Four ways the presidential election could change reproductive politics

Setting aside all of the claims and counterclaims of the candidates and all related white noise, there are four concrete ways that the 2012 presidential election could cause policy changes on abortion, contraception, and family planning.

If Barack Obama is reelected, little will change. If Mitt Romney is elected, I predict the following:

1. The contraceptive mandate, issued by the Department of Health and Human Services, would be withdrawn. 
2. Barriers to defunding Planned Parenthood could be removed. As it is now, federal courts are stopping the complete defunding of the organization (i.e., withdrawing all federal funding) due to their interpretation of federal legislative language. With Romney as president, that language could be modified (assuming the changes could get past a Democratic Senate).
3. The composition of the federal judiciary, particularly the United States Supreme Court, would be modified through appointments. If, say, Stephen Breyer or Ruth Bader Goldberg retired, President Romney would not have much difficulty pushing through someone who would be hostile to abortion rights. 
4. International family planning would be affected negatively. If nothing else, President Romney would almost certainly reinstate the "global gag rule" (or "Mexico City Policy") which is a stipulation in American funding for international family planning organizations. When the global gag rule was in place (1985-1993; 2001-2009), any organization receiving U.S. funds could not use any of their resources to provide information or advice about abortion, nor provide abortions, with exceptions for rape and incest. Presidents Clinton and Obama lifted the stipulation.

There are many reasons to vote-- fulfilling one's minimum civic duty, for starters. But if you care in particular about reproductive issues (pro-life, pro-choice, or somewhere in between), then there is a direct incentive to make an extra effort to participate in this election.