Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

babylonsister

(171,070 posts)
Sat Nov 3, 2012, 08:41 PM Nov 2012

What Would a Romney Victory Mean for Reproductive Rights?

My hope is that some of you will share this however you can. I recently had a conversation with women I work with who support Romney; when I mentioned the overturning of Roe v. Wade should Romney win, they thought I was full of it. Trying to keep peace (as I do , I didn't pursue it further. But if those women think that, who else might?

http://www.motherjones.com/mojo/2012/11/what-would-romney-mean-reproductive-rights


What Would a Romney Victory Mean for Reproductive Rights?

—By Kate Sheppard
| Sat Nov. 3, 2012 3:03 AM PDT


With Election Day now upon us, it's worth weighing the impacts of a Mitt Romney win on reproductive rights and health care. In general, Romney seems likely to cater to the extreme anti-choice faction of his party. Here's a sneak preview of possible scenarios:

1. The Supreme Court gets more anti-choice. All of the abortion-related decisions on the court in recent history have been a 5-4 (or 4-5) split, with Justice Anthony Kennedy as the swing vote. The court has four justices in their 70s right now, which means that the next president could have one or more opportunities to appoint new members. Romney has made it clear that he would like to see Roe v. Wade overturned, and would appoint federal judges and Supreme Court justices that feel that way, too. Even if those appointees don't get to throw out Roe (at least, not right away), they could still make important decisions on state laws currently caught up in the court system, like laws requiring a sonogram before an abortion and other laws that ban abortions after 20 weeks. A Supreme Court ruling upholding those laws could set new precedents for the burdens states are allowed to impose on women seeking an abortion.

2. Planned Parenthood loses federal funding. One of the first things a new president gets to do is write a budget, and Romney has pledged to eliminate federal funding for Planned Parenthood providers immediately. "It will not be part of my budget," he has said. And it's not just Planned Parenthood. A Romney-Ryan administration would take away Title X family planning funds from any health care provider that also provides abortions.

3. Health care reform gets overturned. Romney says he wants to toss out "Obamacare"—except for the parts that people like, such as making it illegal to deny coverage to someone because of a preexisting condition. The problem is, the parts Romney doesn't like are required to make the other parts work. There are a lot of provisions in health care reform that are particularly helpful for women. For one, I've known women who were told that heavy periods or cramps qualified as a "pre-existing condition," which the reform bill would outlaw. More broadly, under Obamacare, insurance companies can no longer charge you more just because you're a woman—a practice known as "gender rating." Birth control and other preventative care are now available without a co-payment. You can stay on your parents' health care until you're 26, which is particularly useful for women, who go to the doctor more often than men.

snip//

8. Hospitals are allowed to deny women access to abortion, even if their lives are in danger. Under current law, any hospital accepting Medicare or Medicaid and affiliated with a religious institution that refuses to provide abortion care under any circumstance is legally required to transfer a woman who needs a live-saving abortion to a hospital that will. But last year, the House passed another bill that Ryan cosponsored, the Protect Life Act, which, if passed, would allow hospitals to refuse to "participate in" or "provide referrals" for abortions.


4 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
What Would a Romney Victory Mean for Reproductive Rights? (Original Post) babylonsister Nov 2012 OP
how anyone could ever vote for him? talk about voting against one's interests; eom amborin Nov 2012 #1
think roe v wade is safe? think again niyad Nov 2012 #2
Thank you so much for this! I will forward it! nt babylonsister Nov 2012 #3
as I will forward yours. NEVER AGAIN!! niyad Nov 2012 #4

niyad

(113,336 posts)
2. think roe v wade is safe? think again
Sat Nov 3, 2012, 09:59 PM
Nov 2012

Think Roe v. Wade Is Safe? Think Again.

Those who aren’t old enough to remember how scary it was to be a woman in the pre-Roe United States are wont to take reproductive rights for granted. Legal abortion has long been seen as a guarantee to a younger generation; tales of coat hangers and back-alley operations are just nightmarish visions in history books.

But history repeats itself when we aren’t vigilant. The Supreme Court victory women heralded in 1973 could be in danger in the coming years. In the final push of this close presidential election, there has been a wide-reaching disinformation campaign to convince women voters that a president does not have the power to reverse Roe v. Wade; that the right is untouchable and unalienable, regardless of who is in the White House. It's important to understand this is a fallacy. A president can impact Roe v. Wade, not directly by fiat but by his or her judicial appointments.

Four of the nine Supreme Court justices are over age 70, so it’s very likely the next president will have the chance to appoint one or more replacemtns. If Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg retires–she’s the oldest member and has battled pancreatic cancer–the court would be losing a strong proponent of reproductive rights. If a conservative justice took her place, Roe v. Wade could be on the chopping block. Then, abortion rights would be thrown back to the states, where 30 of them are likely to ban abortion. The federal right women have enjoyed for 40 years would be snuffed out.

This War on Women is not political propaganda. It is not fear mongering. It is real and tangible. If what is past is prologue, the 1,100 state bills introduced in the past year to curb reproductive rights are only the start of moving women backwards. It can be difficult, especially for younger women like myself, to imagine what times were like before 1973; we have to remember that the world didn’t start when we were born. I try not to be a single-issue voter, but this issue does it for me. If anything pushes you to the polls on Tuesday, let it be this.

http://msmagazine.com/blog/blog/2012/11/02/think-roe-v-wade-is-safe-think-again/
Latest Discussions»Retired Forums»2016 Postmortem»What Would a Romney Victo...