concerns, and carelessly handled the stimulus. He wants to rob Medicare for the money to implement Obozocare.
So, what is wrong with investing and rescuing/closing non profitable businesses? He saved people’s jobs, where possible.
Two different things, huh? Obongo has never even run a lemonade stand.


#20

It wouldn’t be “picking one of the two;” the baby is doomed no matter what. In such a case, the choice is only between saving or not saving the mother.