Indiana senate candidate Richard Murdock

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by Crown@club

http://www.wishtv.com//dpp/news/indi...docks-comments

i respect her opinion. i just don't wish to see the law changed. it should be up to the individual. and if someone has been assaulted and wishes to end the resultant pregnancy, she should be able to without being judged by anyone.

[Honu]

Men shouldnt even be allowed the question of what a woman should do if she gets pregnant from a rape......a man cannot get pregnant from rape and God has nothing to do with either.

[Rupert Pupkin]

This is a 100% non-issue. Why in the world would anyone care what Mourdock's views are on abortion? He has no power to implement his views. Romney's views are at least somewhat of an issue. If Romney is adamantly pro-life and he will only appoint Justices who are pro-life, then that would be an issue worth talking about. If Roe v Wade was overturned, abortion would be probably be outlawed in some of the conservative states.

So Romney's views are a legitimate issue to discuss because his views could have an effect on policy. Mourdock's views have no effect on policy. His views are a non-issue.

Whether I am strongly pro-life or strongly pro-choice, I would never in the least bit care what my congressman's opinion was on the issue. It's meaningless.

[Riot]

Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin

This is a 100% non-issue. Why in the world would anyone care what Mourdock's views are on abortion? He has no power to implement his views.

Completely false. Mourdocks very views have already been included in multiple bills passed by your current House of Representatives (that abortion in case of rape is not allowed).

Go count how many anti-abortion bills your current House has already passed. The assault on women's rights is no joke.

Those bills have fortunately not been passed by the Senate. If they had been - or ever are - they would/will go to the president for signing. President Romney would sign them. President Obama would not, and send them back, where the Senate and House could override his veto.

Depending upon the November 6 election results, if Mourdock and his ilk are elected, women could lose the right to abortion in case of rape via federal law within months.

This is no joke. These religious loons are dead serious on taking women's rights to abortion away. All that needs to happen is enough of them are elected to pass such laws. The current Tea Party House has actively tried for two years nonstop passing multiple, multiple anti-abortion bills. Mourdock is running for elective office, where he has 100% chance of implementing his religious zealot views into law.

[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by Riot

Completely false. Mourdocks very views have already been included in multiple bills passed by your current House of Representatives (that abortion in case of rape is not allowed).

Go count how many anti-abortion bills your current House has already passed. The assault on women's rights is no joke.

Those bills have fortunately not been passed by the Senate. If they had been - or ever are - they would/will go to the president for signing. President Romney would sign them. President Obama would not, and send them back, where the Senate and House could override his veto.

Depending upon the November 6 election results, women could lose the right to abortion in case of rape via federal law within months.

This is no joke. These religious loons are dead serious on taking women's rights to abortion away. The current Tea Party House has actively tried for two years nonstop passing multiple, multiple anti-abortion bills. Mourdock is running for elective office, where he has 100% chance of implementing his religious zealot views into law.

I have heard people talk about the possibility of Roe v Wade being overturned. I don't think it will happen. If Romney wins and he gets to put two people on the Supreme Court, and he puts a couple of really conservative judges on the Court who are pro-life, then Roe v Wade could be overturned. I think it is unlikely that will happen but it is possible.

If that happens, then as I have discussed before, abortion may be banned in a few of the really conservative states. It will be up to those state legislatures. It could happen. Some of the really conservative states could ban abortion. That is the worse-case scenario.

I have never heard anyone come up with the scenario you have mentioned. There is no way in hell that the US Senate is going to make a federal law outlawing abortion. There is no way that is going to happen. There is not a 1% chance of that happening and you know it. Even if the Republicans got control of the Senate, it would never happen. First of all, not all Republican senators are pro-life. Wouldn't they need 60 votes to do it? It's not going to happen.

They don't have the will of the people. People would be up in arms in states like California, New York and probably at least 65% of the country. It is not going to happen.

In addition, the Congress cannot do anything to make abortion illegal until the Supreme Court overturns Roe v Wade.

[Riot]

Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin

If Romney wins and he gets to put two people on the Supreme Court, and he puts a couple of really conservative judges on the Court who are pro-life, then Roe v Wade could be overturned.

I think it is unlikely that will happen but it is possible.

Exactly. It is very possible.

Rupert, you have to vote your conscience,and unfortunately women's rights are being relitigated right now, in 2012, by some in the conservative specter trying to remove them.

All it takes is enough Congressmen and Senators to vote the law in, and a President Romney to sign it. Please don't think "that will likely never happen".

When states vote in outrageously restrictive building codes for medical clinics that provide abortions, thus closing down those clinics, abortion ceases to be available, no matter if Roe v Wade stands or not. That has already happened and is currently being fought.

These people are dead serious about taking the right for women to determine their own healthcare. Virgina has passed a law mandating invasive vaginal ultrasounds (at the patients expense) if she wants an abortion.

These people are actively dangerous to women's rights.

There are plenty of anti-abortion people trying to get exactly that to happen. Now.

The time for people to be "up in arms" about men trying to take women's rights away is right now - during the electoral process. That's why Mourdock was asked at the rally about his thoughts on women's rights and abortion - so people can choose to never, ever for for him, an American Taliban that wants to introduce his religious law into our government.

Democracy takes work. These people are very dangerous. Again - any woman who votes for a candidate that looks you in the face and says he wants to take away your current freedoms and rights - he's not joking. He's dead serious, no matter how extreme and silly you think he sounds. Run for your life. Vote and defend your freedom.