Pro-lifers, tell me, what’s the solution?

Thumbs up for the Pro-life vote

Just the other day, a woman put Mitt Romney on the spot during a town hall meeting in Kalamazoo Michigan and demanded he take a stand on the abortion issue. His response: “We need people who recognize that pro-life is the way to go, and we’re getting more and more people joining our cause as time goes on. I’m a pro-life person, and I’ll be a pro-life president.”

Exactly what does this mean in real-life terms?

I hear it all the time: “Repeal Roe v Wade. Stop abortion now. We are a nation of baby killers.” Pro-lifers stand on their soap boxes and spew this kind of rhetoric time and time again, but not a one that I’ve heard, or heard of, or could find on the Internet, claims to have a solution to the problem of unwanted pregnancies.

A normal person would assume that Romney and Pro-lifers want things to go back to the way they were before Roe v Wade, when desperate women were forced into the hands of back alley butchers to get an abortion. Back to a time when both she and her doctor could be incarcerated for decades should it be discovered they’d aborted an unwanted pregnancy. Back to a time when women used coat hangers to do it to themselves.

Is this what Mitt Romney would have women do?

Abortion isn’t anything new. It goes back to Roman and Greek Empires where it was practiced freely. And the pros and cons have been debated ever since, by nearly every nation and every creed. In the United States, the death rate from illegal abortions created the need for anti-abortion laws to restrain women from subjecting themselves to a procedure that put their lives in such serious peril. Not to protect the fetuses, mind you, but to protect women from their own desperation.

What is the alternative to going backward in history? Should we force women to have unwanted children? Should we incarcerate and/or institutionalize these pregnant women to wait out the gestation period under state supervised medical care until the baby is born? Strip them of their rights as we strip any felon’s rights? Make them do things they don’t want to do?

Is this what Mitt Romney would have us do to our women, our teenage daughters?

And what about the unwanted children born into this system? Statistics range in the millions. According to the National Adoption Clearinghouse 500,000 people are waiting to adopt children. Should the state go into the business of adopting out babies, distributing babies? Or should the state set up a huge network of foster homes and orphanages? Who is going to pay for all this? We can’t even afford to educate the wanted and loved children we already have.

So then exactly what does Mitt Romney mean by his pro-life rhetoric? Remember, he was Pro-choice during his gubernatorial race in Massachusetts. Why the flip-flop now? Because he thinks he’ll get more votes from the pro-life movement than from the pro-choice people. He’s taking this stand for his own personal gain, not to protect unborn babies or women’s rights.

He’s a classic example of American Pork in action.

For those of you who want to know, here is a link to Roe v Wade, the actual rulings by the three judges. Don’t read the syllabus, read the words of the men who took on this debate and had nothing personal to gain by doing something about the problem of unwanted pregnancies. You’ll find no rhetoric here: Roe v Wade

About Terry Wright

There’s nothing mundane in the writing world of Terry Wright. Tension, conflict and suspense propel his readers through the pages as if they were on fire. Published in Science Fiction and Supernatural, his mastery of the action thriller has won him International acclaim as an accomplished screenplay writer. A longtime member of the Rocky Mountain Fiction Writers, he runs their annual Colorado Gold Writing Contest. Terry lives near Denver with his wife, Bobette, and their Yorkie named Taz. He invites you to visit his Web site at
This entry was posted in National Commentary. Bookmark the permalink.

5 Responses to Pro-lifers, tell me, what’s the solution?

  1. James Halon says:

    I’m a pro-choice advocate with the belief that a woman has full autonomy over her self during pregnancy, if she opts to terminate her fetus for any reason while it is in her womb, than she ought to have the full support of government and the medical community to assist her in terminating that pregnancy. We need a health care program that would insure the necessary care for every woman’s choice. This issue is only a smoke-screen for an inept, war-mongering, Republican Congress. Mitt Romney needs to focus on the opium exports from Afghanistan, Brazil, and Mexico. We should grow it here and give it away free until every heroine-head overdoses and dies. Sorry, I’m off on a tangent…


  2. Karen Lin says:

    Yeah. I wish the GOP candidates would get off the social issues. That discussion is not what the country is needing now. Talking about birth control is a no-win (but the mainstream media is encouraging it, poking it even, since they know the majority of Americans are pro b.c. and see this as a great distracter from our financial woes and HUGE national debt). Fiscal responsibility guys…duh! My man, Ron Paul, is a straight shooter. I caucused for him. Stay out of my pocket, stay out of my bedroom. Get your fiscal house in order. Stick to the Constitution. Where has common sense gone? A dangerous sense of entitlement, a dangerous tendency toward nation building, and a dangerous attitude of “I know best for you” on both sides of the aisle. Shame on most of them!

  3. Terry Wright says:

    Actually, Mitt Romney has said he would try to reverse Roe v Wade:

    June 5, 2007 Mitt Romney said: “I’d like to see Roe v. Wade overturned and allow the states and the elected representatives of the people, and the people themselves, have the ability to put in place pro-life legislation.”

    January 23, 2012: Mitt Romney said: “One of the darkest moments in Supreme Court history, when the court in Roe v. Wade claimed authority over the fundamental question regarding the rights of the unborn. Today, we recommit ourselves to reversing that decision…”

    The states already had their own anti-abortion laws, but they were inconsistent and constitutionally challenged. As a former governor, Mitt Romney should be well aware of this. Roe v Wade spelled out the rules for every state, set the precedents, but by no means gave a blank check to abortion. Read the ruling and see how it addresses both pro-life and pro-choice view points. It, like anything else, doesn’t satisfy everyone. How can anyone be satisfied over the death of a fetus, but on the other hand, how can anyone tolerate the states’ interests trumping a woman’s right to chose what’s best for her? Roe v Wade says she has that right through the first trimester, during which time the state has the right to protect the woman by ensuring she gets proper medical care should she chose an abortion, ie (pro-choice). After that, the states can enforce their interests in protecting the life and well being of the unborn, ie (pro-life).

    Who, knowing this, would want to repeal Roe v Wade? Only someone who had an agenda of their own.

  4. Vicki Pierce says:

    I’ve learned over the years that one of the differences between liberals and conservatives is that when a liberal objects to something they want a law against it and when a conservative objects they live the example. For example, anti-gun liberals want laws against gun ownership, anti-gun conservatives don’t own one but refuse to take that right away from anyone else.

    The same thing applies to abortion. I am pro-life, but that means I don’t have an abortion, I teach my children that it is not a good choice for them, and I stand on the pro-life side of any discussion. I do not shove pictures of dismembered babies in people’s faces, I don’t stand on street corners and protest, and I do not insist that we strike down Roe v Wade. I do, however, find it monumentally sad that anyone would consider such a procedure when there are so many infertile couples in our country who want to adopt.

    I am also pro-choice, however, for me, the choice is whether or not to have unprotected sex in the first place. There are always extenuating circumstances, but the vast majority of “unintended” pregnancies can be avoided with the abundance of free birth control available at Planned Parenthood, universities, and more and more high schools, not to mention easily affordable condoms. Birth control options have increased substantially since Roe v Wade was passed, this alone should have reduced the need for abortions over the decades. Sadly, that has not been the case.

    Ultimately, in my experience, most pro-lifers are quietly pro-life. Because Mitt Romney objects to abortion does not mean he will try to repeal Roe v Wade unless he says it specifically so. So far, he hasn’t said that, or even hinted at it, so to speculate that he would is unsupported. It is, in fact, a huge leap to say that a conservative President would abolish Roe v Wade. We’ve had five Republican presidents since Roe v Wade was passed, not one of them has tried to repeal it.


  5. Betsy Dornbusch says:

    Well, he only has sons, so obviously he could give a crap.