Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/07/02/mitt-romney-stericycle-controversy_n_1642468.html

Check it out people... here is the cute picture to go with it...



Now... i'm not sure who i am voting for yet.... but i have to say... if this is true... then i can't believe people think he is anti abortion...

Was hoping we might make it through 9/11, even the campaigns are laying low today.

The sad thing is this shouldn't even be an issue. If the liars and idiots in the religious right would just magically disappear, abortion would be completely uncontroversial. Romney's ties to this company would be of no more interest than his (hypothetical) ties to the company that picks up your garbage every week. But, on the bright side, the only people who care about this are extremist conservatives, so it's a pure loss for Romney.


As for Romney being anti-abortion, don't forget the two components of the republican party: the religious right, and the rich. It's an alliance of convenience, and neither group really cares about the other group's agenda (though obviously there's some overlap for individual people). Romney is a member of the second group, obviously. I'm sure he cares on some level what his imaginary friend tells him to do, but in the end making money is what's most important. He'll pretend to care about abortion long enough to get votes from the religious right, but once he's in office (dog help us in if that happens) he'll be too busy giving himself tax cuts to bother with a bunch of anti-capitalist zealots.

Picture of Romney laughing is classic. Sums up the road to his candidacy. "I'm the best you got b****es"

At any rate, doesn't matter that Romney banned assault weapons in Mass-Uh-Choo-Sits, created something similar/identical to "ObamaCare", Governed the state who's job creation was at the bottom and made millions on abortions (true or not).

Election is really not about Romney's past political leanings and decisions, after all he can be molded into anything the Republican base wants, already has started.

2012 Election for the GOP base is that Romney is not Obama.

That picutre of Romney laughing is political gold for liberal on-line activists. I'm surprised I haven't seen it more, to be honest.


The abortion thing is a big whatever. I mean, we already know Romney is all over the place on the issue. You go on youtube and watch Teddy Kennedy ads from their 1994 senatorial contest where Kennedy attacks Romney on flip flopping on the issue. From 1994. Teddy Kennedy. Seriously, Romney is all over the shop on this issue, and we've known that for the better part of two decades.

To a large extent this isn't even a slight on Romney. The issue is one he probably doesn't care much about, but one he had to take a stand on, and got caught between appealing to the sensibilities of his relatively moderate state, and appealing to more hardline voters in the national elections. Hence his final switch in the early 2000s to an anti-abortion, anti-Roe v Wade position when he became a national candidate.

I think he should have just come out in the 90s and said 'I don't give two gaks about abortion. I care about business and economics. I will do exactly as much as any politician does on this issue - sweet feth all. So vote for me, or don't vote for me, but don't do it either way because of abortion. That's just a wedge issue with no relevance to the policies that really matter. Also Teddy Kennedy is a drunk and he killed a woman.'

 sebster wrote:

I think he should have just come out in the 90s and said 'I don't give two gaks about abortion. I care about business and economics. I will do exactly as much as any politician does on this issue - sweet feth all. So vote for me, or don't vote for me, but don't do it either way because of abortion. That's just a wedge issue with no relevance to the policies that really matter. Also Teddy Kennedy is a drunk and he killed a woman.'

If a real libertarian party existed, that would be a damn good platform.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Peregrine wrote:
But, on the bright side, the only people who care about this are extremist conservatives, so it's a pure loss for Romney.

Unfortunately extremists of all stripes really like to vote.

 dogma wrote:
If a real libertarian party existed, that would be a damn good platform.

Except for the part where abortion is not "just a wedge issue", it's a very important issue for a lot of people, with more impact on their lives than any tax policy issue*. And it's not an issue that we can afford to ignore, since religious fanatics are constantly working to make abortion illegal and only active opposition to their efforts can prevent them from doing even more damage. A party platform that says "I don't care about this" effectively means "I support the right for religious extremists to impose their religion on everyone else".


*Compare the cost of raising a child from 0-18 with the difference in taxes between liberal and conservative plans for the average person.

Unfortunately extremists of all stripes really like to vote.

They might vote, but left-wing extremists have no serious representation at the national level. Right-wing extremists (of both the religious and economic type), on the other hand, have a major voice at every level of US politics, giving most voters a choice between a center-right party and a raving lunatic right party.

 Peregrine wrote:
Except for the part where abortion is not "just a wedge issue", it's a very important issue for a lot of people, with more impact on their lives than any tax policy issue*. And it's not an issue that we can afford to ignore, since religious fanatics are constantly working to make abortion illegal and only active opposition to their efforts can prevent them from doing even more damage. A party platform that says "I don't care about this" effectively means "I support the right for religious extremists to impose their religion on everyone else".

It is just a wedge issue, with all kinds of furious noise made, and lots of people propelled into the voting booths on this issue. And yet, since Roe v Wade there's been what, two or three pieces of minor reform on the issue? There's the thing where no Planned Parenthood funding can go to abortion, the thing banning partial birth abortion, and the thing about parental permission. That's it... in nearly 40 years.

At the same time tax policy has been reformed in 1981, 1986, 1993, and 2001, with another change likely soon. And they weren't trivial changes. The top marginal tax rate in that time has been cut from 70%, to 50%, to 38.5%, back up to 39.6%, then down again to 35%. So the richest people will now be paying basically half the tax they once did. And that's just income tax rates. Once you add in capital gains and the deductions available it becomes obvious that's a real battleground.

 sebster wrote:
It is just a wedge issue, with all kinds of furious noise made, and lots of people propelled into the voting booths on this issue. And yet, since Roe v Wade there's been what, two or three pieces of minor reform on the issue? There's the thing where no Planned Parenthood funding can go to abortion, the thing banning partial birth abortion, and the thing about parental permission. That's it... in nearly 40 years.

Err, no. Try looking at the state level, where the past few years have seen a huge number of laws restricting abortion. Laws to require the woman to view an image of the "baby" before getting an abortion, laws to require the doctor to inform them of "risks" (which are nothing more than lies invented by the religious right), laws restricting funding created specifically to drive anyone who offers abortions out of business, laws to add mandatory waiting periods (great for denying abortions to poor people who can't afford to take a second day off work), laws to add an earlier cutoff point for when you can get an abortion (based on religious lies, not science), etc. This is hardly "minor reform", and in many cases is getting dangerously close to becoming a ban in all but name, with various conservative politicians openly admitting that their goal is to impose so many limits that Roe v Wade becomes irrelevant.

Granted, this is at the state level, but the reason it's allowed to happen is the pathetic lack of resistance from the federal government (which could easily put an end to it), and the republican platform is that we need more limits on abortion. Even if they're too busy passing tax cuts for themselves to pass any new anti-abortion laws, they certainly aren't going to do anything to stop those rights from being removed at the state level.

At the same time tax policy has been reformed in 1981, 1986, 1993, and 2001, with another change likely soon. And they weren't trivial changes. The top marginal tax rate in that time has been cut from 70%, to 50%, to 38.5%, back up to 39.6%, then down again to 35%. So the richest people will now be paying basically half the tax they once did. And that's just income tax rates. Once you add in capital gains and the deductions available it becomes obvious that's a real battleground.

Great. Now how exactly how many people pay the top marginal rate? My point wasn't that tax reform is needed (it is, and starting with ending the Bush tax cuts), it's that for many people abortion is a MUCH larger issue. Raising a child from birth to 18 costs them FAR more than the difference their taxes between various sets of tax laws, especially when the current debate is framed in terms of the rich vs. the middle class, ignoring anyone making less than middle-class-level money. And of course that financial impact is in addition to all the other consequences of being forced to have a child that you don't want.

 Peregrine wrote:

Except for the part where abortion is not "just a wedge issue", it's a very important issue for a lot of people, with more impact on their lives than any tax policy issue.

Individually, sure, but not collectively; which is why it is a wedge issue.

Note that I say this as someone who has funded abortions for spawn that weren't mine.

 Peregrine wrote:

They might vote, but left-wing extremists have no serious representation at the national level. Right-wing extremists (of both the religious and economic type), on the other hand, have a major voice at every level of US politics, giving most voters a choice between a center-right party and a raving lunatic right party.

They really don't. You don't see many real far-right American politicians. Though, hyperbole being an American thing, the belief is common.

 dogma wrote:
Individually, sure, but not collectively; which is why it is a wedge issue.

Then, by that standard, what isn't a wedge issue? Short of the most urgent national security issues, what exactly is there that does apply to everyone collectively? Even your example of tax reform would be a wedge issue, since individually each person has their own best interest at stake.

Now, if you instead consider the connotation of "wedge issue" to be a minor one that is primarily used to split the opposition, then no, abortion doesn't qualify as a wedge issue. It's a very serious issue with direct personal impact for many people, and the reasons pro-choice people have for making it a priority have nothing to do with a pragmatic strategy to split the opposition. It's entirely a question of self-defense, not winning elections.

They really don't. You don't see many real far-right American politicians. Though, hyperbole being an American thing, the belief is common.

Only because the entire US political scale is skewed to the right. The absolute most extreme right-wing (the ones who build bunkers and/or murder abortion doctors) might not have much power, but consider things on the scale of "first world" nations. By that standard the republicans are a far-right party with extreme right elements, while the democrats are a center to moderate-right party. There simply isn't a true left-wing party in the US, at most US liberals/progressives have to settle for voting in democrats and hoping for policies that would be considered uncontroversial common sense in other countries.

 dogma wrote:

 sebster wrote:

I think he should have just come out in the 90s and said 'I don't give two gaks about abortion. I care about business and economics. I will do exactly as much as any politician does on this issue - sweet feth all. So vote for me, or don't vote for me, but don't do it either way because of abortion. That's just a wedge issue with no relevance to the policies that really matter. Also Teddy Kennedy is a drunk and he killed a woman.'

If a real libertarian party existed, that would be a damn good platform.

Quit stealing the Frazzled 2012 Wiener Dog Party platform!

 dogma wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:
They might vote, but left-wing extremists have no serious representation at the national level. Right-wing extremists (of both the religious and economic type), on the other hand, have a major voice at every level of US politics, giving most voters a choice between a center-right party and a raving lunatic right party.

They really don't. You don't see many real far-right American politicians. Though, hyperbole being an American thing, the belief is common.

There is some truth to it. Contemporary American standards would label the mainstream right in Europe (CDU in Germany, UMP in France, even the Tories in the UK prior to 1980) as "extreme" socialists for standing on platforms of mixed public-private ownership, Keynesian economics and (if generally incremental and sometimes grudging) acceptance of social liberalisation. I can't imagine what the average Fox viewer would think of the actually left-wing (i.e. social democratic or even democratic socialist) governments of Norway and Sweden, much less that both nations enjoy standards of living and per capita GDP vastly in excess of the US (or indeed the UK). (Not that said Fox viewers would likely be able to place either one on a map, I realise.)

 Peregrine wrote:

Then, by that standard, what isn't a wedge issue? Short of the most urgent national security issues, what exactly is there that does apply to everyone collectively? Even your example of tax reform would be a wedge issue, since individually each person has their own best interest at stake.

Very true. You've learned one of the fundamental truths of my industry. "Issues" are things like "the economy", "defense", or "Medicare". "Wedge Issues" are things designed to bisect those issues: "Obamacare funds birth control!" is a great example.

 Peregrine wrote:

Only because the entire US political scale is skewed to the right. The absolute most extreme right-wing (the ones who build bunkers and/or murder abortion doctors) might not have much power, but consider things on the scale of "first world" nations. By that standard the republicans are a far-right party with extreme right elements, while the democrats are a center to moderate-right party. There simply isn't a true left-wing party in the US, at most US liberals/progressives have to settle for voting in democrats and hoping for policies that would be considered uncontroversial common sense in other countries.

I've often spoken of how bad the linear political spectrum is, but alright:

Which Republican endorses the murder of abortion clinic workers?

 Peregrine wrote:
Err, no. Try looking at the state level, where the past few years have seen a huge number of laws restricting abortion. Laws to require the woman to view an image of the "baby" before getting an abortion, laws to require the doctor to inform them of "risks" (which are nothing more than lies invented by the religious right), laws restricting funding created specifically to drive anyone who offers abortions out of business, laws to add mandatory waiting periods (great for denying abortions to poor people who can't afford to take a second day off work), laws to add an earlier cutoff point for when you can get an abortion (based on religious lies, not science), etc. This is hardly "minor reform", and in many cases is getting dangerously close to becoming a ban in all but name, with various conservative politicians openly admitting that their goal is to impose so many limits that Roe v Wade becomes irrelevant.

Granted, this is at the state level, but the reason it's allowed to happen is the pathetic lack of resistance from the federal government (which could easily put an end to it), and the republican platform is that we need more limits on abortion. Even if they're too busy passing tax cuts for themselves to pass any new anti-abortion laws, they certainly aren't going to do anything to stop those rights from being removed at the state level.

Are you honest to God claiming that the reason states have passed laws restricting abortion is due to a lack of resistance from the federal government, or more specifically (given we're talking about Romney) from the president himself? Seriously?

Politics just doesn't work that way.

Great. Now how exactly how many people pay the top marginal rate? My point wasn't that tax reform is needed (it is, and starting with ending the Bush tax cuts), it's that for many people abortion is a MUCH larger issue. Raising a child from birth to 18 costs them FAR more than the difference their taxes between various sets of tax laws, especially when the current debate is framed in terms of the rich vs. the middle class, ignoring anyone making less than middle-class-level money. And of course that financial impact is in addition to all the other consequences of being forced to have a child that you don't want.

Then pick another tax level, and go do your own research, learn how much it's changed (or in many cases for lower middle class people - hasn't changed). At which point you start to see how the tax burden has shifted away from the wealthy, and either to the middle or onto the deficit.

And then think about how many people get suckered into the election booth to vote out Roe v Wade, and end up with nothing on that issue, but further tax reforms that directly shift wealth away from them and towards the top end of town.

 dogma wrote:
I've often spoken of how bad the linear political spectrum is, but alright:

Which Republican endorses the murder of abortion clinic workers?

Presidential candidate Wiley Drake*.

Blam! Did not see that coming, right?

*possibly more lunatic then republican, but still, pretty close right?

 dogma wrote:
Very true. You've learned one of the fundamental truths of my industry. "Issues" are things like "the economy", "defense", or "Medicare". "Wedge Issues" are things designed to bisect those issues: "Obamacare funds birth control!" is a great example.

Except "the economy" isn't an issue, it's a collection of a lot of related issues. And each of those related issues has their own separate perspectives, individual relevance, favored solutions, etc, and a voter might prefer different candidates on some of them. It's absolutely absurd to group all of them together and call it an "issue", while not doing the same for abortion. For example, we might say that "freedom" is the issue, since abortion is a subset of the larger category of freedom vs. theocracy.

And even by your definition abortion isn't a wedge issue. It isn't designed to bisect some larger issue, it's an issue that is argued over on its own merits completely apart from some kind of political strategy.

I've often spoken of how bad the linear political spectrum is, but alright:

Which Republican endorses the murder of abortion clinic workers?

Read again, I said they don't have power.

 sebster wrote:
Are you honest to God claiming that the reason states have passed laws restricting abortion is due to a lack of resistance from the federal government, or more specifically (given we're talking about Romney) from the president himself? Seriously?

Remember that part where federal overrules state and local? The federal government could easily pass a law prohibiting restrictions on abortion before X weeks, go around state funding and allow federal money to be used for abortion, etc. It wouldn't change the existence of idiot religious conservatives, but it could certainly prevent them from doing any more than whine and cry about "baby killers".

And no, the president doesn't personally do all of this (except in their choice of what laws to sign or veto), but that hasn't stopped anyone from talking about "Obama's handling of the economy" or whatever.

Then pick another tax level, and go do your own research, learn how much it's changed (or in many cases for lower middle class people - hasn't changed). At which point you start to see how the tax burden has shifted away from the wealthy, and either to the middle or onto the deficit.

And again you miss the point entirely. Tax laws are relevant, but have you ever looked at the cost of raising a child? Unless you're already rich enough that the tax debate is irrelevant you're going to pay a lot more if you have to raise an unwanted child than if the wrong party gets to write the tax laws.

 Peregrine wrote:

Except "the economy" isn't an issue, it's a collection of a lot of related issues. And each of those related issues has their own separate perspectives, individual relevance, favored solutions, etc, and a voter might prefer different candidates on some of them. It's absolutely absurd to group all of them together and call it an "issue", while not doing the same for abortion. For example, we might say that "freedom" is the issue, since abortion is a subset of the larger category of freedom vs. theocracy.

We might, but we don't. Political issues are defined by those who believe they're important, not technicality.

And don't try to juxtapose freedom and theocracy, that's just lazy.

 Peregrine wrote:

Read again, I said they don't have power.

You did, but you also you also misrepresented the rest of the 1st world right wing.

 Peregrine wrote:
The sad thing is this shouldn't even be an issue. If the liars and idiots in the religious right would just magically disappear, abortion would be completely uncontroversial.

Well, that's not strictly true.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/1576/abortion.aspx

A solid majority of the country considers itself pro-life, and only favors allowing abortion in certain circumstances.

 Seaward wrote:
Well, that's not strictly true.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/1576/abortion.aspx

A solid majority of the country considers itself pro-life, and only favors allowing abortion in certain circumstances.

Yes, now look at WHY they are pro-life. You'll find that the answer is religion. Even the pro-lifers who aren't religious nutcases are influenced by propaganda from religious extremists. If you take away that propaganda and deal with the facts of the situation, abortion would be no more controversial than squishing a cockroach.

 Peregrine wrote:

 Seaward wrote:
Well, that's not strictly true.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/1576/abortion.aspx

A solid majority of the country considers itself pro-life, and only favors allowing abortion in certain circumstances.

Yes, now look at WHY they are pro-life. You'll find that the answer is religion. Even the pro-lifers who aren't religious nutcases are influenced by propaganda from religious extremists. If you take away that propaganda and deal with the facts of the situation, abortion would be no more controversial than squishing a cockroach.

I think that's a bit broad. I'm a solid atheist, and even I'm firmly against late-term abortion.

 dogma wrote:
We might, but we don't. Political issues are defined by those who believe they're important, not technicality.

Err, what exactly do you mean by this? It makes no sense given that people believe abortion is important just like they believe a lot of other issues, which can be grouped together for summary purposes under "the economy", are important.

And don't try to juxtapose freedom and theocracy, that's just lazy.

Why not? That's a pretty accurate description of the opposing sides here.

The religious right wants to use the power of the state to impose their religious beliefs on people who are not part of their religion. For example, making laws restricting abortion based on a religious belief that "life" begins at conception, and then forcing everyone to follow those laws.

On the other side, we have people who want freedom, with laws limited to those based on secular facts and each person free to choose which (if any) religious rules to follow. For example, removing restrictions on abortion before a set point (defined by scientific knowledge of human development) and leaving each individual free to choose whether or not they wish to impose additional restrictions on themselves (and only themselves).

You did, but you also you also misrepresented the rest of the 1st world right wing.

How exactly did I misrepresent them?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Seaward wrote:
I think that's a bit broad. I'm a solid atheist, and even I'm firmly against late-term abortion.

Except late-term abortion is a non-issue. If we ignore abortion done for medical reasons (for example, a baby that will be born with severe problems and die painfully as soon as it is born, possibly killing the mother in the process), late-term abortion is a tiny percentage of the total. And it makes sense, if you don't want a child why would you go through a long period of pregnancy before ending it? Unless there is some outside factor (an abusive husband, for example) preventing access to abortion you'd want to get it over with as soon as possible, and that means the majority of abortions are going to happen long before there's any ethical problem.

And you'll note that the poll in question (or the discussion here) was not about late-term abortion.

So... you do not value human life whatsoever? I'm not likely to remain to debate this, but i cannot fathom your position.

 Luco wrote:
So... you do not value human life whatsoever? I'm not likely to remain to debate this, but i cannot fathom your position.

I value human life, where "human" means more than what DNA you have. Our humanity is defined by our brains, our consciousness, whatever you want to call it. And guess what: a blob of cells doesn't have this. In fact, the blob of cells has less consciousness or capacity to feel pain than a cockroach. We don't feel bad about squishing cockroaches, so why should we feel bad about abortion?

You're talking about the blastocyst, and the conceptus prior to the beginning of electrical activity in the brain, right?

cockroaches do not have the capability towards sentience the 'blob of cells' will become a human being, likely fully functioning at that.

They may. Remember that (in the first trimester, especially) the human body naturally aborts a lot of them all on its own.

 Mannahnin wrote:
You're talking about the blastocyst, and the conceptus prior to the beginning of electrical activity in the brain, right?

Prior to beginning of meaningful electrical activity in the brain, which doesn't occur until well after the blastocyst stage. It's questionable whether a fetus has consciousness/capacity to feel and understand suffering/etc until even later, but it's absolutely certain that there's no meaningful "person" before at least 20ish weeks.

 Luco wrote:
cockroaches do not have the capability towards sentience the 'blob of cells' will become a human being, likely fully functioning at that.

Sorry, but the whole potential argument is a terrible one. By that standard every single egg cell (we'll ignore the male side, since every man is guilty of murdering billions if we don't) has the potential to become a human being, likely fully functioning at that. Therefore every month that a woman doesn't get pregnant she is guilty of murder. Now, unless you want to throw every woman in the world in prison for murder, I suggest you reconsider your argument.

Except that the egg by itself is incapable of producing a human being, as is a sperm cell. Only once they are together is there potential. a miscarriage is different from willingly ending a life.

 Peregrine wrote:
Remember that part where federal overrules state and local? The federal government could easily pass a law prohibiting restrictions on abortion before X weeks, go around state funding and allow federal money to be used for abortion, etc. It wouldn't change the existence of idiot religious conservatives, but it could certainly prevent them from doing any more than whine and cry about "baby killers".

No they couldn't. No matter how intensely you cast your vote, that will never end up being on the Federal agenda. The issue is absolutely stalemated at the Federal level.

And no, the president doesn't personally do all of this (except in their choice of what laws to sign or veto), but that hasn't stopped anyone from talking about "Obama's handling of the economy" or whatever.

Oh absolutely. That is another classic example of people making lots of noise about a thing that won't change regardless of who wins the presidency.

And again you miss the point entirely. Tax laws are relevant, but have you ever looked at the cost of raising a child? Unless you're already rich enough that the tax debate is irrelevant you're going to pay a lot more if you have to raise an unwanted child than if the wrong party gets to write the tax laws.

No, please just read what I'm saying. Yes, for an individual who might have got an abortion, but is instead raising a child it's a bigger deal than tax reform. But abortion doesn't change based on who wins the presidency, but income tax schemes do.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Seaward wrote:
Well, that's not strictly true.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/1576/abortion.aspx

A solid majority of the country considers itself pro-life, and only favors allowing abortion in certain circumstances.

Except that the issue has largely been one side, almost entirely religiously motivated, very intensely putting forward their claims ever since Roe v Wade, while the other side has dropped away almost entirely. Which makes sense, not many people continue to fight as intensely after they, you know, won.

Where this to become a real, up for grabs issue again, with outright abortion actually threatened, you'd see the pro-choice lobby kick up into full swing, and a lot of the nonsense and way out of context arguments put forwards by the pro-abortion lobby would be exposed.

A classic example is your claim of late term abortion. The pro-life crowd makes a lot of noise about this issue, but the simple facts on the ground are that most every state in the US bans late term abortion, except in cases of the mother's health. Even before these laws were in place, less than 2% of all abortions were late term. It is almost entirely a non-issue, but the pro-life crowd makes a huge noise about because they can score support generally by raising it.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Mannahnin wrote:
They may. Remember that (in the first trimester, especially) the human body naturally aborts a lot of them all on its own.

And yet you don't see the pro-life crowd throwing money at that issue, seeing what science can do to prevent every one of those miscarriages. Which makes it clear that the motivations for the pro-life crowd are not really just about protecting unborn life, doesn't it?