Subscribe via RSS Feed

Romney Dissembles On Abortion

[ 35 ] October 10, 2012 |

Foley, Gray, and Carmon have this covered. Unlike his outright lying about his tax plan at the debates, his abortion shuffle is a little more cleverly misleading: “There’s no legislation with regards to abortion that I’m familiar with that would become part of my agenda” could even be true. What it is, though, is meaningless. Because here are the salient facts:

  • Romney would sign any bill restricting abortion that Congress puts on his desk.  If Republicans control both houses of Congress at any point during his presidency, it’s entirely possible that this will happen, and whether there’s anything in his agenda that he’s pushing is beside the point.
  • The biggest impact that a president has on abortion policy is his judicial nominees.   Unless you think that Democrats could plausibly serially block Romney’s Supreme Court nominees (and only one but not two pro-Roe justices leaves during his tenure), Roe may not survive one Romney term and almost certainly wouldn’t survive a second.    Any generic Republican circuit court judge is almost certain to be anti-Roe.

Romney’s statement, in other words, is neither here nor there and doesn’t reflect in change in the Republican Party’s agenda to restrict reproductive freedom.  Any pundit who claims that Romney is “moving to the center” or some such on abortion is someone you should permanently ignore.

…even Saletan’s not buying it.

Comments (35)

Trackback URL | Comments RSS Feed

  1. Pinko Punko says:

    I know, and I don’t know why he isn’t asked point blank if he would sign a bill restricting repro freedom- of course he will. He is really quite terrible.

    • RedSquareBear says:

      Why do you have any confidence he wouldn’t lie (or at least dissemble) while winking at the fringe and stage whispering “I’M LYING TO THEM”.

      Like he’s been doing for months now.

      • Barry says:

        “Why do you have any confidence he wouldn’t lie (or at least dissemble) while winking at the fringe and stage whispering “I’M LYING TO THEM”.”

        Because (a) not signing such a bill would cause trouble, and (b) signing such a bill would gain support which he could use on money/ego items.

        What puzzles me is why somebody thinks that a Republican President with a GOP Congress would for some odd reason *not* sign any anti-abortion legislation they put on his desk.

  2. mark f says:

    The biggest impact that a president has on abortion policy is his judicial nominees.

    I made this point regarding Scott Brown the other day. It may be true* that he would vote against abortion-restricting legislation because of his (or his constituents’) position on choice, but there’s no way Scott “my model justice is Scalia” Brown is ever going to vote against a Republican president’s SCOTUS nominees.

    *I certainly don’t take for granted that it is, but he says it is and it may be.

  3. mds says:

    So, the upshot is, not a dime’s worth of difference between the two candidates, then?

  4. Incontinentia Buttocks says:

    This is another transparent Romney evasion / lie. Not hard to refute (as you and others have shown). Now it’s up to the Obama campaign to do so.

  5. S_noe says:

    It’s starting to look like Romney’s 47% spiel was more than just badly parroted Randianism – it’s his frickin’ electoral strategy! And his contempt for that 4-5% in the middle is shining through with this kind of pandering.
    Seems like a daaaangerous game to me. Three weeks is a long time to not fuck it up.

  6. Joe says:

    What the heck does his “agenda” entail? If his foreign policy pablum is anything to go by, it is somewhat hard to tell.

    The links note that it will be on the agenda of Republicans in Congress. That is enough. Also, there is a usual dance on funding for international planned parenthood type groups each January when a new President comes in. What is his stance there?

    Anyway, there was a recent study showing how contraceptives cut down on abortions as does better health care. His “agenda” is to overturn the PPACA with its contraceptives mandate, right?

    • Hogan says:

      It’s not so much an agenda as a default setting. “The Egyptians will do what I tell them to, or I’ll fire them and hire new Egyptians.”

    • mark f says:

      Romney’s foreign policy agenda is to be the loudest guy chanting “Yankees suck!” at a St. Patrick’s Day Dropkick Murphys concert.

      • mds says:

        According to Juan Cole’s estimate, Mitt Romney’s speech effectively promised to get us embroiled in five wars. Talk about doubling down on the Bush years.

        • BigHank53 says:

          Donald Rumsfeld personally assured him that starting five wars would be easy.

          You may have noticed that Rummy didn’t hang around for the end of his little adventures, either.

          • Murc says:

            I’m perhaps being entirely too fair by half to Rummy, but I always sort of respected the fact that he knew VERY quickly he was in over his head and tried to resign multiple times in response to his fuckups.

            It’s just Bush wouldn’t let him. He and Cheney seemed really convinced Rummy was the man for the job. And if you’re in Rummy’s position, well, when your President asks you to hang around…

            This isn’t to say I don’t think Rumsfeld was an evil little troll. But there was a soupcon of integrity floating around in there.

            • avoidswork says:

              No, there was never a soupcon of integrity within “go with the Army you’ve got” Rumsfeld.

              Just as the mortal body of Richard B. Cheney has never/will never encounter a soul.

              Just as Romney has never had a position he wasn’t willing to compromise in his entire life.

            • Anonymous says:

              Rumsfeld never offered to resign because he wasn’t up to the job. He threatened to resign to get what he wanted. He was arrogant, not humble. That’s not the way he tells it now, but he wouldn’t, would he.

              He always thought he was the smartest guy in the Bush administration, and he may have been, though that’s not saying much. He formulated an invasion plan which was not consistent with the administration’s goals, assuming they would eventually change their minds and defer to him. When they didn’t, he offered to resign, knowing they would not accept before the election. Rummy was a true believer in “no more nation building”. He wanted to crush Iraq and leave. Bush and Cheney wanted to stay in Iraq permanently.

    • Anonymous says:

      His “agenda” is to overturn the PPACA with its contraceptives mandate, right?

      Oh, heck, no. According to his just-released meeting with the Des Moines Register editorial board:

      My own view, by the way, is that an employer should say to an employee, “We’re going to provide to all of you, let’s say, I’ll make up a number, $12,000 worth of coverage, and you can use that to choose the policy of your choice. And you can choose a very expansive policy, comprehensive, or you can choose a narrower policy, and you keep the difference. And you can use that to cover your other expenses or health care as you feel appropriate.”

      And yes, this is the same Mitt Romney who supported the Blunt Amendment. The Romney campaign really do think the American electorate is composed of illiterate idiots with dementia. Will they be proven wrong?

    • As I mentioned over there, these people do not care what Romney says on abortion. They know they have to vote for him if they are going to get that [insert racist epithet] out of the White House. He could say just about anything and they will still be his rabid supporters. That, more than anything else, is what sustains the Romney/Ryan campaign.

      • Joe says:

        Yeah, the “National Right To Life Committee” etc. are actually just a bunch of racists.

        It isn’t that Romney will obviously do various things as President that will advance their cause as to abortion. No no no. Even if he was the reincarnation of Harry Blackmun, they would pick him because they are racists.

        This oversimplification of what is driving people is as tedious as it is counterproductive. We are dealing with people of a certain ideological sentiment, including those who want to deny women rights. It gives Romney too much credit to make it about the racism of his supporters.

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.

  • Switch to our mobile site