Rose v. Wade Versus Romney/Ryan

The Romney/Ryan ticket is firm in their decision to overturn Roe v. Wade if elected. What baffles me is why these two men think that it's their job to prevent women from doing whatever they want with their bodies. I'm not sure why this issue is even on Romney's agenda. With all the important things that need to be tweaked  and tinkered with, why are you tampering with abortion rights?

I will not ever vote for a present who wants to take away a woman's right to chose.

I'm not trying to promote abortion. Abortion is not my personal choice. However, I don't judge anyone who chooses it, because that's not my business. I don't understand why Romney thinks that it is his business.

Why would Romney and Ryan want to send us back into dark alleys, or illegal facilities, for a procedure that will be done whether it is legalized or not. Why do they want to go backwards? It makes no sense.

In an interview Romney said abortion would remain available to women who have been raped or are the victims of incest. In order for a woman to get an abortion for rape under Romney's plan, her rapist must be convicted. This is wrong for so many reasons. First of all, how many women get raped and don't report it? How many men get off even though they did the crime? Most importantly, how can a criminal trial be completed within enough time for a woman to have an abortion? By the time the rapist is convicted the baby will be like, 3 months.

Scenario 1:
You're a man.
You get call saying your wife was attacked and she's in the hospital.
You find out your wife was raped and the police are talking to her when you arrive.
A week later, things are still not back to normal and the cops have no leads.
Three weeks later, you find out your wife is pregnant.
You both want an abortion.
You are told the rapist must be convicted first.
Two month later, the police have not caught the guy yet.
Your wife is depressed. She's not getting prenatal care, and she doesn't want the baby.
What do you do?

Let's consider for a moment what would happen if the Romney plan didn't require a conviction. Let's pretend, that you just needed to prove you were raped by providing a police report, and hospital record.

Scenario 2:
You're a woman.
You get attacked and raped by an unknown man on your way home.
You're beat up and in the hospital.
You have to pull yourself together and tell the cops what happened.
You go home, and have to wait to find out if you're pregnant by a stranger who raped you.
You find out that you are caring the seed of your rapist.
Now you have to figure out how to get enough money for an abortion.
You have to tell your husband, children, other family, or friends.
You will eventually have to re-live it again when you talk to the D.A., when you point him out as a witness (if you can point him out) and when you testify.
On top of all that, in order to get an abortion, you have to have documentation to prove to the people at the facility, that you were actually raped.

Conviction, or no conviction, no one should have to be scrutinized, after they've been victimized. That is horrible.

When it all comes down to it, abortion is not about Romney or  Ryan. It's not about who's pro-life or pro-choice. It's about the woman who's choosing it, and why she's choosing it. It's about her issue and it is her decision.

Nita Michelle

Phasellus facilisis convallis metus, ut imperdiet augue auctor nec. Duis at velit id augue lobortis porta. Sed varius, enim accumsan aliquam tincidunt, tortor urna vulputate quam, eget finibus urna est in augue.