Republicans approve platform with strict anti-abortion language
An anti-abortion-rights activist stands in front of pro-abortion-rights activists with the National Organization for Women at a vigil outside the U.S. Supreme Court Jan. 23, 2012, in Washington.
/ Getty Images(CBS News) As Republicans across the country call on fellow Republican Todd Akin to withdraw from the Missouri Senate race over controversial comments he made on rape and abortion, the Republican Party on Tuesday quietly approved a platform that calls for a constitutional amendment banning abortion, and which does not provide exceptions for victims of rape or incest, or to save the life of the mother.
The language, which is the same as in the party's 2004 and 2008 platform, was passed on Tuesday without discussion.
The party platform states that "the unborn child has a fundamental individual right to life which cannot be infringed."
"We support a human life amendment to the Constitution, and we endorse legislation to make clear that the 14th Amendment's protections apply to unborn children. We oppose using public revenues to promote or perform abortion and will not fund organizations which advocate it," says the platform. "At its core abortion is a fundamental assault on the sanctity of innocent human life. Women deserve better than abortion."
Cases of rape and incest or in which the mother's life is in danger are not addressed in the platform, which implies there are no exceptions in those cases.
Paul Ryan's anti-abortion rights record a target for Obama campRomney abortion view overrides Ryan in Akin response
The National Right to Life Committee, an anti-abortion group, lauded the vote and declared the GOP "the party of life."
"The language adopted today makes a strong stand supporting the most vulnerable members of our society," said National Right to Life president Carol Tobias, in a statement. "We applaud the Republican Party and the dedicated members of the platform committee for reaffirming and renewing their efforts on behalf of mothers and their unborn children."
Abortion rights advocates, on the other hand, blasted the platform and called for Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan to renounce it.
"Today, the Republican Party demonstrated again why Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan are wrong for women in the U.S. The party's committee platform approved an anti-abortion plank that champions a human life amendment to the U.S. Constitution without mentioning any exception for rape, incest or preservation of the health or life of the woman," said NOW president Terry O'Neill, in a statement. "Yet within the past 24 hours Romney-Ryan have indicated support for rape, incest and life of the woman exceptions to abortion restrictions. So, which is it? If in fact these candidates do support such exceptions, they should renounce the party's failure to include them in its 2012 platform."
Romney has said he would not oppose abortion in instances of rape, and has rebuked Akin for his Sunday remarks, in which the Missouri Senate hopeful suggested pregnancies rarely result from "legitimate rape." His position, however, puts him at odds with the official GOP party platform.
Wisconsin Rep. Paul Ryan, Romney's running mate, appears more ideologically in line with the GOP platform language than the former Massachusetts governor: Ryan holds a 100 percent voting record with the National Right to Life Committee, and as far back as his 1998 campaign is described as finding abortion acceptable only if the life of the mother is in danger. The Romney campaign has suggested, however, that Ryan's views would take a backseat to Romney's in a Romney-Ryan administration.
Former GOP presidential nominee John McCain had at one point attempted to amend the party language to include exceptions for rape and incest and to protect the life of the mother, but his attempts were met with protest and he eventually backed off.
Popular in Politics
- Officials on Benghazi: "We made mistakes, but without malice" 437 Comments
- IRS' Lerner: "I have not done anything wrong" 221 Comments
- Anthony Weiner comeback try begins: Running for NYC mayor 104 Comments
- Major immigration overhaul passes first big test 67 Comments
- Will tornado relief funding escape politics?
- Top IRS official to invoke 5th Amendment at congressional testimony 213 Comments
- Va. GOP candidate won't apologize for comments on abortion, gays
- U.S. IDs several men possibly responsible for Benghazi attack
They would have desperate women going back to having backroom abortions where they are at high risk of infection and bleeding to death. They would have desperate women trying to give themselves abortions with coat hangers and other objects like they did 60 years ago at the risk of infections and bleeding to death.
In the meantime, there would be an outrageous number of unwanted and neglected children being born.
And lets talk about how many more unwed mothers that would become a member of the Welfare rank and file.
Or the mothers and children that would be homeless because the mother is uneducated and can't get a decent job and can't pay rent.
WTH????
I want to know how many of these Rebublicans are male. A vast majority i'd bet.
Hear me loud and clear. I will do my research and know who all the Republicans are in my state and I will know who voted for this and NONE of my votes will go to any of them ever. This is just crazy!
I stand behind Roe vs Wade
Lindag said this: "by Lindag20
I wonder where all that blood in my daughter and her placenta came from if not from my body. "
__________
So she thought the blood came from her, that was inside her baby and the placenta, correct ?
So, I correct her by telling her that the baby and mother blood doesn't mix, and the baby made their own blood all on their own.
_______________
Then, Repubs says
by Repubs_R_Fiscal_Liberals August 22, 2012 4:26 PM EDT
Again, you obviously didn't understand her statement. Intentionally, it looks to be.
____________________
Did I understand her statment or not ??
Try again.
I believe you are being intentionally dense.
how you can seperate the cells from the finish product is beyond my comprehension, but you are free to have your opinion.
--------
I don't need your say-so to have my opinion, Empire.
Honestly, if you actually were actually pro-life and not just pro-birth, you might look less like a hypocrite. Just a thought.
Until it is viable, it's a parasite. QED.
Now explain why you are against abortion, yet FOR creating the welfare families doing so would produce as a by-product?
So now not only is it morally acceptable to terminate the life of an unborn (parasite, fetus, child - hell I'm not sure what the correct term is now) if the mother desires it, at it is not the moral equivalent of murder (I'm trying to stay out of legal territory here), now the father has no say in whether his child should be born or not. Am I getting this right? It is all about personal freedom, live for today, no responsibility no morals.
-------------
It's all about determining one's personal morality, within what society permits (if the person doesn't want to go to jail, get a ticket, be fined, whatever).
So yes, you're right, except for your last sentence.
.
IF there is a husband or boyfriend involved of course he has a say!
.
But it is the womans body so she has the final say!
.
And until you men can carry a baby - you have NO SAY!
You must be a lib, then, since you don't understand that a fetus is a parasite, Empress.
________________________
Why the burning desire to de-humanize a fetus ??? is that to make termination more palatable or remove abortion guilt ? what's behind your need to marginalize a fetus, as something less than precious ??? or is it rooted in your desires to curb overpopulation, what ?
it seems very odd
What about that do you not understand?
A clump of unviable cells is in no way important - at all.
Empire: read it again, more slowly this time:
"by Lindag20
I wonder where all that blood in my daughter and her placenta came from if not from my body. "
_______________
What don't you understand ? the baby made their own blood, the mother has her blood, they are completely seperate....there is blood on one side of the placenta the mothers, blood on the other the baby's, but they never mix or join.....so, don't be all ignorant, know nothing about biology and then insult ME, you and Linda are the clueless ones
Either you don't understand what she wrote, or you are being intentionally ignorant. Quit shifting the discussion.