Romney: I Want the Supreme Court to Overturn Roe v. Wade
In an interview with the Columbus Dispatch newspaper, presidential candidate Mitt Romney said, once again, that he wants the Supreme Court to overturn the infamous Roe v. Wade decision that has paved the way for 55 million abortions.
Romney wants states to be able to protect unborn children and, in his interview with the newspaper, indicated overturning Roe was more possible in the current political climate than a Human Life Amendment.
“That’s not where America is now,” he said. “I would love us to be in a situation where the American people decide let’s not have abortion. But that’s not where we are. That’s why I think the most effective next step is to have the court return the decision with regards to abortion to the American people and their elected representatives.”...
John UK wrote: It's just the same in the UK. I don't believe a word any of them say any more. They're more interested in their highly paid jobs than in serving the interests of the country.
John, a coworker puts it thus: "One party tells lies I believe, & the other tells lies I don't believe."
Jim Lincoln wrote: one might see why a blind eye is turned to ...
Jim we both know corruption does not take party sides.(http://www.boycottliberalism.com/Scandals.htm) Becoming a Republican or Democrat has nothing to do with the corruption that stems from within their own depraved heart. If the articles in which you are constantly bring up "Republican corruption" dealt with a corrupt Democrat politicians (like the one about illegal contributions to the Obama campaign), your point would be well made. But you have used "Republican corruption" to down play and trivialize Democratic support of homosexual rights and marriage, God being left out of their platform, abortion rights, support for the Muslim religion and disdain for Christians, a dismal unemployment rate (which if figured the way it was calculated under Bush would be above 10%)and character count will stop me from listing many more. Romney nor Obama are running on a platform of encouraging corruption from their party. I am sure you will continue to be oblivious to the content of the articles just to try and make what you perceive as politica points, but trust me you are not winning over any converts.
Winter wrote: This is just plain old electioneering isn't it? Playing to a particular part of the crowd?
It's just the same in the UK. I don't believe a word any of them say any more. They're more interested in their highly paid jobs than in serving the interests of the country.
jpw wrote: the Supreme Court does not make laws. this is more about group think than about law.
Well the Supreme Court thinks it can make laws. Just by the fact that the Supreme Court in 1973 made a law making abortion legal shows that the Supreme Court thinks it can make laws. It was the Supreme Court who ruled that abortion be made legal so it will have to be the Supreme Court who rules that abortion be made illegal again like it was illegal in all states before Roe v Wade.
Mike wrote: The pres. can't overturn Supreme Ct decisions such as Roe v Wade. It can overrule itself, or it can be done by constitutional amendment. The best the president can do is use his bully pulpit. Hope this helps.
Yes, it helps. I didn't mean to say the president could do it legally, but simply do it anyway. I got this from an internet article in quotes.
"Critics have accused presidents of abusing executive orders, of using them to make laws without Congressional approval, and of moving existing laws away from their original mandates."
I understand that even if I am correct, the decree would be overturned and if the pres. didn't back off they would be impeached. How about simply saying all humans have the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness and if we kill them in the womb, then we are denying them that right. That sounds like a good decree to me.
I admit to just rambling, but I never even thought that the decree would be legal. Just ignore me, this a sore spot with me.
this discussion reminds me of Wilberforce and their efforts to bring to the public's attention the atrocities of slavery.
I found it fascinating to see the bill that they passed -- a commerce bill. They had the support of the people by that time, but the whole economy was built around it.
Frank wrote: Very interesting! I have always thought that if a president was really a Christian, then he could simply issue an executive decree outlawing abortion. He would eventually be overturned and kicked out of office, but just think how many babies could be saved until they actually managed to impeach him. But, admittedly I don't understand the mechanics of this well enough to know if my thoughts are of any practical application or not. I will review the website you noted. Thanks.
The pres. can't overturn Supreme Ct decisions such as Roe v Wade. It can overrule itself, or it can be done by constitutional amendment. The best the president can do is use his bully pulpit. Hope this helps.
Angela Wittman wrote: Perhaps someone should direct Romney's attention to the website IgnoreRoe.com. Also, while he waits for Roe to be overturned, does he have plans to help bring this about?
Very interesting! I have always thought that if a president was really a Christian, then he could simply issue an executive decree outlawing abortion. He would eventually be overturned and kicked out of office, but just think how many babies could be saved until they actually managed to impeach him. But, admittedly I don't understand the mechanics of this well enough to know if my thoughts are of any practical application or not. I will review the website you noted. Thanks.
Perhaps someone should direct Romney's attention to the website IgnoreRoe.com. Also, while he waits for Roe to be overturned, does he have plans to help bring this about?
To all you Evangelical Protestants on here who keep stating that Romney is not against abortion this article proves that he is against abortion as he wants the Supreme Court to overturn Roe v Wade.
1
There are a total of 16 user comments displayed | add new comment |
Dr. Mark Allison | 1/20/2013
Dr. Alan Cairns | 6/22/2009
COMMENTS | 
john uk from wales: "
brassitude
1. does not follow.
2. the baptys recognised..."
