DOWNLOADS: (180)

PLAYS: (886)

Embed

Modern American politics is replete with what may be called “Asterisk Republicans.” These are conservatives who adhere to the GOP’s ideological orthodoxy* until such time as someone they care about is personally impacted by it. Dick Cheney’s support for same-sex unions, Fred Thompson’s stand for the right of families to make end of life decisions for their loved ones and Orrin Hatch’s conversion on stem cell research are just some of the examples the GOP’s “for me, not thee” approach.

That’s what makes Mitt Romney’s gymnastic reversal on the reproductive rights of American women so unique – and all the more shocking. After all, years before Romney’s statement last week that Roe v. Wade constituted “one of the darkest moments in Supreme Court history,” he told Massachusetts voters he would “sustain and support it.” As it turns it out, Romney no longer mentions the "dear, close family relative" whose death from an illegal abortion once inspired his formerly "unwavering" pro-choice position.

On January 22nd, Mitt Romney marked the anniversary of Roe v. Wade by issuing the following statement:

“Today marks the 39th anniversary of one of the darkest moments in Supreme Court history, when the court in Roe v. Wade claimed authority over the fundamental question regarding the rights of the unborn. The result is millions of lives since that day have been tragically silenced. Since that day, the pro-life movement has been working tirelessly in an effort to change hearts and minds and protect the weakest and most vulnerable among us. Today, we recommit ourselves to reversing that decision, for in the quiet of conscience, people of both political parties know that more than a million abortions a year cannot be squared with the good heart of America.”

But once upon a time, Mitt Romney’s good heart was concerned about the life and health of the mother, one of whom happened to be a member of his own extended family.

As Salon's Justin Elliott documented in "The Abortion That Mitt Doesn't Talk About Anymore," it was his own family story which informed his pro-choice position during his 1994 Senate run against Ted Kennedy. When Kennedy labeled him "Multiple Choice Mitt," during their debate, Romney responded with a tale of personal loss:

"On the idea of 'multiple-choice,' I have to respond. I have my own beliefs, and those beliefs are very dear to me. One of them is that I do not impose my beliefs on other people. Many, many years ago, I had a dear, close family relative that was very close to me who passed away from an illegal abortion. It is since that time that my mother and my family have been committed to the belief that we can believe as we want, but we will not force our beliefs on others on that matter. And you will not see me wavering on that."

Reading Kathleen Parker's account, you wouldn't know of the existence of Ann Keenan, the sister of Romney's brother-in-law who died at the age of 21 in 1963 after a botched, illegal abortion. Of course, as this 2007 exchange with Tim Russert showed, Mitt Romney no longer wants you to know about her, either:

RUSSERT: You talked about your family relative who died from an illegal abortion, and yet President Romney is saying ban all abortion. And what would be the legal consequences to people who participated in that procedure? ... So back to your relative.

ROMNEY: Mm-hmm.

Romney went on to explain the consequences (loss of license and possible prison time for doctors, though not patients) of his new-found anti-abortion views. But he never did get back to his relative.

As it turns out, Mitt Romney also threw his mother under the right-wing's anti-abortion bus.

Continue reading »

The problem with the pro-life movement is their concerns for “life” end at birth.

While writing a story about the famed Octomom (who living up to her comic book villain moniker managed to incense both pro-life and pro-choice groups), one of the pro-life advocates I interviewed explained they were concerned with “life that needs to be protected and children’s welfare.” Then realizing the slip, she quickly corrected, “We don’t agree with welfare though.”

So in their view every pregnancy MUST be brought to term - but after that it’s hands off and there’s “freedom” from intervention. Then you should have your rights to privacy. Then you should make your own decisions.

The wedge issue of abortion is a red herring. It’s a giant distraction – a shiny thing we all focus on and a drain on resources which could actually be going to making “life” better for American children.

The easiest example is how the House GOP, riding on a wave of fiscal outrage with the promise of jobs, has spent their precious little time in session trying to criminalize a procedure for which only a minority of Americans are even eligible. Plus, numbers of abortions per year don’t change even with changing legality or availability of abortions. This means no matter how much money is thrown at making abortion not exist, according to data, the same amount of abortions still take place.

So no amount of activism or mouth foam has made the numbers of abortions fewer. But it still eats up plenty of legislative time around the country.

South Dakota tabled a law allowing certain people related to a fetus to be able to kill an abortion provider. Nebraska then doubled down and introduced a bill to de-criminalize all murders if the victims are abortion providers. How pro-life is that?

What we lack in this country is a pro-quality-of-life movement. You know what’s killing children more than abortion? Obesity. Lack of health care. Poverty.

I don’t understand how the Christian religion can be used as grounds to take a hard line on abortion, while simultaneously giving widespread poverty a pass because it’s a “personal responsibility” issue. The poor have no more famous an advocate than Jesus Christ. However, there’s a big swath of Christians who are like die hard Michael Jackson fans who have never heard his music: They admire the man but are missing what he was all about.

Continue reading »

This is something that he can't run away from anymore. Ladies, he's not your man. He said he will run a pro-life---or---anti-choice White House. Apparently---the innocent Iraqis that have been killed didn't get a chance to share in his vision for America.

Thanks Jed for the vid...

I just don't get it. Conventional political wisdom is that you must move to the center during a general election season. I don't agree with that--in fact, I think that is exactly the wrong thing to do right now when the vast majority of the nation by and large does not approve of how things are being done in Washington (9% Approval rating? Think that has anything to do with your capitulations again and again, Pelosi and Reid?), but it's hard to pierce that Beltway bubble to let through anything but the politics-as-usual stylings. However, it's a far cry from playing to the center and grabbing yourself some right wing frames and running with them. That makes no sense to me...is Obama thinking that he'll be able to get the 'Donald Wildmon vote contingent' this way?

Obama's desire to win these voters may be why, in a recent interview with Relevant magazine, ("Covering God, Life, and Progressive Culture") Obama seemed to be moving rightward on the issue -- rhetorically, at least -- saying:

"I have repeatedly said that I think it's entirely appropriate for states to restrict or even prohibit late-term abortions as long as there is a strict, well-defined exception for the health of the mother. Now, I don't think that 'mental distress' qualifies as the health of the mother. I think it has to be a serious physical issue that arises in pregnancy, where there are real, significant problems to the mother carrying that child to term. Otherwise, as long as there is such a medical exception in place, I think we can prohibit late-term abortions."

The language Obama used in that response seemed to remove "mental distress" as an allowable exception justifying a post-22 week abortion. [..]

Obama continued: "I don't think that is how it has been interpreted. My only point is that in an area like partial-birth abortion having a mental, having a health exception can be defined rigorously. It can be defined through physical health, It can be defined by serious clinical mental-health diseases. It is not just a matter of feeling blue. I don't think that's how pro-choice folks have interpreted it. I don't think that's how the courts have interpreted it and I think that's important to emphasize and understand."

But if Obama is saying that "mental distress" is already not a legal exception for abortion bans, then what was the point of what he told Relevant? He maintains he wasn't discussing any view that runs contrary to current abortion law, so it would seem he was just discussing a personal view -- that a woman, 8 1/2 months pregnant, shouldn't be able to get an abortion just because she's feeling blue.

Okay, I hate to break it to you, but the concept of the woman "feeling blue" and deciding on a whim after 6-7 months of normal, healthy pregnancy that she wants to end it is as much a fantastical creature created by the right as the Welfare Queen living large on government aid. It's insulting to women and their ability to understand what's happening to them.

And this is where I get really angry. Anyone who has paid attention to the relative non-issue of late-term abortions--the stuff that the right wing lives to distract and horrify the electorate with--knows that this framing of women deciding after more than 6 months that she's just not interested in being pregnant was designed as a slippery slope platform to hurt women from getting abortions, at any time. Jesse at GroupNews has more...

Good morning, ladies and gentlemen. This is Steven at The Opinion Mill, and I'll be piloting this daily roundup until Saturday. If you have any suggestions for stops along the way, send them to me at steve[dot]theopinionmill[at]gmail[dot]com.

Now, fasten your seatbelts, please.

Lenin's Tomb has some information on a rebellion against a dictatorship that's not getting nearly as much coverage as the one in Burma.

Xpatriated Texan has some handy ideas for pro-choice bumper stickers for your car.

Mike Shapiro asks if it isn't time for city governments to tell arena-hungry sports teams to take their ball and go find somewhere else to play?

Philip Roth surveys the State of the Union and shows once again why he's America's greatest living writer.

Who's afraid of an oud player? The Salvation Army sure is if he's sponsored by a Palestinian group .

Digby asks: What kind of dolt could equate MoveOn.org with the GOP-linked Freedom's Watch and call them both "outsiders"? Hint: A dolt who writes for the Associated Press.

HOLY CRAP: Thank you, Jesus, for keeping all those troublesome black protesters in line down there in Jena. Now, can you do something about the crackers? Here's some howlers from the Bob Jones University Press textbook on biology. And when Jesus Whooper Janet Folger complains that FreaxNews, CNN and MSNBC ignored ignored the Values Voters Presidential Debate in rfavor of some Iranian guy with a hard to pronounce name, Bing says Cry me a river.

That's way out of line. Can you imagine the outcry from "Focus on the Family" if a pro-choice candidate sent NOW a thank you letter for their support after winning a seat on the bench?

FDL:

"Instead of holding his feet to the fire, NARAL allowed Chafee to slither out by voting in the final vote against Alito, knowing full well this was a hollow gesture. Chafee pledged his loyalty to the Gang of 14 who collectively blocked the filibuster and effectively guaranteed Alito's confirmation. When the true test of loyalty presented itself, he chose to abandon his pro-choice friends and knuckle under to the Bush junta...read on"

Read the article and tell me your thoughts...

Kos:

"With the news out of South Dakota, it's obvious that a woman's right to choose is in graver danger today than it has been in decades. (SD has passed an outright ban on abortion, as opposed to the "partial birth" case which the court will hear in the next session.) And one of those reasons is the replacement of pro-choice Justice Sandra Day O'Connor by Samuel Alito. Joe Lieberman had the chance to take a stand on behalf of critical privacy issues, but abdicated...read on"

FDL:

"Give your money to Ned Lamont. Choice in this country will not survive another Bush nominee to the Supreme Court confirmed by this Senate. It may not survive the ones we've already got. There is no more important task right now before the supporters of pro-choice in this country than breaking up the Gang of 14 and making sure that pro-choice Senators take the seats of those who would return us to coathanger days, and yes that means you, Lieberman...read on"

You can donate here too...

FiredogLake: "The announcement this morning that Lincoln Chaffee would vote "no" on Alito but "yes" on cloture was a hollow gesture to NARAL and the pro-choice community he pretends to cultivate. A vote for cloture is a vote for Alito. It's that simple. I just got off the phone with NARAL and I am being told that they do not consider Chaffee's vote on cloture to be significant. They are not going to pull their support for him over this....read on

Georgia10 has a similar opinion...

(Udate) Republican and Democratic senators on a 72-25 vote agreed to end their debate.

Saturday Miscellany

Blogospheric roundup:

Ezra Klein on the radical right's hypocrisy over the human papilloma vaccine
The Guardian Newsblog on a Gitmo detainee's testimony to Amnesty International
Scott Lemieux on the self-pity of the pro-life Democrat
Pro-choice Don on how he can't be bothered with Roe and Chris Clarke on how defending other people's rights gets tiresome.

--Lindsay Beyerstein of Majikthise