Fredipedia: The Definitive Fred Thompson Reference
WARNING: If you want to join, be aware that this ping list is EXTREMELY active.
Posted on 11/05/2007 3:23:34 PM PST by 2ndDivisionVet
Kathryn thinks Thompson's answer on abortion was muddled. (Between the muddiness and meandering, he's the Mississippi River of political rhetoric.) But I'll just note that for wary pro-lifers, Fred Thompson can say something that Mitt Romney and Rudy Giuliani can't, which is, "look at my record."
Maybe that won't be enough for some people; maybe they'll conclude that Romney is speaking more boldly and making more credible promises. But it seems that one way or another, pro-lifers are going to have to compromise with a less than ideal candidate this cycle. Besides Giuliani's obvious flaws and Romney's conversion on the issue, you've got whatever lingering soreness remains from McCain's "agents of intolerance" speech from 2000 and Huckabee having a challenging road to the nomination.
I know, I know, RON PAUL RON PAUL RON PAUL...
100% pro-life. No Donut on the planet can take that away from him, no matter how loud they scream.
From what I’ve been able to sort out, Romney’s record is mixed. I expect someone will come along shortly and post the positive details of his record; but I’ve also seen some negatives (listed below). Folks are going to have to reconcile the conflicting reports for themselves
He vetoed a stem cell bill, because he opposed the inclusion of a cloning measure...but said he supported research on “unwanted” embryos in IVF clinics.
The healthcare bill he signed included state-funded abortions and also named Planned Parenthood as an overseer: http://www.massresistance.org/romney/prolife.html
Less than two years ago, he voted against the morning after pill on the grounds that it induces abortions, but ruled against his own public health department to force Catholic hospitals to dispense what he himself called an abortifacient:
Romney says no hospitals are exempt from pill law.
Publication: The Boston Globe (Boston, Massachusetts) (via Knight-Ridder/Tribune Business News)
Publication Date: 12/09/2005
COPYRIGHT 2005 The Boston Globe Byline: Scott Helman
Dec. 9—Governor Mitt Romney reversed course on the state’s new emergency contraception law yesterday, saying that all hospitals in the state will be obligated to provide the morning-after pill to rape victims. The decision overturns a ruling made public this week by the state Department of Public Health that privately run hospitals could opt out of the requirement if they objected on moral or religious grounds. Romney had initially supported that interpretation, but he said yesterday that he had changed direction after his legal counsel, Mark D. Nielsen, concluded Wednesday that the new law supersedes a preexisting statute that says private hospitals cannot be forced to provide abortions or contraception.
“And on that basis, I have instructed the Department of Public Health to follow the conclusion of my own legal counsel and to adopt that sounder view,” Romney said at the State House after signing a bill on capital gains taxes. The unexpected decision revived an awkward political situation for Romney, who has staked out more conservative positions on social issues as he gears up for a possible presidential run in 2008. After vetoing the emergency contraception bill this summer, he declared himself firmly “prolife” and faulted the Roe v. Wade decision that legalized abortion. Yesterday, abortion opponents, who see the morning-after pill as a form of abortion, predicted a court battle over the issue, while reproductive rights advocates expressed surprise at the change of heart. Democrats accused the governor of a “flip-flop.”
Romney made his announcement a week before the controversial law takes effect. His decision resolves, for now, a debate that has raged since the Department of Public Health disclosed its position Monday. The department had said that the existing statute allowed private hospitals to sidestep the new requirement if they wished. Massachusetts is one of eight states that require all hospitals to offer emergency contraception to rape victims. A dozen Bay State hospitals that treat rape victims do not provide the morning-after pill, according to a 2004 survey by NARAL Pro-Choice Massachusetts. The interpretation that all hospitals must offer the pill could have the greatest impact on Catholic hospitals that do not provide emergency contraception because it violates their religious tenets.
Catholic hospitals are extremely reluctant to discuss the issue. Christine A. Baratta — a spokeswoman for the Caritas Christi Health Care System, which operates six Catholic hospitals in Massachusetts — would only answer questions via e-mail. She said Caritas will continue to provide emergency contraception to sexual assault victims as long as they’re not pregnant and that the hospitals use a serum blood test to determine pregnancy. It’s unclear how that policy will conform with the law. Caritas caregivers, Baratta said, “are committed to providing sexual assault victims the appropriate, comprehensive, and compassionate psychological, spiritual, and medical care they require.” Representatives of other Catholic hospitals — Mercy Medical Center in Springfield, Saint Vincent Hospital in Worcester, and Saints Memorial Medical Center in Lowell — did not return phone calls yesterday. Mercy and Saints Memorial officials have not returned repeated phone messages this week.
The emergency contraception pill, also called Plan B, is a high dose of hormones that women can take up to five days after sex to prevent pregnancy. Supporters of the new law say rape victims should have broad access to what they consider to be a safe, effective way to prevent unwanted pregnancies. But some conservatives and Catholic groups oppose the morning-after pill because they believe it amounts to abortion in some cases.
The fight over the law is unlikely to end with Romney’s pronouncement. Daniel Avila — associate director for policy and research for the Massachusetts Catholic Conference, the public policy arm of the Boston Archdiocese — said yesterday that despite the new administration position, Catholic hospitals will continue to have a basis for not handing out the morning-after pill. “It’s far from over,” Avila said, arguing that Catholic hospitals can still rely on prior statute because the Legislature did not expressly repeal it in passing the new bill. “As long as that statute was left standing, I think those who want to rely on that statute for protection for what they’re doing have legal grounds.” Avila said it was premature to be “disappointed with any permutation in the debate,” because a legal challenge was certain. “It will be determined in the courtroom,” he said. Attorney General Thomas F. Reilly was asked yesterday if he expected to have to take any enforcement action against hospitals that don’t comply. “I certainly hope that it won’t come to that,” he said.
State Public Health Commissioner Paul Cote Jr. said in an interview Monday that his department felt strongly that the new emergency contraception law did not compel all hospitals to provide the morning-after pill. Romney said earlier through communications director,Eric Fehrnstrom that he supported the department’s ruling because it respected “the views of healthcare facilities that are guided by moral principles on this issue.” Asked yesterday to elaborate on that position, Romney said simply that the law was the law and that the state had to follow it. The governor characterized his own beliefs about emergency contraception this way: “My personal view, in my heart of hearts, is that people who are subject to rape should have the option of having emergency contraception or emergency contraception information.”
“We’re certainly happy to see that the administration decided that clear state laws, even those that this administration might not agree with, really need to be enforced and followed by everyone,” said Mary Lauby, executive director of Jane Doe Inc., a Massachusetts coalition against sexual assault and domestic violence. The chief legislative sponsors of the new law also praised the decision. “I think his lawyers are right,” said state Senator Pamela Resor, an Acton Democrat. “I am pleased to be able to say it.” Lieutenant Governor Kerry Healey, who would seek the GOP gubernatorial nomination if Romney does not run for reelection next year, has been a supporter of emergency contraception and said this week she believes rape victims should be able to get it at any hospital.
Reilly, seeking the Democratic nomination in the governor’s race, took credit yesterday, as did other Democrats and reproductive rights organizations, for pressuring Romney to abandon a policy they said would have only burdened victims. “I think we’re all very happy that the administration has backed off on this,” Reilly told reporters yesterday at a press conference with representatives of Planned Parenthood and NARAL Pro-Choice Massachusetts. “This administration was on a road that would have made it worse for women in that position.”
Gubernatorial hopeful Deval Patrick was one of several Democrats yesterday to attack Romney for what they said was a “flip-flop.” “The governor got to the right decision. But, he took a long way to get there,” Patrick said in a statement. Raphael Lewis of the Globe staff contributed to this report.
Fred has this one right.
Fredipedia: The Definitive Fred Thompson Reference
WARNING: If you want to join, be aware that this ping list is EXTREMELY active.
Yes he does!
I agree. And when it becomes a states’ issue, I believe many will be surprised when each state votes against abortions except for saving the life of a mother, rape, or incest.
No, what those who believe in life are going to have to realize is that the issue of abortion is best tackled at the state level and that they should step back and take a look at the possible gains (now and future) using this route vs. the likelihood of a complete reversal of Roe and subsequent federal legislative application of such through the SCOTUS and congress such as it is today.
Which action looks more achievable in the process of getting rid of high abortion rates in our land? Which action gives the most power to the voters?
Good analysis. The whole loaf approach has gotten us nowhere for years. In fact it's caused us to be labeled as kooks. It's time the absolutists rethink what this strategy has cost us.
I'm as anti-abortion as anyone. But I want abortion stopped and the only practical way at this time is by getting the issue back into the states. No, not every state will outlaw abortion. At least at first. But we'd be far further ahead than we are now.
Seems to me that he was only enforcing preexistent law as mandated by his oath of office. But I must tell you that your sources are not exactly the places I would look to find an accurate description of what happened. The Boston Globe and Massresistance are notorious anti-Romney propaganda machines.
I did not check the massresistance link but based on what you wrote their allegation is not very hard to refute. State funding of abortions have been in place in Massachusetts ever since the Moe v. Secretary of Administration and Finance court decision in 1981. Blaming Romney for it is disingenuous to say the least. He never had even a small fraction of the votes needed to repeal it and he certainly didn’t sign it into law.
You might wanna check this:
http://www.masscitizensforlife.org/index.php?module=pagemaster&PAGE_user_op=view_page&PAGE_id=172
Guess who was in charge in the year with the lowest paid claims for abortions in 10 years..
I like your analysys, thanks for making that easier to explain to my friends.
You’re welcome and thank you. I try to look at steps toward achieving a goal. Most touchdowns aren’t made in 99 yard runs.
I agree that Romney is not responsible for state abortion funding that existed prior to his administration. However, Romney is responsible for signing *new* bills that include state funding of abortion. He rightfully claims the credit for bad bills he vetoed; he has to take responsibility for the bad things in bills he signed. He can’t have it both ways.
As for my sources, Romney’s campaign uses articles from the Boston Globe to support his candidacy — so again, he can’t have it both ways. The fact is, Romney signed a new bill into law that included state funding for abortion and named Planned Parenthood as an overseer. It’s also a fact that Romney overruled his own Dept. of Public Health to force Catholic hospitals to dispense an abortifascient. I’m not saying is record is all bad, because it’s not. But I don’t see his claim is true that he ruled in favor of life in regard to every piece of legislation that came up during his tenure, given the above facts.
“The fact is, Romney signed a new bill into law that included state funding for abortion and named Planned Parenthood as an overseer”
Not a fact. Massresistance is a site owned by an idividual who has a grudge against Mitt Romney. Just because he posted something there doesn’t mean it’s true.
And on the abortifascient issue, you left out the fact that only rape victims were eligible. It’s interesting that for all the talk that he was prochoice his initial reaction was to deny abortions even to rape victims. He reversed course only to comply with the law.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.