Romney presidency would bring a world of harm to women

  • Article by: EDITORIAL , New York Times
  • Updated: October 20, 2012 - 1:09 PM

The harm to women's reproductive rights would extend far beyond the borders of the United States.

  • 47
  • Comments

  • Results per page:
pumiceOct. 20, 12 1:21 PM

From the article: "But [Romney-Ryan] have also promised to promote policies abroad that would affect millions of women in the world's poorest countries, where lack of access to contraception, prenatal care and competent help at childbirth often results in serious illness and thousands of deaths yearly." All in the name of protecting life, of course. Where are the death panel opponents when men force a woman to continue a pregnancy which will result in her death? When men refuse emergency contraception to women raped as an act of war or ethnic cleansing?

jdlellis1Oct. 20, 12 1:24 PM

Today, women have the right to control their sexuality and reproductive rights. The federal government should not be and women should not expect the federal government to provide birth control, pre-natel care, post nael-care, child care, etc. Excuse my frankness but those "wants" do not appear to be in the U.S. Constitution, designed to limit the role of the federal government. In a free society, government cannot and should not be all things to all people. Before people begin thrashing Mr. Romney, can someone define "women's reproductive rights?" and why is it the responsibility of the government to provide?

mondaveauOct. 20, 12 2:37 PM

The 'global gag rule' doesn't affect anyone's reproductive rights. It affects who pays for related services. Our tax dollars should go to provide services for U.S. citizens. There are people within our own borders who have limited access to medical services, let's help them first. If we felt inclined to assist another (semi)sovereign nation, these type of services are sorely needed on much of reservation country. We owe our Native American neighbors a greater debt than we do to someone halfway around the globe. Go visit a reservation without a casino and see if you agree.

kindaliberalOct. 20, 12 3:12 PM

Women who believe they should decide for themselves if they use contraception, whether they have children, or whether they should be forced to carry a pregnancy full term despite rape, incest or medical harm will be very sorry if they vote for Romney/Ryan and Romney/Ryan win. Roe vs Wade will be gone as the next president almost certainly will choose at least one new Supreme Court judge. States will then do what they want. Many states under republican control will ban abortion without any exception.

ranger78Oct. 20, 12 3:19 PM

Red herring argument. Even in the unlikely event Roe v Wade is overturned, the issue would fall to the states where it belongs. Very few states would ban abortions.

boris123Oct. 20, 12 3:35 PM

I see Chicken Little has surprise. Here is a heads up: Your sky is not falling and is not about to fall when Romney moves into the White House this January. Of course you are free to believe anything you make up.

viqueenfailOct. 20, 12 4:18 PM

Are you kidding?? Romney loves women! He's got binders full of them and when he was governor of Massachusetts he even let his female staff go home to make dinner for their husbands. So don't go painting Romney as some sort of elitist who just doesn't understand life in the real world for real people.

PassOut76Oct. 20, 12 4:31 PM

You know women have other issues besides abortion. In fact at least a quarter maybe a third of the women I know (I live in the most liberal part of Minneapolis) would say they are passionately opposed to abortion. Do those women's opinion about women count? Do the only pro-choice women's opinions about women? Pro-choice women account for about 40-50% of the women I know. The ones in the middle say women's issues are much greater than abortion.

crystalbayOct. 20, 12 4:36 PM

"Before people begin thrashing Mr. Romney, can someone define "women's reproductive rights?" and why is it the responsibility of the government to provide?"..............The government is not now or ever taking "responsibility" for these rights! Not one federal dollar goes for abortion, for instance, and hasn't in three decades. What the government is doing through ACA is mandating that private insurances include and cover contraception. Women are free to use it or not, but having it be a covered PREVENTIVE service is a helluva lot less expensive than paying for pregnancy, childbirth, child care or abortion.

crystalbayOct. 20, 12 4:39 PM

" Very few states would ban abortions."................Sure! Take us back forty years to back alley abortions and only rich women affording to travel out of state for this procedure. Sure, the states "will handle this". You betcha! With 36 states currently controlled by white GOP men, abortion would be outlawed for the majority. Been there, tried that, sir!!!


Comment on this story   |  


  • about opinion

  • The Opinion section is produced by the Editorial Department to foster discussion about key issues. The Editorial Board represents the institutional voice of the Star Tribune and operates independently of the newsroom.

  • Submit a letter or commentary
Connect with twitterConnect with facebookConnect with Google+Connect with PinterestConnect with PinterestConnect with RssfeedConnect with email newsletters