ArtsAutosBooksBusinessEducationEntertainmentFamilyFashionFoodGamesGenderHealthHolidaysHomeHubPagesPersonal FinancePetsPoliticsReligionSportsTechnologyTravel


Updated on October 10, 2012

It's abortion today; what would be next, Mitt?

Mitt Romney's behavior on the campaign trail is surreal, to say the least. He will say one thing today and then twist it to mean another thing the next day, as having or not having an anti-abortion plank in his platform.

Now, he or his campaign has put a reversal on such a controversial issue by saying that he was for legislation that would rekindle Roe versus Wade, a United States Supreme Court 1972 decision on "legalizing abortion" in the country; and that "he would reinstate through administrative means a policy banning nongovernmental organizations from using federal funds to provide abortions." according to an article on CNN Internet page. (10/10/12).

When he had said that almost 50% of Americans were living on government subsidies, "for food, health care and housing", in a secretly taped video to a bunch of million dollar donors in May this year at a Florida fundraiser, he was on the media a few days after that, churning out a statement that sounded like an apology for his that gaffe.

He has called it (gaffe) a mistake and "completely wrong", and said that he would represent 100% of the population, if he was elected president. He has made several other gaffes that day, making it a record breaking speech full of unwelcome remarks, and whether he regretted all of them was not made clear by former Gov. Romney.

The Democratic campaign has accused him of inconsistencies and has branded him "untrustworthy"; and though, abortion was not a hot item in the 2012 presidential election, it was important enough for a debate between the candidates to show their positions in regard to the controversy it involved.

Women's health was not something to be sniffed at, and abortion being part of it must be given serious thought by candidates, who were men and did not have that problem.

Being "pro-life" by a candidate was a good thing, and so were many people, who considered abortion to be inhumane, but bringing back a law that restricted poor women from having the service was not the answer; as he, Romney, "would reinstate the so-called Mexico City Policy through administrative means," which would deprive those that could not afford to pay for an abortion.

Now, was it the "life" or the money involved that Romney was worried about; as many people were asking, because Planned Parenthood facilities, which offered many services, including abortion, of course, to women would be hit so badly, and providing those other services would also be almost impossible for lack of funding.

When that should happen, where would many women go, but to the old "system" of the botched abortion era, when they needlessly died in several instances.

What was more important was finding a way to prevent abortions, and stopping funding was not one of them; and more so, such action deprived the Health and Human Services Department, responsible for appropriating federal monies, from performing the vital function of serving all people, particularly, those in need.

"The candidate has been criticized for changing positions on the issue of abortion, dating back to his run for governor of Massachusetts." said the CNN article; an attitude which prompted an Obama campaign spokeswoman to release a statement by saying that "women simply can't trust (Romney)."

Abortion being such a crucial issue must not be toyed with; as Romney has been going around it in circles for many years; and thus showing his side of not being able to make up his mind, one way or another, when it came to making firm decisions.

A president having the habit of flip-flopping on social and other weighty matters was not the type the U.S. should have, and thinking that Mitt Romney would turn out to be such, if he should win the 2012 election, was frightening.

Most Americans were pro-life, but that did not mean they should stave off the rights of others wanting to be pro-choice, to have abortion or not. Therefore, federal funding must be made available to all, irrespective of how they (people) felt about abortion.

This hub believed that the stopping of it was what should occupy the minds of politicians and not the money that would go into paying for it.


    0 of 8192 characters used
    Post Comment

    No comments yet.