By Dave Andrusko
Bless their hearts, the prospect of pro-life former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney replacing pro-abortion Barack Obama is sending their fund-raising letter writers into a frenzy.
Yesterday, as National Right to Life News Today reported, NARAL said, “The Zealots” (that would be you and me) “have their man” (that would be Gov. Romney) “and that man wants to keep waging a War on Women (that would be the unwillingness of countless Americans to toss religious liberties into the nearest dumpster.
Today’s it’s “What Would Happen if States Could Outlaw Abortion” where NARAL tells its online readers that “If Roe v. Wade were overturned today, women could lose the right to legal abortion immediately in 17 states.” (For starters; NARAL prophesizes much ‘worse’ given how many states “currently have anti-choice legislatures and governors” (15 by NARAL’s count).
This is an annual rite for NARAL and kindred souls. When a pro-life Republican presidential candidate says he or she believes Roe should be overturned and the right to make abortion law returned to the states, NARAL et al. predict which states would “ban abortion.” It’s always a lot.
And Mr. Romney has said, more than once—and most recently in an interview Monday with ABC’s “World News with Diane Sawyer—that he wants Roe v. Wade overturned.
“I would love the Supreme Court to say, ‘Let’s send this back to the states,’ rather than having a federal mandate through Roe v. Wade, let the states again consider this issue state by state rather than having this– the setting that we have now with a federal mandate being imposed in all the states.”
Asked by a clearly unhappy Ms. Sawyer if women wouldn’t be thinking Romney is taking away something they “have lived upon for 40 years?” he responded,
“I’m concerned about the women and I’m concerned about the unborn child. Both of those lives have to be considered…And I know people come down on both sides of that issue and feel very deeply about it. I believe that there is sanctity to human life which should be considered and would like to see the states be the place where these decisions are made from a governmental standpoint as opposed to having the federal government…”
This prompted the following outburst from NARAL’s website
“If there was any doubt that Mitt Romney would be an anti-choice president, that doubt should now be gone. This is not the first time Gov. Romney has expressed his desire to see Roe v. Wade overturned. I guess in Mitt’s America, a woman’s right to choose safe, legal abortion care would depend on the whims of politicians in her state capital.”
“And as president, Romney could appoint enough Supreme Court justices to make his dream of overturning Roe v. Wade a reality.”
Warming to the task, NARAL today asks, “But what would it mean if states got to consider the issue of a woman’s right to choose, ‘state by state?’ It would mean very bad news for women throughout the nation.”
Sure, NARAL is beating up on Romney for wanting the decision returned to the states, but who are the real “villains”? The legislative bodies that the American people have elected.
If the public is, as NARAL is always telling us, “pro-choice,” why do they so fear allowing the public a voice? That they won’t tells you deeply they fear a democratic discussion about the “right” to abortion.
Your feedback is very important to improving National Right to Life News Today. Please send your comments to email@example.com. If you like, join those who are following me on Twitter at http://twitter.com/daveha