Mitt Romney at a fund-raising event hosted by the president of Planned Parenthood
League of Massachusetts Nicki Nichols Gamble (back to camera), in 1994 in Cohasset.
Posted on 12/18/2007 12:31:36 PM PST by jdm
A photograph of GOP presidential contender Mitt Romney at a 1994 Planned Parenthood fundraiser has surfaced, once again raising questions about the former Bay State’s governor’s abortion flip-flopping.
The picture, a copy of which was obtained by the Herald, shows Romney and his wife Ann at a house party fundraiser in Cohasset with Nicki Nichols Gamble, who was the president of the Planned Parenthood League of Massachusetts at the time. Romney has already downplayed ties to Planned Parenthood after revelations that Ann Romney donated $150 to the group.
Gamble said the pic was snapped at an event at GOP activist Eleanor Bleakie’s house and that she “clearly” remembered speaking with Romney at the event. At the time, Romney was running as a pro-choice Republican against U.S. Sen. Edward M. Kennedy (D-Mass.).
“My recollection is that we talked about his senate candidacy and the fact that he was supporting Roe v. Wade and a choice agenda at the time,” Gamble told the Herald. “It was a Planned Parenthood event. We were there to discuss our programs and our advocacy.”
The event was held the same day Ann Romney wrote a check to the pro-choice group. Romney has previously said he had “no recollection” of his wife writing the check to Planned Parenthood.
Romney spokesman Eric Fehrnstrom called the flap “a dog bites man story.”
“Governor Romney used to have a different position on abortion,” Fehrnstrom said. “He is now firmly pro-life and has made it clear that as President he will advocate for a culture that welcomes life and protects the sanctity of life. This is the same path that Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush followed.”
Because of his abortion shift, Romney has been branded a flip-flopper by his GOP primary opponents, as well Democrats. Romney has stated he became pro-life in 2004 during the stem cell debate in Massachusetts.
Beyond attending the event, Romney filled out a 2002 questionaire for the Planned Parenthood Advocacy Fund in which he said he supported Roe v. Wade, sex education in schools and increased access to emergency contraception.
“With Mitt Romney, this has been more than a flip-flop. This has been an extreme makeover,” said Planned Parenthood spokesman Angus McQuilken. “What voters need to know about Mitt Romney is this: where he stands on any issue is always a moving target.”
I’m not a Mitt supporter, but if he says that his position has changed, and that he is pro-life now, what his position was in ‘94 becomes a moot point.
Mitt’s detractors sound like they’re getting desperate.
A “picture is worth a thousand words.”
If you read the entire article you’ll see that he was pro-choice up until at least 2002, perhaps even ‘04.
He needed to say one thing to get elected in Massachusetts, and another to get elected nationally.
That seems like the simplest explanation to me.
Maybe he actually would be pro-life in office, because that is the more expedient position at the national level. But I’m afraid he might just try to dodge the issue.
I did read the entire Mitt-bashing screed, and whether it was ‘94, ‘02 or ‘04, he has clearly stated that his position is pro-life now.
This is insane, I’m not even a supporter of Mitt but here I am defending him against one more piece of ‘gotcha’ journalism posted by someone with an obvious agenda.
I guess it’s a question of honestly changing your view vs. saying what needs to be said to get elected.
Each of us will have to decide on our own which one a candidate fits. George H.W. Bush was pro-abortion before teaming with Reagan.
Good grief, Romney has flip-flopped on virtually every issue. He ran as liberal, governed as a liberal and, within in six short years, now is trying to portray himself as a conservative.
Anyone buying that is fool. Flip is no different than Bill Clinton and would betray conservatives whenever necessary if he got into office because Romney cares only about what is best for him.
He figured that conservatives in "flyover country" were all stupid and would believe him.
I’m pretty sure I was pro-choice until late ‘93 or early ‘94. People change. Romney’s changes just appear more convenient than most.
I’m just curious...is it really possible for a president to change our abortion laws and thinking, in one term?
Yes.
That's not accurate:
In March, 2005, Romney signed an annual proclamation establishing a ''Right to Privacy Day" to mark the anniversary of Baird v. Eisenstadt, a 1972 Supreme Court ruling legalizing birth control for unmarried people. Interestingly, Romney's staff deleted references to Roe v. Wade from the previous year's proclamation. - Boston Globe, 3/25/2005
Romney converted to the pro-life position and conservatism when he decided to run for President.
Was this before or after Fred tried to ditch the GOP platform?
How? Why hasn’t it happened by now, we’ve had pro-life presidents?
So lying to get into office is ok....
Try 2005.
During I think...
He did not govern as a Liberal, Club for Growth and Heritage foundation ranked him quite him. Quit peddling lies in this forum, Romney is a fiscal conservative rated favourably by the Heritage foundation.
Politicians telling lies!!! Impossible
I know, shocking ain’t it...
No, it is just one more instance of a Northeastern liberal moving to the right in the primary to fool voters then in the general election moving back to the left.
Not a moot point, been done so many times in the past that it is now so scrutinized that nobody trust them when they say they have changed their positions and had a come to Jesus moment, because it never last....they lie.
No desperation, just no believability!
That's pretty much what I said on the thread that was locked.
That seems like the simplest explanation to me.
Yep.
What actions exactly does that require to "BE" pro-life in office?
Answer: None.
President can't do anything but sit there and preside over legal abortions until it's overturned.
And even then. The day Roe is overturned, there will still be abortions legal in Mass and California and New York, etc, etc.
Was Reagan Pro-life? While thousands of abortions were performed legally during his exectutive branch tenure. Is Bush Pro-Life?
Will everyone be happy if a "Pro-Life" prez is elected and Roe is not overturned, or a const amend isn't passed? Because a pro-life/pro-death pres doesn't preclude or control either of those things.
You're misinformed or lying:
"His first budget, presented under a cloud of a $2 billion deficit, balanced the budget with some spending cuts, but a $500 million increase in various fees was the largest component of the budget fix." Cato Institute annual Fiscal Policy Report Card - America's Governors, 2004. Romney was rated a "C" overall by Cato.
Conservatives don't push for socialized health care:
Republican Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney is trying to accomplish in his final year in office what Democrats can only dream of these days: boosting government spending on and regulation of health care and requiring individuals to purchase government-designed policies. Romney's plan, which is backed by such liberals as Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, Mass.), is being pitched as a compact between citizens and the state. - National Review Online, 1/26/2006
Why was Mitt lying about his and his wife's funding of Planned Parenthood?
Isn't that a pretty stupid thing to lie about?
Oh well, he got caught again. Bet his supporters will find a new way to rationalize his lies.
I agree he flip-flopped on abortion simply for political reasons. But to be fair..there is no way he would have been elected to Governor of MA with any kind of pro-life position.
Despite his recent change in position..I seriously believe Romney would appoint better judges to the courts than Rudy or McCain, which is the crucial issue pro-lifers need to be concerned about at the presidential level. Had a conservative been named to the court instead of either Souter, O’Connor or Kennedy, Roe v. Wade would have been overturned during the Casey decision.
We are one supreme court justice away from having the votes to overturn Roe v. Wade. John Paul Stevens will be 88 years old in April and he has had some health problems, it is almost a certainty that he will die or retire before 2012.
I’m not a Mitt supporter, but if he says that his position has changed, and that he is pro-life now, what his position was in ‘94 becomes a moot point.I agree. This is some really stupid stuff here. The guy said he previously had that opinion and now here comes the Moron Squad to prove to the world that he previously had that opinion.
It's the kind of stupidity that makes us all look bad.
Fiscal conservatives don't support government funding of abortion, as Romney did.
You honestly think it will be overturned if a pro-life candidate gets elected?
A similar of yours has already been addressed in another thread, you are spamming and lying.
CATO is a Libertarian institution, their endorsement counts for little.
Heritage Foundation and Club for Growth are conservative organisations and they rank Romney quite favourably on his fiscal policies.
Almost.
I absolutely think that with a fifth pro-life vote on the Supreme Court and the right case that Roe v. Wade will be overturned.
You mean that Romney did nothing to halt a program which already was there even before he was governor.
The facts aren't going about this fraud.
Maybe you could tell us, though, how Willard ended up on the top 10 RINO list of Human Events magazine just two short years ago:
http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=11129
Top 10 RINOs (Republicans in Name Only)
8. Gov. Mitt Romney (Mass.) Has said, “I believe that abortion should be safe and legal in this country.” Supports civil unions and stringent gun laws. After visiting Houston, he criticized the city’s aesthetics, saying, “This is what happens when you don’t have zoning.”
Mitt is a flip-flopper. His answer on why he changed positions relates to stem cell research and cloning.
Worse than being a flip-flopper, he claims not to be a flip-flopper. His meet the press interview was full of questions about flip-flopping, and I don’t think he gave good answers and in fact filibustered.
Here are a bunch of negative quotes about Romney from nationalreview. They endorsed him, but have said a bunch of negative things about him. It’s ridiculous that they endorse him given these comments: http://keithcu.com/wordpress/?p=35
Here are 2, the rest are at the website:
Jonah Goldberg:
I’m sorry but Romney still comes across like a well-cast actor in a movie of the week about a guy running for president.
Peter Robinson:
Romney’s Catastrophic Answer: “I’ve always been personally pro-life.” That sure isn’t what he tried to convey in his debate with Ted Kennedy, citing his mother’s pro-choice activities and the death of a family friend as the result of a botched abortion. Courtesy of YouTube, hundreds of thousands have now seen that debate with Kennedy, watching with their own eyes as Romney asserted a personally pro-choice position. But he still can’t admit it? A highly intelligent, immensely accomplished, and hugely likeable candidate. But this? Appalling.
***Because a pro-life/pro-death pres doesn’t preclude or control either of those things.***
Doesn’t the president have a tiny part in the nomination of SCOTUS?
He’s dead Jim.
Sandra Day O'Connor.
(Yeah, that's what we want in a nominee...a candidate with great Gumby flexibility)
Nonsense.
The first day clinton got into office, he reversed Reagan’s Mexico City policy and renewed American tax support for the UN baby killers, including forced abortions in China.
Clinton also repeatedly vetoed the partial birth abortion bill.
Bush, in contrast, has regularly vetoed taxpayer funding for fetal stem cell research, a bogus medical procedure whose only purpose is to make baby killing seem more attractive.
Clinton appointed Ruth Bader Ginsburg to the Supreme Court.
Bush appointed Roberts and Alito.
No, the president can’t put an immediate end to abortion, but he is in a very influential position to increase or restrain it.
Giuliani, despite his empty talk about strict constructionists, would never appoint a pro-life justice to the court. And Romney’s record is dicey. What would he do if there was serious resistance to another conservative justice in the Senate? Back down, probably, and blame it on the Democrats, exactly as he did while governor of Massachusetts.
Posting same thing thread after thread is Spamming and you do that quite well. You are a fraud for doing so.
Heritage Foundation and Club for Growth are conservative organisations, CATO is not. If you think Libertarian positions are important then i suggest that you get on the Ron-Paul train and support his candidacy.
Stop pasting cut and paste links and try to do some logical thinking if it is possible for you to do so. There is NO evidence that Mitt is a fiscal liberal , he is a solid fiscal conservative by cutting taxes, govt programs,stimulating growth and raising fees to balance the budget.
No, I mean Mitt came out and said he actively supported government funding of abortion when he was seeking endorsements from pro-abortion groups.
What kind of fiscal conservative says hey, we've got high taxes and a budget deficit, but the government really needs to pay for abortions!
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.