A 2012 GOP plank reads "We support the appointment of judges who respect traditional family values and the sanctity of innocent human life..." This came out about the same time that my church held a Fortnight for Religious Freedom, to encourage the faithful to fight for religious freedom. This pledge sounded very familiar to me. It turns out that the "battle" appears to be over abortion (Roe v. Wade), with contraception and same sex marriage a close second, and it can be won by voting Republican in the upcoming election. Wow! I decided to use this IPad, an amazing invention I got for my 77th B-Day, to get a little past history on this frequently addressed, never resolved issue:
Back in 1973, the abortion issue of Roe v. Wade and its constitutionality was brought before the Supreme Court. The Court, after much complex study and discussion, ruled that Roe v. Wade was the law of the land.
This was the result of a majority decision of seven to two. Five of those majority member votes were made by justices who had been appointed by a Republican president. Roe v. Wade was solidly in.
During the 39 years and millions of abortions since that time, our electorate has given us 20 years of Republican presidents. In not one of those 20 years has a Republican president ever expressed responsibility for giving America Roe v. Wade, but many have used the law in campaign pledges to overturn it -- campaign pledges which then quietly fade away after election day. One of their best opportunities to carry through on those forgotten pledges was with a Republican president who served for eight consecutive years, during at least six of which he had the power of a Republican majority in both the Senate and House. Did he and his Republican Congresses make good on their promise? Well, no! He did find the time to give us two wars, but must not have had enough time to get around to abortion and those "traditional family values!"
Fool you once, shame on them... fool you again and again and again, shame on you!!!!!
Lizz Winstead: Lady Parts Justice
 |
 |
|
| Obama | Romney | |
|---|---|---|
| Electoral Votes (270 to win) |
332 | 206 |
| Obama | Romney | |
|---|---|---|
| Total | 65,899,660 | 60,932,152 |
| Percent | 51.1% | 47.2% |
| Democrats* | Republicans | |
|---|---|---|
| Current Senate | 53 | 47 |
| Seats gained or lost | +2 | -2 |
| New Total | 55 | 45 |
| Democrats | Republicans | |
|---|---|---|
| Seats won | 201 | 234 |
Mirror-challenged low-lifes.
They're one judge away from doing away with it ALL.
Oh and if one day Roe was overturned it would not make abortion illegal.
simple
Scary - I am not as confident as you that any abortions would be available- though I do appreciate your "scientific approach".
I link life with "viability" but understand there are not many out there that are like minded.
Nah, didn't think so.
And the deficit is 1.1 trillion as opposed to the 1.2 trillion it was 4 years ago. Obama is the thriftiest President since Eisenhaur in raising public spending. You can look it up, something you should have done before opening your yap.
We have been pissing away Trillions of borrowed money that we must borrow.
Romney's question is the only pertinent one - is ______ worth borrowing from the Chinese to fund?
Who the h*ll is that? The original plaintiff was Jane Roe, which was an assumed name to protect her identity because of the hostility in those days to a woman merely trying to gain the right to control her own body. I don't care how much you anti-choice people want women to die in back alleys again, we're NEVER going back.
It's a wedge issue, like equal rights for gays. With the death of DADT and the increasing acceptance of gay marriage rights, Republicans are terrified that they could lose this reliable "wedge" as well.
If pro-life people are really concerned then why not be in favor of prevention?
Planned parenthood offers much more then abortions.
Recently a young girl was giving a speech about getting pregnant, her high school was offering sex- education, information- prevention birth control pills etc.
A group of pro-life people showed up at her school in protest and basically shouted her down.
Her question to the pro-life crowd was why are you here now instead of when I was doing the things that got me pregnant.
This school was being pro-active and not advocating abortion but prevention.
Why is it so hard for pro- life people to understand the difference?
Or is it really just about control?
In a word, yes.