What a week for women and their families.
Last week, Gov. Romney told The Des Moines Register editorial board that "there is no legislation with regards to abortion that I'm familiar with that would become part of my agenda."
Even Romney and his team realized pretty quickly those words weren't credible.
Within a couple of hours, Romney's spokeswoman said, "Gov. Romney would of course support legislation aimed at providing greater protections for life." The next day, Romney told supporters at a campaign rally, "I'll be a pro-life president." Then, on Thursday night, at the vice-presidential debate, Romney's running mate Paul Ryan said a Romney administration would be opposed to abortion in all cases other than rape, incest or where the life of the mother was in danger.
Perhaps Gov. Romney's ed-board prep should have included a look at the talking points he has laid out throughout his presidential campaign, which repeatedly states his plan to put politicians in between a woman and her doctor when medical decisions need to be made.
Before women and their families decide whether to vote for Mitt Romney for president this November, they should think long and hard about which anti-choice actions he plans to pursue if elected to the White House:
Overturning Roe v. Wade is part of Romney's agenda. The next president could nominate enough Supreme Court justices to determine the future of Roe. And Romney has said, "I hope to appoint justices for the Supreme Court that will follow the law and the constitution. And it would be my preference that they reverse Roe v. Wade..."
Blocking women's access to birth control is also part of his agenda. Romney has said he would eliminate Title X family-planning programs.
This election, voters will be faced with a clear choice: an administration that will protect women's privacy and personal health-care decisions, or one that allows politicians to make those choices for them.
We saw Mitt Romney tell lie after lie about his policy proposals at the first presidential debate. And now he is doing it again on the campaign trail. Women and their families need to know the truth about the Romney-Ryan ticket. And, those who want an end to the War on Women need to vote for President Obama, whose leadership supports, rather than threatens, their reproductive rights.
Follow Nancy Keenan on Twitter: www.twitter.com/NARAL
Michael B. Keegan: Want to Get Past Romney's Lies About Women's Rights? Look to the Supreme Court
http://www.yjstudios.com/blog/2012/10/16/women-vote-for-romney
I AM SICK of politicians pandering to the lunatic fringe in order to gain and retain power. "Small Government" my aunt Fanny!!! The Republican party elite thinks nothing of giving religious fanatics complete control over this country - because the "RULES" will never apply to them and the 1%.
On the phone a couple of weeks ago, an 80 year old woman told me she is voting for President Obama again, because she doesn't want her granddaughters to have less autonomy than she and her daughters have had.
We don't give our seniors enough credit for caring about the nation. I think that seniors are often protrayed aas selfish and frightened for their own well being.
Hearing this women sincerely concerned for the future of women's rights inspired me.
Romney/Ryan will take us back the era of Donna Reed.
No thanks. I don't want to see women on valium just to survive the mundane details of life.
No matter how old I am, I will vote this way.
I am very well read and keep up with what's going on in politics and the world.
President Obama has repaired what Bush did in world opinion and I like him.
I hope Hillary Clinton runs in 2016 because I would vote for her.
I also was very impressed with the mayor of San Antonio when he spoke at the Dem convention.
All you women out there impress on your family members to vote for our president. He is better for our country than that vulture Romney.
I can't for the life of me understand WHY a women would freely give up the few protected rights they have.
Make no mistake, Ryan and Romney aren't interested in protecting the rights of women. They are, however, interested in redefining what the women's place is in the family and society as a whole. As I stated, Ryan voted against the Lily Ledbetter Act. Why wouldn't he or any other man for that matter, support a woman's right to equal pay? How in the world would that help a woman economically?
Less women in the workforce means more men in power. More men with money. More men making choices.
1950 all over again.
They can only pretend to do so, using unreliable, unsecured
electronics designed, built, programmed, and operated in
secrecy by unknown entities.
Pro-life my butt. The care for life, particularly for the most vulnerable in society, lasts to them, all of 9 months during gestation. The buck stops there.
First they take away contraception, then they take away a women's choice, then then the take away fair pay. What will be next? Your right to vote I am sure.
If you think this is a steaming pile of hyperbole, remember women, you have no other rights under the US Constitution.
We fought long and hard for the little rights we do have. Are you ready to give them up?
You, your daughters, nieces, and granddaughters deserve more; a hell of a lot more.
It took until 1920 for women to get secured the vote, 1973 with Roe v Wade to have domain over our bodies and own health care and ......drum roll please....
2009 for the Lily Ledbetter Act to assure that women received the same pay as a man for the same job. 20freakin'09! It happened to be the FIRST bill that Obama signed as President of the United States, and surprise, surprise, a bill that PAUL RYAN opposed and voted AGAINST. He and a large number of other GOPTEA would like to see repealed.
Pray, tell - what could possibly be the objection of a women being secured the right to equal pay for equal work after all. I mean isn't it the ROmney/Ryan cry all about economic security of the citizens of the US? Why in the WORLD would he vote against the economic security of a woman, and all in the same breath take away her right of dominion of her own body? Bringing a child into this world is a MAJOR economic issue for a woman and her family. Couple that with their wish to ban contraception, well that all adds up rather suspiciously doesn't it?
CONT.....
In the GOP controlled states legislatures it is getting worse.
Women, vote for your rights.
`Strong independent women for Romney'.
(taxpayer) involved.
Strong, independent-thinking women don't need the Democratic Party, either.
Most women I know are more concerned about JOBS.... not abortion, too.
If they get a job under Mr Romney, there's still a good chance they wouldn't get healthcare.
Strong, independent = smug and unchallenged by reality. When your little world caves in, then you'll be rather sorry to have allied yourself with smirking selfishness, imagining you're on a yacht heading to your dressage contest.
I don't mean this in a snarky way, but PLEASE do some research. They ARE trying to block conception for women, and a lot of this will be accomplished through states rights.
The pill is a medication and should be covered by insurance and we also love the ACA. It will help millions of families with health issues and pre-existing issues. The GOP doesn't like it because their buddies and campaign contributors own the health companies and they want to keep overcharging voters.
By the way, Romney owns a huge chunk of health care companies stocks and this is why he doesn't support if for all Americans.