This is not a big deal to me and I didn't get the point until I read this post.
So what is the big deal? I think the big deal is that it was a court decision that led directly to Roe v Wade. That's what Stephanopolous was getting at and Romney evaded the question. Then, surprising, he said he was against Roe v. Wade. If he was against Roe v Wade, he has to be against Griswold.
Griswold was about a "right to privacy". It relates to the question being asked, which is what the court dealt with in its decision. It was the right to privacy that led to Roe v Wade.
So, is the evasion by Romney because of ignorance, or is it because he is dishonest? I don't mean by dishonesty that Romney is a crook, he is just not a candid man by nature.
After looking through the comments, most of it seemed to be from the left. So, I gather from this that Romney is going to have to come up with a different line in order to get some of their vote, but it probably won't work. They, meaning the Democrats, are loaded for bear on this one.
Incidently, the Democrats can wax indignant over the "right to privacy", but they are hypocrites. If the "right to privacy" was absolute, there could be no IRS. And you know that the Democrats must, must, must have the IRS.
Why couldn't the IRS exist with an absolute right to privacy? Because there is no right to privacy in financial transaction. If there were, the IRS couldn't enforce the revenue tax codes. If the Democrats really believed in a right to privacy, they would favor the abolition of the IRS.
That would be a killer argument, but you can pretty much count on the Republicans not to make it.
No comments:
Post a Comment