Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Romney Was Right the First Time
NRO ^ | 2/27/07 | Kate O'Beirne

Posted on 03/01/2007 2:22:53 PM PST by dervish

On Monday it was reported that Governor Mitt Romney had said something inaccurate. Responding to charges about his change of positions on abortion, he had said in a recent interview that George W. Bush, too, "was pro-choice before he came prolife.” His campaign based that claim on a National Review article (which I wrote) about political converts to the pro-life cause.

The White House denied that Bush was ever pro-choice, and Romney backed down.

But Romney was right.

In 1978, a newspaper in Lubbock, Texas, interviewed Bush during his first congressional campaign. The article reported that Bush, then in a primary fight with a more conservative candidate, opposed both the Human Life Amendment and federal funding of abortion. He was described as in favor of leaving the abortion question up to a woman and her doctor. “‘That does not mean I'm for abortion,’ he said.”

(Excerpt) Read more at article.nationalreview.com ...


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Editorial; News/Current Events; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: abortion; presidentbush; prolife; romney
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-27 next last
Is a change of heart always a flip-flop? Whose position change can be trusted?
1 posted on 03/01/2007 2:22:56 PM PST by dervish
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: dervish
Whose position change can be trusted?

It makes sense to trust someone who changes a long-held position just as they're planning to run for president. That way you can be SURE it's sincere.

2 posted on 03/01/2007 2:29:52 PM PST by JohnnyZ ("I respect and will protect a woman's right to choose" -- Mitt Romney, April 2002)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: dervish
The Flip Flop charge against Romney for his abortion stance is a red herring.

There is no abortion rights group in the world that likes Mitt Romney.
3 posted on 03/01/2007 2:30:27 PM PST by msnimje (Brian Camenker - The Right's own version of marKOS Moulitsas ZĂșniga of Daily Kos)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: dervish

The opinion that really counts is that of the woman who decides to get an abortion, not some male politician's.


4 posted on 03/01/2007 2:31:45 PM PST by Rudder
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Rudder

SInce women are more anti-abortion then men, the eventual laws prohibiting it will be due to them.


5 posted on 03/01/2007 2:34:54 PM PST by pissant (http://www.gohunter08.com/)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: pissant

Little-known fact. For obvious reasons.


6 posted on 03/01/2007 2:36:31 PM PST by BibChr ("...behold, they have rejected the word of the LORD, so what wisdom is in them?" [Jer. 8:9])
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: dervish
Bush opposed Federal funding of abortions.

I've been looking into Romney's Universal Health law he wrote, but I have not seen yet whether the state pays for abortions under the plan (in cases where the individual does not have a private insurance provider). Also, under Mass Universal health care, if a minor child gets an abortion and uses the parent's health care insurance, are the parents notified?

Does anybody know?

These questions will answer many of the skeptics questions about Romney's views on abortion because he would have put his convictions into his health care plan.
7 posted on 03/01/2007 2:37:42 PM PST by DBrow
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Rudder

not if that male politician has the power to nominates a 5th prolife supreme court justice. then his opinion counts for a lot.


8 posted on 03/01/2007 2:39:50 PM PST by brannon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: BibChr

But according to the feminazis, its the patriarchal society trying to control the women. On the flip side, women vote liberal far more often then men, so I'm all for revoking their voting rights. ;o)


9 posted on 03/01/2007 2:40:13 PM PST by pissant (http://www.gohunter08.com/)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: JohnnyZ
It makes sense to trust someone who changes a long-held position just as they're planning to run for president

. Fine, Romney's position moved pro-life, so lets eliminate him. Do we then get a pro-life candidate? No, we get Giuliani whose positions on abortion, and everything else, have always been considerably to the left of Romney and haven't budged. Is this what you want? Or do you have some forlorn hope candidate that is going to save the day?

10 posted on 03/01/2007 2:47:35 PM PST by Plutarch
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Rudder
I agree with you. I agree that only a woman and her doctor and her clergyman should decide whether or not to kill her baby. I also agree that the decision of whether or not to put a Jew in the oven rests with an SS officer and his clergyman. The decision of whether or not to kill a slave should be between a plantation owner and his God. Government has no role to play in these very private, difficult, sensitive, religiously-based decisions. I applaud you for standing up for these fundamental American rights--the right to burn Jews, the right to kill slaves, the right to kill babies.
11 posted on 03/01/2007 2:49:04 PM PST by Arthur McGowan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: dervish
As I understand it, as long as the "Silver Fox" is alive, no Bush family member will do anything serious about abortion. It's true in my family, as well. On the other side of that discussion, descendents of my Grandmother Sadie have chosen life every time there was a quote:inconvenient pregnancy.
12 posted on 03/01/2007 2:57:12 PM PST by Ace's Dad ("There are more important things: Friendship, Bravery...")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: dervish

George Bush changed since '78; Mitt Romney has "changed" since, what?
2006?


13 posted on 03/01/2007 2:58:50 PM PST by Redbob
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Rudder
The opinion that really counts is that of the woman who decides to get an abortion, not some male politician's.

What the heck? Are you saying it would be ok if female politicians decided? If it is a woman's choice it should be a woman's responsibility. PERIOD. If a woman is impregnated against her will, she should file rape charges. A woman's choice means a woman's responsibility, this means no child support payments from men.

14 posted on 03/01/2007 3:00:21 PM PST by Mark was here (Hard work never killed anyone, but why take the chance?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Plutarch
Fine, Romney's position moved pro-life, so lets eliminate him. Do we then get a pro-life candidate? No, we get Giuliani

You people are such fools with your false choices.

Who would you rather have for president, Mao or Stalin? Who would you rather have sex with, Helen Thomas or Bill Clinton?

Hey, guess what -- I have standards, and if you choose to be the next Monica go right ahead, but as for me, no way.

15 posted on 03/01/2007 3:06:35 PM PST by JohnnyZ ("I respect and will protect a woman's right to choose" -- Mitt Romney, April 2002)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: dervish

I believe that Romney is a man of principle and that he has not NOT lied about his positions on various kitchen table issues. I'd be happy to vote for him and may come out of retirement to work on his campaign.


16 posted on 03/01/2007 3:25:12 PM PST by cake_crumb (When "bipartisan study groups" prosecute wars, you get Another Viet Nam)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Redbob

WHAT Romney said was that as governor, he would not change the abortion law. Um...see, it's not his job to do that. It's not the job of the president to do it either. These "right to life" vs. "pro-choice" issues are white elephants. We're more apt to achieve cold fusion (Bill Clintion spent HUNDREDS of millions in tax dollars on that) then we are to achieve a president who can legally buck the Legislative Branch of the government.


17 posted on 03/01/2007 3:28:44 PM PST by cake_crumb (When "bipartisan study groups" prosecute wars, you get Another Viet Nam)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: BibChr
"Little-known fact. For obvious reasons."

I'm a woman and STILL don't understand why more men support abort...sorry, "a woman's right to choose what to do with her own body" than women. What part of "a woman's right to choose.." is getting lost here? And yeah, I know they don't want to have to pay child support...but that STILL doesn't explain why men support what women do with our bodies than women do...AND get AWAY with it!

18 posted on 03/01/2007 3:33:29 PM PST by cake_crumb (When "bipartisan study groups" prosecute wars, you get Another Viet Nam)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Rudder
The opinion that really counts is that of the woman who decides to get an abortion, not some male politician's.

The baby's opinion counts, too.

19 posted on 03/01/2007 3:37:24 PM PST by HIDEK6
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: DBrow
Video of Romney interview w/Charlie rose
20 posted on 03/01/2007 3:43:02 PM PST by cake_crumb (When "bipartisan study groups" prosecute wars, you get Another Viet Nam)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-27 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson