Overturning Roe v. Wade?

In the editorial I will be using, titled "If Roe v. Wade Goes," which was published by the New York Times, the unstated writer discusses presidential candidate Mitt Romney's stance on abortion, and what repercussions the overturning of the Supreme Court decision of Roe v. Wade would have. According to Romney, abortion should only be allowed in certain cases such as rape, incest, or if the birth puts the mother's life at risk. If Romney were to win the election, and the court decision was overturned, then it would be very likely that abortion would be made illegal in most states, especially where republicans are the majority. The author of this editorial writes that the effects of this occurrence would not be good, because women would still find a way to conduct an abortion, whether it involves leaving her respective state to a place where it is legal, leaving the country, or even abort the fetus themselves, which would be very dangerous to the health of the woman.The New York Times writer then goes on to give yet another example of Romney being flaky on this campaign, when he writes that when Romney was running for the Senate in 1994, he was an advocate of the Roe v. Wade ruling, and he even once spoke of a young woman, who was also a close relative, who died from complications from an illegal abortion. Also, the family of the young woman even requested that donations be made to Planned Parenthood, the organization that Romney and his running mate, Paul Ryan, are currently trying to dissolve.

In the article, the writer, who the reader can assume is not a conservative, first starts out by discussing Romney's prejudice on abortion, and how it would affect the country. But, in the final two paragraphs the writer begins to really show his emotion towards the subject when he opens up his opinionated section of the editorial with, "We do not need to guess about the brutal consequences of overturning Roe." The authors purpose in writing this article is obvious: to appeal to anti-conservatives by discussing an issue that most liberals feel strongly about, and revealing Mitt Romney's ideals, which one can assume are intended to appeal to the strict conservative demographic. Personally, I am aligned with the author on this subject. Romney and Paul's stance on abortion is outdated, and it has no place in our evolving society. In my opinion, it should be up to the woman with the fetus inside her womb to decide if she wants to give birth to a child or not. Also, a point that I feel very strongly about, is that religion should never be involved in politics. Although religion does set a good moral value system for a nation, it also holds back the society from advancing, and even takes away certain rights that should not be tethered with, such as the right to abort.

The article is HERE