Romney Moves to Reframe Debate on Abortion, Autos

Story here

In ads, his own remarks and most recently the words of a top supporter, Republican Mitt Romney seems determined to soften emphasis on abortion and ignore facts critical to the auto industry as he seeks support from key voting groups in the waning days of a close race for the White House…

…Romney’s approach to abortion is more a matter of a change in tone, although one campaign surrogate, former Sen. Norm Coleman, recently assured an audience that the Supreme Court’s 1973 opinion legalizing abortion is unlikely to be overturned if the Republican challenger wins the election.

Appearing in Beechwood, Ohio, on Monday, the former Minnesota senator suggested that abortion shouldn’t be a paramount issue. “You’ve got to decide what’s important right now, what’s going to impact you right now,” Coleman said in suburban Columbus where Romney is working to woo suburban women voters, many of whom support abortion rights.

“President Bush was president for eight years, Roe v. Wade wasn’t reversed.” He had two Supreme Court picks, Roe v. Wade wasn’t reversed. It’s not going to be reversed," Coleman said.

In an interview on Tuesday, Coleman told The Associated Press he had been speaking on his own behalf, and not for Romney.

He said he meant that the decision is longstanding precedent, and that Republicans would fight over issues like parental notification and partial birth abortion rather than Roe v Wade itself.

Romney himself has repeatedly said that he would like to see Roe v. Wade overturned, and promised to look for Supreme Court appointees who have opposed abortion rights. But Romney’s campaign has also been airing an ad in Virginia that emphasizes he believes abortion “should be an option” in some cases, like rape, incest or where the health of the mother is threatened.

He might be an ugly candidate, but he looks a fair sight better than the alternative…

We all know Romney’s position on abortion (perhaps on anything) is whatever he thinks people want to hear, but that’s a great deal better than someone firmly committed to defending “abortion rights.”

Irin Carmon on is not buying Sen. Norm Coleman claims

That’s blatantly and intentionally misleading, crafted to assuage voters who are presumably socially liberal in what looks to be the most crucial state for the election. It’s also the exact opposite of what Romney has promised he’ll support, publicly and often

Romney has laid out a pro life agenda he would take as president

Clip of Romney discussing roe v wade on Meet the press


GREGORY: I want to ask you one question on the social issue and that is abortion. You were on this program in 2007 and you said that you would fight to overturn Roe v. Wade. I know you said this is an issue for the courts. I ask you now would a President Romney fight to overturn Roe v. Wade? And what would you do in that fight to achieve that goal?

MR. ROMNEY: Well, there are a number of things I think that need to be said about preserving and protecting the life of the unborn child. And I recognize there are two lives involved: the mom and the unborn child. And I believe that people of good conscience have chosen different paths in this regard. But I am pro-life and will intend, if I’m president of the United States, to encourage pro-life policies. I don’t–

GREGORY: Just encourage or fight for it to be overturned?

MR. ROMNEY: Well, I don’t actually make the decision the Supreme Court makes and so they’ll have to make their own decision. But, I will, for instance, I’ll reverse the president’s decision on using U.S. funds to pay for abortion outside this country. I don’t think also the taxpayers here should have to pay for abortion in this country. Those things I think are consistent with my pro-life position. And I hope to appoint justices to the Supreme Court that will follow the law and the constitution. And it would be my preference that they reverse Roe v. Wade and therefore they return to the people and their elected representatives the decisions with regards to this important issue.

Obama: ‘Roe v. Wade is probably hanging in the balance’ in this election

President Obama appeared on The Tonight Show with Jay Leno last night, where he warned his audience that “Roe v. Wade is probably hanging in the balance” this election.

While Obama is an ardent supporter of abortion-on-demand through all nine months of pregnancy, Mitt Romney has repeatedly stated that he believes Roe v. Wade was wrongly decided and should be overturned.

Obama pointed out that whoever is elected as president on November 6 may be given the chance to appoint two new Supreme Court justices. With the court narrowly split on the issue of abortion, those appointments could tip the balance in favor of overturning the 1973 decision that legalized abortion nationwide.

Obama was responding to a question from Leno about U.S. Senate candidate Richard Mourdock of Indiana, who has come under fire for remarks opposing abortion in cases of rape.

Yes, Romney seems to be so changeable in what he says and in his views, as AM notes above.
Given the choice between a president who is firm with what he believes and has a more common ground with all of us, versus one whose beliefs are questionable and whose words change with the winds of Sandy…the former sounds way, way better.
The latter feels very un-trustworthy.

I have gone from seeing him as immature and impetuous, to perhaps a reasonable alternative during the first debate… until he started contradicting himself and reversing his positions repeatedly. Now I see him as the most dishonest person in the race, and not to be trusted with the office of the Presidency. Plain and simple, he lacks the integrity for the job. That is the bottom line, regardless of what he claims, he can’t be trusted. Whenever he states his position now, it must be discounted as possibly untrue.

It is Obama that can’t be trusted. He believes in late-term abortion and has affirmed his beliefs many times. Our tax dollars will be paying for this, and Obama has never told the truth in his life, example Libya. His against NOM and for gay marriage rights. If you are a Catholic, you cannot in conscience vote for such a candidate, never mind his support also of embryonic cell experimentation. Furthermore, he is an enemy of the Christian religion, saying that companies must pay (or their insurance companies) for not only contraceptives but sterilization and abortion causing drugs. St. Michael, pray for us.

A person who firmly and passionatly believes in something wrong can be a lot more dangerious than someone who is merely personally ambitious.

I don’t mean to directly compare either candidate to anyone in communist China, but consider its recent history. When Mao and his supporters took power, they to all appearances really believed in what they were trying to do, and the country was half-destroyed as a result. When these ideologues were replaced by merely selfish men hungry for money and power things actually improved, because these leaders knew that what was best for China was generally therefore best for themselves. Not to say there aren’t still very serious problems (like forced abortions), but compared to how it was during the Cultural Revolution modern China is not as bad a place.

Unless a president is a true saint, I’d rather have him be pragmatically selfish than an ideologically pure reformer trying to impose his vision for the country on the people.

That pro-Obama AP piece says absolutely nothing about Mitt Romney.

Ex-senator Norm Coleman trying to pander to pro-abort voters is only demonstrating why he is an ex-senator and why his state now has two violently pro-abort Democrat senators.

Why is it? The thing is, when someone is lying, and doing it as badly as he is, and showing so much contempt for voters he thinks they won’t notice he is doing it… what else will he lie about all the time he is in office? Who does he serve?

How can you vote for him when you have no ideas what he really thinks or might do?

Obama will not do anything about abortion. Neither will Romney. Abortion just doesn’t make sense as a deciding issue.

So he doesn’t approve his ads?

But Romney’s campaign has also been airing an ad in Virginia that emphasizes he believes abortion “should be an option” in some cases, like rape, incest or where the health of the mother is threatened.

According to what you’re saying, it’s not that Obama can’t be trusted since he “has affirmed his beliefs many times.” It’s rather that, as a Catholic, you strongly disagree and reject Obama’s beliefs, which is valid but different from the issue of his trustworthiness.

Romney might very well appoint at least two new justices to the Supreme Court who will tip the balance toward overturning Roe v. Wade. In my book, that’s doing something about abortion.

What I object to most is Romney’s most recent falsehood directed to people in Ohio, such as stating he read somewhere that auto workers’ jobs will be outsourced to China, which had to be contradicted by the CEO’s of Chrysler and General Motors, unless the latter are misrepresenting their companies and lying to their own employees. According to what I understand, the production of vehicles will be increased in the US as well as shipped overseas, and there were in fact over a thousand new auto jobs created here in America. This is pandering at its worst on the part of Romney but it’s not the only example.

Liberal Mother Jones said of Romney’s jeep ad

Technically, every word of this is true. Obama did force GM and Chrysler through a managed bankruptcy. Fiat did end up buying Chrysler. And Chrysler is thinking about building Jeeps in China

Obama bailed out Chrysler and as of 2010 Fiat has been looking to build Jeeps in China

BAIC-Jeep later evolved into the now-defunct Beijing Benz-Daimler Chrysler company. Ever since the Daimler-Chrysler alliance broke down in 2009, Chrysler has no productions in China. Now that Fiat, Chrysler’s new owner, has officially returned to China and began building factories, there will be Chinese-made Jeep SUVs again in as early as 2014.

In a recent interview, John Kett, vice president and CEO of Chrysler’s Asia-Pacific operations, confirmed this, echoing Fiat-Chrysler CEO Sergio Marchionne’s words that Fiat is to have a production capacity of 300,00 units a year in China within five years through its joint venture with GAC (Guangzhou Automobile Group Co.). And Changsha, the capital of Hunan province, will be the location of the production base.

Fiat may be the only major automakers that suffered heavy losses in China in recent years. After losing tens of millions US dollars, it stopped partnership with Nanjing Auto, now part of SAIC. It temed up with GAC in late 2009 to give the Chinese market one more try.

And just this weekend, Fiat’s CEO Sergio Marchionne admitted the company had intentions of building jeeps in Europe as well. According to a Bloomberg News report:
To counter the severe slump in European sales, Marchionne is considering building Chrysler models in Italy, including Jeeps, for export to North America. The Italian government is evaluating tax rebates on export goods to help Fiat. Marchionne may announce details of his plan as soon as Oct. 30, the people said.

Was reported 9 days ago

Fiat is in “very detailed conversations” with its Chinese partner, Guangzhou Automobile Group Co. (2238), about making Jeeps in the world’s largest auto market, said Mike Manley, chief operating officer of Fiat and Chrysler in Asia. Chrysler hasn’t built Jeeps there since before Fiat took control in 2009

Few days ago CEO Sergio Marchionne of Fiat said

To counter the severe slump in European sales, Marchionne is considering building Chrysler models in Italy, including Jeeps, for export to North America. The Italian government is evaluating tax rebates on export goods to help Fiat. Marchionne may announce details of his plan as soon as Oct. 30, the people said

I was starting to warm up to Romney, until the first debate and the nonstop lying started. He is simply not a leader. He lacks integrity.

Unfortunately, the focus was on Obama’s poor performance, when the real problem was the new Romney showing his true colors. When he reversed his position on his medicare voucher plan, the lies began, and they have flowed steadily since that moment. Now, I feel that I simply can’t believe anything he says.

Sandra Fluke, the Obama ad released last week re: young girls voting for Obama and losing virginity, HHS mandate, during the debte he mislead public re: Planned Parenthood performs mammograms,
his voting record supporting partial birth abortion and voting against laws protecting rape victims suggest the President, not his challenger, has a disregard for life. & maybe a problem w/ women?
Couple this w/ Anita Dunn, his former communications director
“This place (White House) would be in court for a hostile workplace,” former White House communications director Anita Dunn is quoted as saying. “Because it actually fit all of the classic legal requirements for a genuinely hostile workplace to women.”

Sure, just like he kept saying early on that Obama made the economy worse when it was actually better, and then denied ever saying what he said! So, why would anyone believe he’ll keep his word about what Justices he’ll appoint, when he’s so obviously not truthful?


Subject already being discussed in World News

Not really Catholic News

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit