And the Democrats can filibuster any nominee the Republicans bring to the table if that nominee is too far to the right. Appointing Supreme court justices is one of the most crucial functions of the president but he does not have sole discretion over who gets appointed. Still no guarantees that Romney can stack the deck.
Nah, not really. I think you're kind of ignoring recent history. Republicans in the Senate have been using the filibuster at unprecedented rates in the last two Congresses. They still allowed for the confirmation of Sonya Sotomayor and Elena Kagen. Likewise, the Democrats allowed for the confirmation of Samuel Alito and John Roberts in the last administration. See, here's the thing. If Romney wins he will likely enjoy a Republican majority in the Senate and Democrats will have to eventually confirm someone that Romney chooses. And Romney will not choose someone that he thinks will uphold Roe.
Most people do not oppose abortion for purposes of medical necessity and rape or incest. Which was the argument presented in Roe v. Wade...the right to abortion for rape and medical necessity.
Nah, the decision about Roe had nothing to do with whether or not a child was conceived through a sexual assault or through consensual sex and the plaintiff in that case, known there as "Jane Roe" was not raped, nor had she claimed to be raped. And even if she were raped, the decision revolved around the right to privacy, which would apply to any abortion performed within a certain time frame. (They sought to balance a woman's right to privacy with the rights of her unborn child, and so their reasoning is tempered by questions of fetal viability and all that stuff.)
The majority of Americans don't feel like picking up the tab for their carelessness.
This is utter nonsense. Federal dollars cannot legally be used to pay for elective abortions. No one is asking Americans to pick up the tab, so to speak. And even if they were, it's much more expensive to carry an unwanted child to term than it is to abort a fetus. And I personally find it ridiculous that the same people that are so adamant about the sanctity of life, tend to be in favor of gutting the sorts of programs that these children and their mothers would depend on if the child were brought to term.
IIRC the argument was that tax payer funding should be cut off from PP's abortion services, not everything else they provide. But I might be remembering this wrong.
You are remembering this wrong. Mitt Romney has said specifically that if he's elected president we will "get rid of that." The "that" being Planned Parenthood. He obviously can't do that. But the argument is that, even if government funds given to Planned Parenthood are used for things like cancer screenings, resources are fungible and therefore any money added to Planned Parenthood's budget is more money that they can use to provide abortions. If that's the case though, then every argument that the religious right has used to justify state funding for some functions of parochial schools or for religious charities is destroyed.
However, Romney has not expressed an interest in changing the law. As far as he is concerned the issue was settled. And since it is a constitutionally protected right, no one man or no one party can change that.
Nah, you're wrong about this. Again, we're a few Supreme Court justices away from changing it. And the Republican party has been very creative in finding ways to undermine Roe without actually overturning it.
And no, Romney has taken all sides of the abortion issue over the course of his political career. Many social conservatives don't trust Romney because he was previously pro-choice. And prior to Todd Akin running his mouth about "legitimate rape," Mitt Romney would have told you that he, like his runningmate, supports a personhood amendment, which would not only make abortion illegal under nearly all circumstances, but would also outlaw some forms of contraceptives. See:
About half way in they get to abortion. You can clearly see Romney supporting the notion that life begins at conception should be enshrined in our law and explaining that he would nominate conservative justices.
Now, is that what he really believes? I don't know. I think that Mitt Romney is an opportunist with few core convictions. And therefore, I think that in guessing at how he might behave as president, it's more important to take a look at the views of the people in his coalition.
Do you think it's "right" to have to pay for the abortion of a female fetus just because she is a female and the mother wants a son for her husband?
Do you think it's "right" to have to pay for an abortion for a woman who got carried away in the moment of passion and made a careless mistake?
Me? I don't think elective abortions should be illegal but I don't think that service should be subsidized by our government. Just because I have the right to own a gun it doesn't mean I think the government should provide one for me.
That's neither here nor there. The federal government does not and cannot subsidize elective abortions. See: the Hyde amendment.
Personally, I think that we should subsidize abortions for poor women that seek them. But I'm one of those extra liberals that actually donates to Planned Parenthood and the Planned Parenthood action fund when I have the money to do so.
If America can no longer support itself then how can it provide money for social services?
American can't support itself now? I mean look, we can talk about the debt or whatever but the fact of the matter is that our debt is currently close to 100 percent of GDP. For some perspective, Japan is at about 200 percent of GDP. Like Japan, most of our debt is owed to ourselves. And nah, the house isn't on fire. Interest rates are low. And investors continue to find US bonds to be a reliable bet, even after we were downgraded. Greece, the nation to whom conservatives would like to compare us, is at about 150 percent of GDP. The crucial difference between Greece and us (and also Japan) is that we're in control of our monetary policy.
The house is not burning down.
Besides, planned parenthood isn't the only organization that provides services for women's health. The Department Of Health through local Health Departments provide the same services, often for free through public funding. No one has proposed to cut their funding. What's the difference? Public Health Departments don't provide abortions.
Here's the thing. That's true. But Planned Parenthood serves millions of people as it stands. And the Republicans aren't just promising to defund Planned Parenthood. They're promising to "rein in government spending," which under proposals like the Ryan budget would include government services like public health departments...and really anything that isn't defense. Do you really believe that under a Republican administration in which Planned Parenthood was defunded that poor women would have the same access to the sorts of services that Planned Parenthood is providing? If so, can you explain it to me? It would make me feel much better about the possibility of a Romney victory.