Posted on 07/26/2005 5:28:45 AM PDT by bitt
Three years after expressing support for ''the substance" of Roe v. Wade, Governor Mitt Romney today criticizes the landmark ruling that legalized abortion and says the states should decide separately whether to allow it.
Romney outlines his abortion position in an opinion article today in The Boston Globe, a day after he vetoed a bill that would expand access to the so-called ''morning after" pill, a high dose of hormones that women can take to prevent pregnancy up to five days after sex.
In a written response to a questionnaire for candidates in 2002, Romney told Planned Parenthood that he supported ''the substance of the Supreme Court decision in Roe v. Wade," according to the group. Today, Romney describes himself as a ''pro-life governor" who wishes ''the laws of our nation could reflect that view." Calling the country ''divided over abortion," he says states ''should determine their own abortion laws and not have them dictated by judicial mandate."
''I understand that my views on laws governing abortion set me in the minority in our Commonwealth," Romney says in the op-ed article. ''I am prolife. I believe that abortion is the wrong choice, except in cases of incest, rape, and to save the life of the mother. I wish the people of America agreed, and that the laws of our nation could reflect that view."
Romney said he had vetoed the emergency contraception bill to fulfill his 2002 campaign promise not to change state abortion laws.
But supporters of the measure, pointing out that Romney has also pledged to support expanded access to emergency contraception, accused the GOP governor of trying to burnish his conservative credentials for a possible presidential run.
The bill that Romney vetoed would allow trained pharmacists to dispense the morning-after pill without a prescription and would...
(Excerpt) Read more at boston.com ...
And what is ironic is that Barry "AuH20" would not have agreed with your position!
BTW, let the farmer speak for himself, or are you the spokesman for the Mitt is a disaster faction?
"So you'd condemn the woman to carry the rapists "incubus" for 9 months then force her to give birth to it."
Then continue to lose the abortion battle. I'm trying to get pro-choice/abortion supporters to concede that a heart-beat other than the mother's proves the personhood of the baby. That's the tactic that should be used. When our side is shrill, we get tuned out. We get lumped in with Salvsi and then I have to say that I was against murder before I was against abortion. You cannot win an argument when you have to spend time explaining what you are not. Make them concede that live babies are live babies. Only then can America extricate itself from the peculiar institution of abortion.
"And what is ironic is that Barry "AuH20" would not have agreed with your position!"
I wasn't aware that, in this society, we condemned innocent children to death, or any other penalty, for the crimes of their fathers. In fact, I thought it was specifically prohibited in the constitution (look up the meaning of the legal phrase "to work corruption of blood" sometime).
"He has never flip-flopped on abortion that I know of."
The last "Republican" governor we had here in MA was Ed King.
Final Authority, you are the one responding with hatred and bigotry.
Just because someone doesn't like a liberal Mormon flip-flopper doesn't make them a bigot.
Why are you so eager to play the victim card?
No.
Incubus?
The baby is a human being innocent of any crime.
How does it help anyone to have the rape victim kill her own child?
From today's Boston Globe:
Why I vetoed contraception bill
By Mitt Romney | July 26, 2005
YESTERDAY I vetoed a bill that the Legislature forwarded to my desk. Though described by its sponsors as a measure relating to contraception, there is more to it than that. The bill does not involve only the prevention of conception: The drug it authorizes would also terminate life after conception.
Signing such a measure into law would violate the promise I made to the citizens of Massachusetts when I ran for governor. I pledged that I would not change our abortion laws either to restrict abortion or to facilitate it. What's more, this particular bill does not require parental consent even for young teenagers. It disregards not only the seriousness of abortion but the importance of parental involvement and so would weaken a protection I am committed to uphold.
I have spoken with medical professionals to determine whether the drug contemplated under the bill would simply prevent conception or whether it would also terminate a living embryo after conception. Once it became clear that the latter was the case, my decision was straightforward. I will honor the commitment I made during my campaign: While I do not favor abortion, I will not change the state's abortion laws.
I understand that my views on laws governing abortion set me in the minority in our Commonwealth. I am prolife. I believe that abortion is the wrong choice except in cases of incest, rape, and to save the life of the mother. I wish the people of America agreed, and that the laws of our nation could reflect that view. But while the nation remains so divided over abortion, I believe that the states, through the democratic process, should determine their own abortion laws and not have them dictated by judicial mandate.
Because Massachusetts is decidedly prochoice, I have respected the state's democratically held view. I have not attempted to impose my own views on the prochoice majority.
For all the conflicting views on this issue, it speaks well of our country that we recognize abortion as a problem. The law may call it a right, but no one ever called it a good, and, in the quiet of conscience people of both political parties know that more than a million abortions a year cannot be squared with the good heart of America.
You can't be a prolife governor in a prochoice state without understanding that there are heartfelt and thoughtful arguments on both sides of the question. Many women considering abortions face terrible pressures, hurts, and fears; we should come to their aid with all the resourcefulness and empathy we can offer. At the same time, the starting point should be the innocence and vulnerability of the child waiting to be born.
In some respects, these convictions have evolved and deepened during my time as governor. In considering the issue of embryo cloning and embryo farming, I saw where the harsh logic of abortion can lead -- to the view of innocent new life as nothing more than research material or a commodity to be exploited.
I have also observed the bitterness and fierce anger that still linger 32 years after Roe v. Wade. The majority in the US Supreme Court's Casey opinion assured us this would pass away as Americans learned to live with abortion on demand. But this has proved a false hope.
There is much in the abortion controversy that America's founders would not recognize. Above all, those who wrote our Constitution would wonder why the federal courts had peremptorily removed the matter from the authority of the elected branches of government. The federal system left to us by the Constitution allows people of different states to make their own choices on matters of controversy, thus avoiding the bitter battles engendered by ''one size fits all" judicial pronouncements. A federalist approach would allow such disputes to be settled by the citizens and elected representatives of each state, and appropriately defer to democratic governance.
Except on matters of the starkest clarity like the issue of banning partial-birth abortions, there is not now a decisive national consensus on abortion. Some parts of the country have prolife majorities, others have prochoice majorities. People of good faith on both sides of the issue should be able to make and advance their case in democratic forums -- with civility, mutual respect, and confidence that democratic majorities will prevail. We will never have peace on the abortion issue, much less a consensus of conscience, until democracy is allowed to work its way.
Mitt Romney is governor of Massachusetts.
You know darn well that Mitt Romney has praised Roe v. Wade and advocated legal abortion consistently for many years.
Don't lie. I've confronted you with the evidence repeatedly.
Why do you feel such a need to carry water for a fellow Mormon? Can Mormons do no wrong in your mind?
Please explain how I am losing the abortion battle. I haven't even told you where I stand. Mitt is working to fill two roles, one, he is the chief executive in a state of a country where abortion is legal and where he is required to enforce the law, and two, he is a man of conviction and believes he will not expand the ability of a society to take the life of the unborn.
That I agree with him on. Explain to me how that is losing the abortion battle.
Sorry, my friend. You're barking up the wrong tree there, and if you knew the details of my personal and business life, you would be very ashamed about these "insightful" comments of yours about someone you've never interacted with.
The problem with Romney is that he is not someone who is going to galvanize the GOP base to crawl over broken glass for him. He just isn't. And that is absolutely necessary for a GOP win.
For some in the base, perhaps the reason would be that they don't like folks in the LDS church. For most, like me (look at the post I was responding to), it is going to be that he is just too moderate. I would certainly vote for Romney were he the nominee, and I'd probably write his campaign a check. But he'd lose. Big time.
We need a conservative governor from a southern or western state who can galvanize the base. Romney ain't it. You can choose to play the victim game if that's role you relish in life, but the LDS people in my life are strong men and women who absolutely do not.
Not a Mormon, or rather a Latter day Saint, and if you reviewed my posts over the years you would know that. So either you are ignorant or you intentionally lied, which is it?
Maybe it has something to do with the women who have died.
Sounds like the views of the cold-hearted left. Kill a baby, save a whale.
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.