How Pro-Life Is Mitt Romney?
Posted on November 18, 2007
Since Mr. Huckabee brought up the pro-life topic, I thought I’d take a look at where some of the other candidates stand. We know that Rudy admits proudly he is pro-choice. We know where Huckabee and Thompson stand. So where does Mitt Romney stand?
The answer is that he stands all over the place. I went over to Prolife Blogs, and Marybeth T. Hagan pointed me to this interesting information.
Romney’s Massachusetts health care plan says “no.” The plan covers abortion. What kind of Pro-lifer thinks abortion should be part of his health care plan? Romney signed this bill into law after he claims he had a discussion with an anonymous Harvard doctor wherein he discovered abortion was morally wrong.
Would it be too cynical to suggest the Harvard doctor was a PHD at the Kennedy School of Government who gave him a lot of computer printouts on Republican voters showing they don’t like abortion? Was it then he “discovered” abortion was wrong ( i.e. the wrong position for a conservative presidential candidate)?
Unlike Reagan who had a true turnaround on abortion, Romney has ping-ponged back and forth on this issue for years. As a 1994 U.S. Senate candidate, he said he had believed for nearly a quarter century that abortion should be “safe and legal.” Yet by 2001, the Salt Lake City Tribune quoted him as saying, “I do not wish to be labeled pro-choice.”
A year later, running for governor in Massachusetts, Romney was definitely Pro-choice and promised he would not touch any abortion law. During a candidate’s debate, he was so firmly Pro-choice, he renounced an endorsement from Massachusetts’ Citizens for Life.
But last year in South Carolina, a modern day miracle occurred. Romney declared, “I am firmly Pro-life…I was always for life.”
Here he is in 2002.
Hmmmm.
» Filed Under ACLU, Abortion, News, Politics As Usual, Video
Trackback URL
Comments
10 Responses to “How Pro-Life Is Mitt Romney?”
Affiliations
The Giants
-
Advertise
Donate
Steal Me
Our Store
Click the design to visit our store and help Stop the ACLU!
More blogs about the ACLU
I know that Mitt Romney is a man of his word. He will keep his promises. If Mitt Romney had never won in Massachutes he would never have had the opportunity to accomplish so much good for that State. He chose a battle….he promised not to change the existing abortion laws in the State. He did not promise to vote pro-choice on any decision that crossed his desk. So he kept the promise he made to the liberal electorate and he did not break any promise when he vetoed new policy proposals that would be pro-choice.
You can put together a youtube montage of just about anything to make anybody look like a flip-flopper. The truth is that Mitt Romney, as a member of the LDS church, always believed that abortion was morally wrong (as Giuliani does) and changed his mind about whether or not to legislate his personal morality (as Giuliani has not). So to say that “he had a discussion with an anonymous Harvard doctor wherein he discovered abortion was morally wrong” is inaccurate, because he already knew it was morally wrong. But, since he had already conceded to his constituency that he wouldn’t overturn any existing laws, he did the honorable thing and kept his word. However, as his record proves, he opposed all further efforts to expand Mass. abortion laws. The provision for abortion in his health care plan was a condition of the liberal congress in order to get it passed. It was not part of his original plan.
Mitt Romney changed his mind on abortion. His change of mind was sincere. So was Reagan’s. Would that the pro-life movement have more converts like them!
Right now, I don’t think I can trust him. We will see how it all goes.
Out of curiousity, what could conceivably happen that would make him trustworthy?
The problem most people have, Jon, is that he was willing to make such compromises. If he were to become President, he would face large voting blocs that strenuously support the pro-choice position. Would he fight them or take the path of least resistance again?
Oh, and a newsflash for all you friends of Mitt: Socialism still doesn’t work.
Jeff, we will see what compromises, if any, I decide I’m willing to make if he becomes the nominee. I will have to weigh out whether its worth a vote to stop who that nominee runs against.
Also Jeff, are you pro-life?
No doubt. The general election is a whole ‘nother ball of wax. The question of the day is what compromises are you willing to make in the primary?
Here is an interesting site that details candidates positions on the pro-life issue. http://prolifestance.com/
Jeff, the compromises Mitt Romney did NOT make as governor, i.e. all the pro-abortion legislation he vetoed during his term, more than overshadow a compromise made to pass the most innovative market-oriented health care plan this nation has seen yet. Your characterization of it as “socialism” is grossly misleading. In short, the compromise you speak of is the mark of a judicious leader and should not raise doubts about Mitt’s commitment to the pro-life movement. Unlike his situation in Massachesetts, he won’t be the only pro-lifer in Washington.
Mormons are trained as missionaries at the MTC (Missionary Training Center) to tell you what you want to hear. And so it is now with Mitt Romney and murdering the unborn.
But Mormonism does not teach that life begins at conception. Rather, Joseph Smith taught that the fetus isn’t alive until it kicks. That’s when the “spirit baby” from the Mormon “pre-existence” comes to inherit the body. This is consistent with (current) Mormon theology.
For more on this, see romneyforpresident.townhall.com/
Like Mormonism, the blog isn’t what it seems.
(Funny photos too!)