The Choices: Romney or Obama - image blackchristiannews.com
Planned Parenthood has formally endorsed President Barack Obama for - President - the publicly funded entity, which provides services for women, mainly abortions, also began an ad campaign in key swing states against the non-abortion candidate, Republican Mitt Romney. (LA Times). The Los Angeles Times article goes on to state that abortion activists are not entirely happy with the President as he “has generally supported legalized abortion, although he disappointed pro-choice advocates in 2010 when he signed an executive order affirming a ban on federal funding for most abortions.”(LA Times).
Romney on the other hand, changed his position from pro-choice to pro-life while Governor of Massachusetts – while Obama has not wavered in his support for abortion, including rejecting the “Born Alive” bill in Illinois while he was in the State Legislature. (Born Alive was instituted to save the lives of babies that were literally born alive after a late term or “botched” abortion and summarily left to die.)
It is not so much the endorsement of Obama by this particular institution that is problematic, rather the fact that a government funded program (regardless of the argument by Planned Parenthood that the funds are used solely for purposes of contraception) is endorsing any candidate for anything, including dog catcher. Planned Parenthood has a business model that accepts credit cards, insurance and will, if no other method of payment is available, perform pro-bono services, including abortions – all fall on the taxpayer’s dime.
(Note: This blogger is pro-life, preferring that there be no state sanctioned abortions nor state sanction executions – life is life.)
One would think that as Planned Parenthood begins its campaign against that monster, Mitt Romney who’s out to prevent abortions and keep the separation of Church and State by not mandating that religious organizations who are against contraception, sterilization and abortion be provided by say, the Catholic Church, is just not “good for women” they might want to bone up on the latest polls.
Apparently Planned Parenthood has not been paying attention to the polls, either the national temperature on issues, specifically abortion, nor a stunning discovery by Vanity Fair: that women are “warming up to” Mitt Romney” (Vanity Fair) – they attempt to understand it by noting that it must be the very likeable Ann Romney who is making her otherwise not likable husband into a likeable guy. Seriously, they are all missing the mark.
Polls in general have shown a swing in this nation from pro-choice to pro-life by a majority of individuals - Gallup: in 1995, 56% favored abortions, while 33% opposed, the balance had no opinion, that changed over the ensuing decade (along with the development of more sophisticated obstetric testing such as ultrasounds, putting, perhaps not a name, but a firm knowledge that there was a) a heartbeat and b) a living outline (now more three-d) of a real baby). The shift occurred in 2009, by the pollster’s numbers and now as of 2012, 50% consider themselves pro-life while 41% consider themselves pro-choice. (Gallup)
Of course, the issue, important to some, is not the top priority of American’s – that would be the economy and jobs, with social issues of less concern – which also answers the question posed by Vanity Fair – Women work, women pay the bills, woman worry about how to support families, women (sorry guys) bear the brunt of the burden when it comes to household finances, regardless of whether or not they are a “Stay at Home Mom” or a “Spouse” who works. Women overall are not stuck on one issue, for the sake of argument, “contraception and abortion” or the so called “war on women” – they are capable of multi-tasking – a genetic trait that is not necessarily shared by both genders (note: science meets feminist sarcasm). Therefore, on the top of the list would be the economy, the cost of feeding one’s families, rising costs of utilities, rising cost of fuel (to drive to work or heat or cool off one’s home), and clothing.
Therefore, women have a clear and defined choice, not that all women are politically thrilled with the choices, but that’s the way of it: one the one hand one can vote party line, or one can vote with one’s pocketbook – Romney is looking more appealing by the second, no matter how charming Ann Romney is, women are listening to the message of “economic growth” that is imperative to the survival of the basic family unit and/or that gorgeous pair of Jimmy Choo's. They are less concerned if Planned Parenthood even exists – what use is that organization or others for that matter, regardless of intent, if one cannot afford to pay the rent? – A woman may be homeless, but by God, she’ll have her contraceptives and free abortions! This may not be the best messaging. In fact, in some perverse center of the universe, the ads by Planned Parenthood ranting about how Great Obama is for abortion and contraceptives while Mitt Romney is not – may actually have the unintended consequence of backfiring – on both Candidate Obama and Planned Parenthood.
Women are not idiots, (although treated as such as equal pay still fails to exist) it doesn’t matter if they are pro-choice, pro-life at this point, it matters that they know money is being spent on something that is of little consequence if one does not have a job, and they understand that Planned Parenthood, on some level is using taxpayers funds to run the ads, while they may be a heartbeat away from a pink slip, or thinking how much further their paycheck could go if programs like Planned Parenthood, which could be privately funded (and are by insurance receipts), were not included in the increasingly heavy tax burden faced by all socio-economic groups. Taxes are not necessarily just those taxes one sees coming out of one’s paycheck (annoying enough), but the taxes on paper goods, the fact that the price of fuel directly affects the price of orange juice at the market, the myriad fee’s of both state and federal agencies one finds in one’s water bill, electric bill and cable bill (just to name a few.)
The correct answer is: Mitt Romney is appealing simply because he is not – Barack Obama.
The President is less appealing because he is associated with all the financial pain and suffering that women are enduring at this point – no matter how many times he blames Bush, or the alignment of the stars, or whatever excuse he may dream up, it boils down to the “bucks stops” at his desk. His fault – some may argue, some may argue otherwise, the scope of the economic problem was so large, that the President just could not take care of it in four years. To those one might suggest: read up on Ronald Reagan – the economy was in the tank under Carter – Reagan took office, and in two years, the economy was booming – he did what he had to do and the economy was his focus. It worked, go figure. Not every President is Reagan, or more to the point, there will never be another Ronald Reagan, however, those we elect are supposed to be smart enough to be able to read, and since we have historical data indicating that certain economical principles work, while others result in a dismal economy, and re-election failure, one would think – being a smart guy, one would follow the course that had proven, time and again, that it works. (Go back to JFK – reminder: a Democrat – in case partisanship is one’s pleasure).
Therefore, in the end, it is this opinion that Romney will do well with women, based on economics - the economy and jobs, Planned Parenthood might find they wasted a few million dollars on ads, and the best quote of the prior century is still valid: President William Jefferson Clinton: “It’s the economy, stupid”.
