The Best Choice Is Also a Good Choice

It would be foolish to imagine that social conservatism can achieve any significant success without a president who strongly supports social conservative positions. The reason for this lies primarily in the president’s power to appoint judges. Social policy in America has been largely shaped by the federal judiciary, which has imposed an unrelenting liberal agenda on a reluctant people. The law, as it concerns the issues of abortion, religious freedom, pornography, gay rights, sexual license, family, and marriage, has been shaped and even determined by judicial fiat. Presidential leadership is vital to reversing these affronts.

There is no doubt that Governor Mitt Romney is running unabashedly as a pro-life and pro-family candidate for president and that he wants Roe v. Wade overturned. But his sincerity is being questioned because, as he has acknowledged, he has changed his mind on these issues. In 1994, in his race against Teddy Kennedy for the U.S. Senate, and in his 2002 race for governor of Massachusetts, Romney was pro-choice on abortion. So it is right to question him about the sincerity of his conversion.

Romney’s conversion was less abrupt than is often portrayed. In his 1994 Senate run, Romney was endorsed by Massachusetts Citizens for Life and kept their endorsement, even though he declared himself to be pro-choice, because he supported parental-consent laws, opposed taxpayer-funded abortion and mandatory abortion coverage under a national health insurance plan, and was against the Freedom of Choice Act, which would have codified Roe v. Wade by federal statute. In 1994, NARAL’s Kate Michelman pronounced him a phony pro-choicer. “Mitt Romney, stop pretending,” she demanded. “We need honesty in our public life, not your campaign of deception to conceal your anti-choice views,” she said. Some conservative Boston newspaper columnists view it similarly. As Jeff Jacoby of the Boston Globe put it: “Romney’s very public migration rightward over the last few years is . . . intended not to hide his real views but to liberate them. In 1994, Romney struck me as an extraordinarily bright, talented, and decent man — and a political neophyte who fell for the canard that the only way a conservative could win in Massachusetts was by passing for liberal.”

In 2001, Romney said, in a letter to the Salt Lake Tribute, that he believes that “abortion is the wrong choice, but under the law it is a choice people have.” And in the 2002 governor’s race, Romney made clear that “on a personal basis, I don’t favor abortion,” that he opposed lowering the age at which minors could obtain abortions without parental consent to 16, and that he supported a ban on partial-birth abortions, but that, as governor, he would “protect the right of a woman to choose under the law of the country and the laws of the commonwealth.” As one Boston commentator observed, Romney’s “abortion statements sound as much like someone trying to wrestle with the issue as someone trying to weasel his way out of it.”

Romney now says that he was wrong about abortion in those years, that his position has “evolved and deepened” as governor, and that he is “firmly pro-life.”

The evaluation of Romney’s conversion needs to be considered in light of the pro-life movement’s consistent effort over the years to educate, and thereby convert, people to the cause. The pro-life movement has aggressively promoted conversion and has achieved great success in doing so. Today, for the first time since Roe v. Wade, a majority of Americans identify themselves as pro-life, and many of these are converts, some who have even had abortions themselves. Ronald Reagan and George H. W. Bush, both pro-life presidents, were converts. In 1967, Reagan, as governor of California, signed into law the nation’s most permissive abortion law, and, in 1980, Bush ran as an unabashedly pro-choice candidate. Both were unswerving in their support for the pro-life position as president, and Reagan’s ability and willingness to articulate the pro-life position was invaluable.

Yet how is the sincerity of a conversion to be measured? There are two salient considerations in this regard: first, some defining moment that prompted a change of heart; second, the fact that deeds speak louder than words. Romney’s conversion exhibits both. First, Romney has had a life-changing event. It was when he was governor and researchers were proposing embryonic cloning at Harvard. As he recounts it, one of the researchers said that there “wasn’t a moral issue, because . . . they destroy the embryos at 14 days.” Romney said that “it struck me that we have so cheapened the value of human life in this country through our Roe v. Wade decision that someone could think that there is no moral issue to have racks and racks of living human embryos and then destroying them at 14 days.”

This was not a trivial matter for Romney and his family. As he told the New York Times at the time, “My wife has MS and we would love for there to be a cure for her disease and for the diseases of others. But there is an ethical boundary that should not be crossed.”

And Romney, as governor, acted on these convictions. He vetoed an embryonic cloning bill; he vetoed a bill that would allow the “morning after pill” to be acquired without a prescription on the grounds that it is an abortifacient; he vetoed legislation which would have redefined Massachusetts longstanding definition of the beginning of human life from fertilization to implantation; and he fought to promote abstinence education in the classroom. One should not underestimate the tremendous political price that Governor Romney paid in Massachusetts for these acts. Both conviction and courage are necessary for effective pro-life leadership, and Romney, in office, displayed both.

These actions as governor have lead leaders of the most important social conservative groups in Massachusetts, including Massachusetts Citizens for Life, Massachusetts Family Institute, and the Knights of Columbus, to observe that, while previous comments by Romney “are, taken by themselves, obviously worrisome to social conservatives including ourselves, they do not dovetail with the actions of Governor Romney from 2003 until now — and those actions positively and demonstrably impacted the social climate of Massachusetts.” They conclude that Romney “demonstrat[ed] [his] solid social conservative credentials by undertaking” these actions, and has therefore “proven that he shares our values, as well as our determination to protect them.”

Many social conservatives do not share Romney’s Mormon faith, but his faith should be viewed by social conservatives as a good sign, not as a matter of concern. The Mormon religion, while having tenets that Christians do not share, is profoundly conservative in its support for life, family, and marriage. Thus, Romney’s religion reinforces, rather than conflicts with, his conversion. All people of faith believe that the best public officials are those with God, not man, at the center of their lives.

It cannot be forgotten, however, that this is also a political question, a matter of practical choices. And what are these choices? Senator John McCain and Mayor Rudy Giuliani are the other leading candidates for the Republican nomination. Barring the unlikely emergence of some conservative alternative in the next few months, the choice will be between Giuliani, McCain, and Romney. While both Giuliani and McCain would be vastly superior to any of the prospective Democrats, there are serious questions about the policy positions of both, and not just on social conservative issues.

Giuliani is simply not a social conservative. He is pro-choice, pro-partial birth abortion, and pro-special rights for homosexuals. He is also pro-gun control. Senator McCain opposes the federal marriage amendment, supports embryonic stem-cell research, and was a ringleader of the Gang-of-14 compromise that made it easier for Democrats to block President Bush’s judicial nominees. Also, he is the principal sponsor of the McCain-Feingold bill, which imposes severe limits on the participation of citizens groups and political parties in our representative democracy.

It is unlikely that there will be any social conservative in this race to rival Giuliani and McCain other than Governor Romney. And Romney’s record on other conservative issues is impressive as well. He has demonstrated his administrative ability in successfully managing a variety of organizations in the private (his venture-capital firm), the nonprofit (Salt Lake City Olympics), and the public (as governor) arenas. Romney’s views on economic and foreign affairs are thoroughly conservative, his ability to effect them is enviable, and, just as importantly, his skill at articulating them is superb.

Whatever one thinks about Romney’s conversion, and I believe it is sincere, the fact remains that Romney opposes public funds for embryo-destructive research that McCain and Giuliani support. Romney has fought for a federal marriage amendment and McCain and Giuliani oppose one. There is the simple question of whether social conservatives want someone who is currently on their side or someone who currently opposes them.

— James Bopp Jr. is a lawyer who focuses on nonprofit corporate and tax law, on campaign finance and election law, and on life issues. He most recently joined the Romney Presidential campaign as a special adviser on life issues, an unpaid position.

“Romney’s conversion was less abrupt than is often portrayed. In his 1994 Senate run, Romney was endorsed by Massachusetts Citizens for Life and kept their endorsement, even though he declared himself to be pro-choice, because he supported parental-consent laws, opposed taxpayer-funded abortion and mandatory abortion coverage under a national health insurance plan, and was against the Freedom of Choice Act, which would have codified Roe v. Wade by federal statute.”

This is worth considering.

"Yet how is the sincerity of a conversion to be measured? There are two salient considerations in this regard: first, some defining moment that prompted a change of heart; second, the fact that deeds speak louder than words. Romney’s conversion exhibits both. First, Romney has had a life-changing event. It was when he was governor and researchers were proposing embryonic cloning at Harvard. As he recounts it, one of the researchers said that there “wasn’t a moral issue, because . . . they destroy the embryos at 14 days.” Romney said that “it struck me that we have so cheapened the value of human life in this country through our Roe v. Wade decision that someone could think that there is no moral issue to have racks and racks of living human embryos and then destroying them at 14 days.”
This was not a trivial matter for Romney and his family. As he told the New York Times at the time, “My wife has MS and we would love for there to be a cure for her disease and for the diseases of others. But there is an ethical boundary that should not be crossed.”

The above bears repeating.

Thanks, much for the ping, redgirl. It is good you noticed the article.

In 2002, Romney was vehemently attacked by his Pro-Choice Opponent, Shannon O’Brien about being weak on his “Pro-Choice credentials”. The Mass Citizens for Life endorsement was a major charge against him, and the Boston Globe went along with the accusations, and this whole thing culminated in that video that is going around Youtube now at the debate with Tim Russert. It was there that he made his famous Personally Pro-Life, Pro-Choice statement, and advocated a Moratorium on Abortion Law changes during his Governorship. (Which he followed throughout his tenure) I dont remember hearing much about Abortion after that, but that was after O’Brien was revealed to have switched her position from Pro-Life to Pro-Choice when she ran for Statewide office in the early 90’s. (Before then she was a Pro-Life catholic State Rep) Thus she couldnt really go after him anymore.

I have migrated from Romney-NO WAY to an admiration for the man if not yet whole-hearted support. Very important in this movement was hearing his recent speech about the war. He is the one who appears to best understand who the enemy is and what is required to defeat that enemy. Even Giuliani is stuck in Iraq. He seems to believe that the war is limited to Iraq and Afghanistan and will be won or lost there. None of the rest of the candidates can see the elephant that is Iran and the elephant’s rapidly growing brood that is becoming the identity of Islam itself in the rest of the Islamic world.

The writer makes a good case for Mr. Romney, but I don't accept the assertion that the race must inevitably reduce to a choice among Mr. Romney, Mr. McCain, and Mr. Giuliani. We are months away from the first primary, and many people are not only undecided but have not even begun to consider the candidates. There is still time for good candidates to build support for a strong campaign.

Bill

I’m supporting Romney now. If Thompson comes into the race I will continue to support Romney. I wish I could point to more convincing 2nd Amendment credentials, but I am satisfied with his pro-life stance.

Giuliani showed a commitment to the pro-choice, anti-gun positions that is of a whole other magnitude and character. At first I equated Giuliani’s positions with Romney’s, but that was incorrect.

I think that Romney has the skill set to navigate the international and domestic political minefield. The executive experience is something that shouldn’t be discounted. I think he has the potential to be a really outstanding president, something that I have doubts about with Thompson. I would, however, vote for Thompson if he became the nominee.

I had a smiliar conversion. I was raised Democrat (Yup, a rare breed among Mormons). I was taught the contradictory stance of personally pro-life but that others could choose by my Mother. (Democrats belive contradictory things sometimes, fancy that.) I voted for Bill Clinton. As I got older, thanks to my older brother, I converted to Repbulicanism (then to Conspiracy theory Constitutionalist, but that’s another story).

My Mormon faith actually helped in that conversion to decipher between pieces of my political ideology which were not congruent with my religious belief. My mom was a good Christlike woman but as the scriptures say, even the elect can be deceived.

I really do believe Romney’s conversion as it mirrors mine. God can line up little pieces or events in your life that bring you to new enlightenment, like a light turning on in a room. It is easy to see afterward where your life was not in line with God’s love, but when you are living in it is not always so easy to discern.

In his ecclesiastical roles in the past as a Bishop and Stake President, Romney counseled women not to have abortions. I think God lined up the stars for Him to come to an epiphany about the issue to bring his political understanding in line with his personal.

Mitt Romney likes Duncan Hunter as well and said he learned from Him during the debates. He didn't mention anyone else.

Romney was interviewed by Michael Medved the next day here is a summary I found from..Elect Romney In 2008 - The Unofficial Blog!

"GMR spoke to the superficiality generated by a debate with 10 candidates in 90 minutes. He said he wished he could have had the opportunity to speak to the many critical issues facing our nation. He said he learned from some of the other candidates' answers and that he liked some of the answers of Duncan Hunter."

I haven't found the transcript of the show. I'm interested in the specifics of what he said if anyone else out there can find the transcript.

In 2002, Romney was vehemently attacked by his Pro-Choice Opponent, Shannon O’Brien about being weak on his “Pro-Choice credentials”.

Thankfully Romney's radical pro-abortion running mate, Kerry Healey, came to Romney's defense, declaring "There isn't a dime of difference between Mitt Romney's position on choice and Shannon O'Brien."

Of course in 1994 Ted Kennedy similarly questioned Mitt's pro-abortion credentials, and Mitt attacked Ted Kennedy for once being pro-life, pointing out that he (Mitt) had been consistently pro-abortion for over 30 years.

Romney’s conversion was less abrupt than is often portrayed.

Romney has always tried to play both sides of the issue. In 1994 - which you cite -- he pandered to pro-lifers with the personally opposed nonsense and some restrictions, while pandering to pro-choicers by attacking Ted Kennedy from the LEFT on abortion (AND gays), saying Ted had once been pro-life but Mitt had always been consistently pro-abortion.

Mitt Romney's Conversion
"His pro-life turn is more recent than you think."

HINT: he claims to have had an epiphany in November 2004, around the time he decided to give up trying to run for reelection, and instead run for president.

Again with the spam JZ? You anti-Romney trolls are truly embarassing with your half-truths, old news and distortions.

We are supposed to welcome converts to our cause, not repel them. We want to grow our party, not shrink it.

If your perfect candidate is so wonderful, you shouldn't have to be so worried and consumed with spending all of your time spinning half-truths about ours.

Go support your perfect candidate. We don't need your same old anti-Romney spam on each and every Romney thread.

You anti-Romney trolls are truly embarassing with your half-truths, old news and distortions.

O'Reely?

Half-truths is what you call well-documented and undisputed quotes?

Old news is anything before Nov2004/early2005 when Romney decided to run for President and changed all his views?

How come you can never point to any examples of distortion when you cry about well-documented facts and quotes being cited?

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.