To create more effective and humane policies, we must move beyond simplistic, binary thinking about abortion and embrace its inherent complexities.
I. The Current Discourse is Oversimplified and Counterproductive.
A. Public Opinion is More Nuanced than Binary Views Suggest.
Polling data from the Pew Research Center shows that most Americans support abortion access under specific circumstances, such as rape, incest, or health risks, while also favoring some restrictions, like limits on later-term abortions. This demonstrates a broad middle ground that is ignored by polarized debates, which frame abortion as "all or nothing."
B. Using Abortion as a Moral or Political Litmus Test Hinders Productive Dialogue.
Social psychology research, including Jonathan Haidt's The Righteous Mind, highlights how moral tribalism creates "us vs. them" divisions, reinforcing confirmation bias and preventing constructive conversations. Treating abortion as a litmus test for morality or political allegiance deepens polarization and blocks meaningful collaboration on solutions that benefit women and families.
C. Political Stances on Abortion Can and Should Evolve.
Political views on abortion often change as leaders respond to societal needs or learn from their constituents. Expecting ideological purity punishes flexibility and alienates potential allies who could support policies that reduce abortion rates through measures like expanding healthcare or contraception access.
II. A Nuanced Approach to Abortion Policy Prioritizes Prevention and Timely Care.
A. Expanding Access to Contraception Reduces Abortion Rates.
Research from the Guttmacher Institute shows that greater access to contraception, including emergency contraception, is one of the most effective ways to reduce abortion rates. Proactive, preventative solutions like these address the root causes of unintended pregnancies, offering a humane and effective way to approach reproductive healthcare.
B. Timely Access to Abortion Services is Crucial for Both Ethical and Medical Reasons.
Studies in the New England Journal of Medicine show that most later-term abortions occur due to medical complications or barriers to access, not elective reasons. Restrictive laws and logistical delays force women into later-term procedures, compounding both ethical concerns and medical risks. Policies that ensure timely access reduce these challenges, reflecting a more thoughtful and compassionate approach.
III. Legal and Policy Frameworks Must Reflect These Complexities.
A. Legal Precedents Support Comprehensive Abortion Coverage in State-Subsidized Health Plans.
Cases such as Moe v. Secretary of Admin. & Finance (1981) and Planned Parenthood League of Massachusetts, Inc. v. Attorney General (1997) affirm that state-subsidized health plans must cover medically necessary abortions. These rulings underscore the importance of policies rooted in rights-based frameworks that prioritize women's health and autonomy.
B. Evidence-Based and Ethical Considerations Should Guide Policy Decisions.
Simplistic policies, such as promoting abstinence-only education or restricting over-the-counter access to emergency contraception, ignore empirical evidence and often result in worse outcomes for women and families. Effective policies must integrate ethical principles, legal obligations, and empirical data to create comprehensive solutions.
Key Takeaways and Call to Action:
Move Beyond Polarized Debates: Recognize that most people hold nuanced views on abortion, and policies should reflect this complexity.
Prioritize Prevention: Expand access to contraception and address the root causes of unintended pregnancies.
Ensure Timely Access to Care: Address barriers to early abortion care to minimize medical and ethical challenges.
Incorporate Legal and Ethical Nuance: Create policies guided by evidence, empathy, and established legal precedents, rather than binary thinking.
Governor Mitt Romney Is Pro-Life And Believes "Abortion Is The Wrong Choice." (Governor Mitt Romney, Op-Ed, "Why I Vetoed The Contraception Bill," The Boston Globe, 7/26/05)
Governor Romney Vetoed Legislation That Would Have Provided For The "Morning After Pill" Without A Prescription. (Governor Mitt Romney, Op-Ed, "Why I Vetoed The Contraception Bill," The Boston Globe, 7/26/05)
Governor Romney Promoted Abstinence Education In The Classroom. (Office Of Governor Mitt Romney, "Romney Announces Award Of Abstinence Education Contract," Press Release, 4/20/06)
Governor Romney Vetoed Legislation That Would Have Changed The Longstanding Definition Of The Beginning Of Human Life From Fertilization To Implantation. (Governor Mitt Romney, Letter To The Massachusetts State Senate And House Of Representatives, 5/12/05)
Governor Romney Supports Parental Notification Laws And Opposed Efforts To Weaken Parental Involvement. (John McElhenny, "O'Brien And Romney Spar In Last Debate Before Election," The Associated Press, 10/29/02)
Governor Romney Supports Adult Stem Cell Research But Has Opposed Efforts To Advance Embryo-Destructive Research In Massachusetts. (Theo Emery, "Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney Vetoes Stem Cell Bill," The Associated Press, 5/27/05)
Governor Romney Has Been Recognized For His Pro-Life Leadership In Massachusetts. "Mitt Romney was a great Governor, who served with honor and distinction. But most importantly, he was a pro-life Governor. He vetoed a number of pro-abortion pieces of legislation and made many pro-life appointments. He was always there for us. He's a busy man these days and we are extra fortunate that he and his wife Ann could be with us. Governor, you have been an inspirational leader in many ways. And if I may say so, Mitt, you're looking very presidential. Ladies and gentlemen, please join me in welcoming our friend, Governor Mitt Romney, to the podium as our 2007 Mullins Award Winner for Outstanding Political Leadership." (Kevin Jourdain, Remarks, Agawam, MA, 5/10/07)
Massachusetts Citizens For Life Executive Director Marie Sturgis: "Having Governor Romney in the corner office for the last four years has been one of the strongest assets the pro-life movement has had in Massachusetts." (Kathryn Jean Lopez, "An Early Massachusetts Primary," National Review, 1/10/07)
FACT: Under The Bill Signed By The Governor, The Health Care Benefits Package Was Developed By The Connector Authority – An Independent Body Separate From The Governor's Office:
The Commonwealth Care Package Is Designed And Administered By The Commonwealth Health Insurance Connector Authority. "The Connector administers two separate programs; Commonwealth Care and Commonwealth Choice. Commonwealth Care offers subsidized insurance to people whose annual incomes are up to 300% or the Federal Poverty Level." (Commonwealth Connector Official Website, http://www.mass.gov/, Accessed 2/5/07)
The Commonwealth Health Insurance Connector Authority Is An Independent Public Authority And Their Decisions Were Made Separate Of The Romney Administration. "The Commonwealth Health Insurance Connector Authority is an independent public authority created to implement significant portions of the new landmark health care reform legislation. The Connector assists qualified Massachusetts adult residents with the purchase of affordable health care coverage if they don't already have it." (Commonwealth Connector Official Website, http://www.mass.gov/, Accessed 2/5/07)
FACT: Under State Law And Court Precedent, If The State Is Funding Health Care Benefits It Cannot Refuse To Provide Abortion Coverage:
In 1981, The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court Ruled That The State Constitution Required Payment For Abortion Services For Medicaid-Eligible Women. (Moe v. Secretary of Admin & Finance, 1981)
According To The Decision, When A State Subsidizes Medical Care, It Cannot Infringe On "The Exercise Of A Fundamental Right" Which The Court Interpreted As Access To Medically Necessary Abortion Services. (Moe v. Secretary of Admin & Finance, 1981)
In 1997, The Supreme Judicial Court Reaffirmed Its Position That A State-Subsidized Plan Must Offer "Medically Necessary Abortions." (Planned Parenthood League of Massachusetts, Inc. v. Attorney General, 1997)
"While there’s no perfect candidate in the field on abortion, no serious presidential contender has risked more for the pro-life cause than Mitt Romney."
Governor Mitt Romney, Interview with Hugh Hewitt (July 2005)
Romney has been a vocal opponent of the Supreme Court decision in Roe v. Wade, criticizing the “one size fits all” statute created by the ruling. The Governor believes each state should have the right to determine its own abortion laws, voicing support for efforts in states such as South Dakota to regulate abortion within its borders.
"YESTERDAY I vetoed a bill that the Legislature forwarded to my desk. Though described by its sponsors as a measure relating to contraception, there is more to it than that. The bill does not involve only the prevention of conception: The drug it authorizes would also terminate life after conception."
Governor Mitt Romney, "Why I vetoed contraception bill", 07-26-2005, Boston Globe
"Signing such a measure into law would violate the promise I made to the citizens of Massachusetts when I ran for governor. I pledged that I would not change our abortion laws either to restrict abortion or to facilitate it. What's more, this particular bill does not require parental consent even for young teenagers. It disregards not only the seriousness of abortion but the importance of parental involvement and so would weaken a protection I am committed to uphold."
Governor Mitt Romney, "Why I vetoed contraception bill", 07-26-2005, Boston Globe
"I have spoken with medical professionals to determine whether the drug contemplated under the bill would simply prevent conception or whether it would also terminate a living embryo after conception. Once it became clear that the latter was the case, my decision was straightforward. I will honor the commitment I made during my campaign: While I do not favor abortion, I will not change the state's abortion laws."
Governor Mitt Romney, "Why I vetoed contraception bill", 07-26-2005, Boston Globe
"I understand that my views on laws governing abortion set me in the minority in our Commonwealth. I am prolife. I believe that abortion is the wrong choice except in cases of incest, rape, and to save the life of the mother. I wish the people of America agreed, and that the laws of our nation could reflect that view. But while the nation remains so divided over abortion, I believe that the states, through the democratic process, should determine their own abortion laws and not have them dictated by judicial mandate."
Governor Mitt Romney, "Why I vetoed contraception bill", 07-26-2005, Boston Globe
"Because Massachusetts is decidedly prochoice, I have respected the state's democratically held view. I have not attempted to impose my own views on the prochoice majority."
Governor Mitt Romney, "Why I vetoed contraception bill", 07-26-2005, Boston Globe
"For all the conflicting views on this issue, it speaks well of our country that we recognize abortion as a problem. The law may call it a right, but no one ever called it a good, and, in the quiet of conscience people of both political parties know that more than a million abortions a year cannot be squared with the good heart of America."
Governor Mitt Romney, "Why I vetoed contraception bill", 07-26-2005, Boston Globe
"You can't be a prolife governor in a prochoice state without understanding that there are heartfelt and thoughtful arguments on both sides of the question. Many women considering abortions face terrible pressures, hurts, and fears; we should come to their aid with all the resourcefulness and empathy we can offer. At the same time, the starting point should be the innocence and vulnerability of the child waiting to be born."
Governor Mitt Romney, "Why I vetoed contraception bill", 07-26-2005, Boston Globe
"In some respects, these convictions have evolved and deepened during my time as governor. In considering the issue of embryo cloning and embryo farming, I saw where the harsh logic of abortion can lead -* to the view of innocent new life as nothing more than research material or a commodity to be exploited."
Governor Mitt Romney, "Why I vetoed contraception bill", 07-26-2005, Boston Globe
"I have also observed the bitterness and fierce anger that still linger 32 years after Roe v. Wade. The majority in the US Supreme Court's Casey opinion assured us this would pass away as Americans learned to live with abortion on demand. But this has proved a false hope."
Governor Mitt Romney, "Why I vetoed contraception bill", 07-26-2005, Boston Globe
"There is much in the abortion controversy that America's founders would not recognize. Above all, those who wrote our Constitution would wonder why the federal courts had peremptorily removed the matter from the authority of the elected branches of government. The federal system left to us by the Constitution allows people of different states to make their own choices on matters of controversy, thus avoiding the bitter battles engendered by one size fits all" judicial pronouncements. A federalist approach would allow such disputes to be settled by the citizens and elected representatives of each state, and appropriately defer to democratic governance."
Governor Mitt Romney, "Why I vetoed contraception bill", 07-26-2005, Boston Globe
"Except on matters of the starkest clarity like the issue of banning partial-birth abortions, there is not now a decisive national consensus on abortion. Some parts of the country have prolife majorities, others have prochoice majorities. People of good faith on both sides of the issue should be able to make and advance their case in democratic forums -* with civility, mutual respect, and confidence that democratic majorities will prevail. We will never have peace on the abortion issue, much less a consensus of conscience, until democracy is allowed to work its way."
Governor Mitt Romney, "Why I vetoed contraception bill", 07-26-2005, Boston Globe
“Let’s let the states deal with it through a democratic process, rather than have a judiciary make a pronouncement of one size fits all.”''
Governor Mitt Romney
“…each state should be able to make its own decision, and allow those states that are strongly pro-life to make laws that fulfill the will of their own citizens.” –
Governor Mitt Romney, Interview with Hugh Hewitt (July 2005)
Beliefs About Governor Mitt Romney on the topic of Abortion
Governor Mitt Romney has the best abortion stance.
Romney respects the rights of states to choose differently than he does. Or in other words he doesn't try and impose his own will on those who disagree with him. This is good.
Some other people have been more consistent when it comes to abortion, and we need consistency out of someone when deciding to let them affect the abortion debate.
Those on the far right might not like that he support abortion except in cases of rape, incest, and when the life of a mother is threatened.
Those on the left are very afraid that Roe vs. Wade will be over turned. Mitt Romney has been calling for this longer than any other 2008 presidential candidate.
Romney has said that his views on abortion have "evolved" and "changed" since 2002 such that he now considers himself a "pro-life governor" who wishes "the laws of our nation could reflect that view." Some people do not think someone in their 40's or 50's can change their mind on Abortion. They see his change as being two faced or opportunistic.
Governor Mitt Romney is personally pro-life, which is good.
Governor Mitt Romney is "personally pro-life" which is good.
“It is very conceivable that scientific advances will allow an embryo to be grown for a substantial period of time outside the uterus. To say that it is not life at one month or two months or four months or full term, just because it has never been in a uterus, would be absurd.” * Governor Mitt Romney
Romney has identified himself as a pro-life politician.
He does not support abortion except in cases of rape, incest, and when the life of a mother is threatened.
Romney has been a vocal opponent of the Supreme Court decision in Roe vs Wade, criticizing the “one size fits all” statute created by the ruling. The Governor believes each state should have the right to determine its own abortion laws, voicing support for efforts in states such as South Dakota to regulate abortion within its borders.
He respects the rights of states to choose differently than he does. Or in other words he doesn't try and impose his own will on those who disagree with him.
Mitt Romney was strategic. He knew he couldn't win the abortion battle in Massachusetts, so he gave in. He chose his battles. You shouldn't choose your battles, you should always fight for the right, even if you loose.
Related Issues
Governor Mitt Romney supports stem cell research using surplus embryos but opposes the use of cloning to create new embryos.
Public Funding of Abortion: Organized Beliefs and Arguments
Core Beliefs
Rudy Giuliani’s Position: Rudy reaffirmed his belief that there should be public funding of abortion.
Opposition to Taxpayer-Funded Abortion: Many oppose the use of taxpayer money for abortions, particularly when it conflicts with the moral convictions of taxpayers who view abortion as equivalent to murder.
Practicality and Personal Responsibility: People who can afford non-essential items like color TVs should also be able to pay for their own abortions.
Reasons to Oppose Public Funding of Abortion
Moral Objection to Forced Funding:
Belief: It is morally wrong to forcibly take money from individuals (via taxes) and use it to fund something they believe is murder.
Argument: For many, abortion is a deeply personal moral issue, and using their tax dollars to fund abortions directly violates their conscience.
Taxpayer Rights and Personal Responsibility:
Belief: If someone has the financial means to afford luxuries like a color TV, they should be able to afford their own abortions without relying on public funds.
Argument: Public funding removes the personal responsibility for financing what is ultimately a private medical procedure.
Government’s Role and Constitutional Priorities:
Belief: The primary purpose of government is to protect its citizens, as outlined in the U.S. Constitution, not to provide abortions.
Argument: While armies and defense are explicitly part of the government’s role, funding abortions is not a fundamental purpose of the federal government.
Widespread Moral Opposition:
Belief: Taxpayer-funded abortions are wrong because so many citizens oppose abortion on moral grounds.
Argument: Public policy should reflect the moral views of a substantial portion of the population, especially when their tax dollars are at stake.
Comparison to Military Funding:
Belief: Some argue that taxpayer-funded abortions are similar to using tax dollars for war, which others may also oppose on moral grounds.
Counterpoint: However, military spending is tied to the government’s constitutional responsibility to protect its citizens, whereas abortion is not.
State vs. Federal Role:
Belief: Abortion funding and regulation should be left to individual states rather than being federally mandated.
Argument: States like Massachusetts can choose to allow or fund abortion if they wish, but taxpayers in other states should not be forced to contribute to those decisions.
Reasons to Support Public Funding of Abortion
Reproductive Rights as Healthcare:
Belief: Abortion is a form of healthcare and, as such, should be accessible to all individuals regardless of their financial situation.
Argument: Public funding ensures that abortion services are available to low-income individuals who otherwise could not afford them, preserving equality in healthcare access.
Precedent for Public Funding of Controversial Services:
Belief: Governments already use taxpayer funds for purposes that some may morally oppose, such as military spending or capital punishment.
Argument: A pluralistic society requires individuals to accept that their taxes may fund policies or services they disagree with.
Economic and Social Benefits:
Belief: Providing publicly funded abortions can reduce the long-term social and economic costs associated with unintended pregnancies.
Argument: Access to abortion can prevent financial hardship for individuals and reduce the burden on public assistance programs.
Key Comparisons and Philosophical Debates
Public Funding for Controversial Purposes:
Military Spending vs. Abortion Funding:
Pro-life advocates argue that military spending aligns with the government’s constitutional role to protect its citizens, whereas abortion does not.
Pro-choice advocates counter that taxes are often used for morally divisive purposes and that abortion is an essential part of healthcare.
State Rights vs. Federal Mandates:
Opponents of public funding for abortion argue that abortion policy should be decided at the state level, allowing individual states to align with their citizens’ values.
Supporters of federal abortion funding argue that leaving it to the states could create inequities in healthcare access, disproportionately affecting low-income individuals in conservative states.
Moral Relativism vs. Universality:
Opponents emphasize the moral conflict of using taxpayer dollars for abortion, likening it to forcing someone to fund something they view as murder.
Supporters argue that, in a diverse society, taxes often fund programs that not everyone agrees with, and reproductive rights should be considered universal.
Personal Responsibility vs. Social Responsibility:
Opponents believe individuals should take personal responsibility for financing their own abortions, especially if they can afford non-essentials like entertainment or luxury items.
Supporters argue that public funding is necessary to ensure that access to abortion is not restricted by socioeconomic status.
Conclusion
The debate over public funding of abortion is deeply tied to questions of morality, individual rights, and the role of government.
Opponents of public funding focus on protecting taxpayers from being forced to subsidize a procedure they find morally objectionable, emphasizing personal responsibility and constitutional priorities.
Supporters of public funding frame abortion as essential healthcare that should be accessible to all, even those who cannot afford it, and argue that taxes often fund services that not everyone agrees with.
This issue ultimately revolves around balancing personal freedom, collective responsibility, and the role of government in providing access to healthcare.
"(L)iberals don't think a majority of Americans support abortion -* otherwise they would welcome the overturning of Roe v. Wade, which would do nothing more than put abortion to a vote. As their theatrics on Roe demonstrate, the last thing they want is a vote. Once Americans were allowed to vote on abortion. Then Roe came along and overturned the democratically enacted laws of forty-eight states." -* Ann Coulter, P. 201
Policy Scores from Cost-Benefit Likilihood Analysis, and interest validty analysis
Likilihood of Costs and Benefits from Argument and Evedence Scores
Automated Conflict Resolution, and Cost-Benefit Analysis
We are a political party that organizes all the ideas and arguments by subject, and lets them battle in a survival of the fittest death-match.
We are a political party that supports candidates that promises to make their decisions based on online cost benefit and idea evaluation algorithms. They just have to use a forum that ties the strength of their conclusion to the strength of their assumption, so that when you strengthen or weaken an assumption you also strengthen or weaken conclusions based on the assumption.
We have had the technological ability to create a world based on logic for too long. It is about time we build a rational political party based on the assumption that we support plans, conclusions, activities, and policies that can gather evidence based support, and that we don't do things that don't stand up to analysis.
We will conduct open, online, cost/benefit analysis of each issue. It is about time.
Welcome to the website for the best political party of all time, and the future of reason based decisions making.
Comments (0)
You don't have permission to comment on this page.