Free Republic
Browse · Search
Smoky Backroom
Topics · Post Article

To: Colofornian

“There was a bill that came up in Illinois that was called the ‘Born Alive’ bill that purported to require life-saving treatment to such infants. And I did vote against that bill,” Obama said Tuesday. “The reason was that there was already a law in place in Illinois that said that you always have to supply life-saving treatment to any infant under any circumstances, and this bill actually was designed to overturn Roe v. Wade, so I didn’t think it was going to pass constitutional muster.”

Romney has changed his views on Abortion, Obama has doubled down on his!


1,271 posted on 08/12/2012 7:44:16 AM PDT by fabreeze (I am a broken glass Conservative..I will crawl over broken glass to vote against Obama!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1254 | View Replies ]


To: fabreeze
Romney has changed his views on Abortion..

Look at the chart above carefully -- or just read below:

Romney said he changed his mind on pro-life November of 2004.

Now what did he do or say, from a pro-abort perspective, in 2005-2007?

May 27, 2005: Mitt affirms his commitment to being "pro-choice" at a press conference. ("I am absolutely committed to my promise to maintain the status quo with regards to laws relating to abortion and choice.")
= Assessment: OK, this is at least a flop from November '04!

What about his gubernatorial record 2003-2006? Mitt later says his actions were ALL pro-life. So I assume somewhere in 2005 or so were pro-life decisions. ("As governor, I’ve had several pieces of legislation reach my desk, which would have expanded abortion rights in Massachusetts. Each of those I vetoed. Every action I’ve taken as the governor that relates to the sanctity of human life, I have stood on the side of life.")
= Assessment: So, then THESE ACTIONS were not only a reversal of his 2002 commitment, but his May 27, 2005 press conference commitment. So "flipping" is beginning to be routine

April 12, 2006: April 12, 2006--Mitt signs his "Commonwealth Care" into existence, thereby expanding abortion access/taxpayer funded abortions for women--including almost 2% of the females of his state who earn $75,000 or more. Assessment: (Wait a minute, I thought he told us post-'06 that ALL of his actions were "pro-life?"). Also, not only this, but as governor, Romney could exercise veto power to portions of Commonwealth Care. Did Romney exercise this power? (Yes, he vetoed Sections 5, 27, 29, 47, 112, 113, 134 & 137). What prominent section dealing with Planned Parenthood as part of the "payment policy advisory board" did Romney choose NOT to veto? (Section 3) That section mandates that one member of MassHealth Payment Policy Board must be appointed by Planned Parenthood League of MA. (See chapter 58 of the Acts of 2006, section 3 for details).

If you want to see the abortion damage of RomneyCare in MA, see: RomneyCare Now Funding FREE Abortions: A Disqualifier for Mitt Romney’s Candidacy [Enabler Mitt]

Early December 2007: You'd think a full year into campaign mode as a "pro-lifer," Mitt would have his talking points down by then...But no: December 4, 2007:

Romney: ...surplus embryos...Those embryos, I hope, could be available for adoption for people who would like to adopt embryos. But if a parent decides they would want to donate one of those embryos for purposes of research, in my view, that's acceptable. It should not be made against the law." (Source: Candidates Reveal Their Biggest Mistakes) Any "inquiring minds" want to try wrapping their minds around how a politician in one sentence mentions "adopting" embryos out (yes, a great thing to mention!) -- but then in the very NEXT breath says if a "PARENT" wants to be "pro-choice" (Mitt used the word "decides" which is what "pro-choicers" say they want) "to donate one of those embryos for purposes of research, in my view, that's acceptable." Say what???? How about 8-month gestationally-aged infants in the womb, Mitt? Or already-born infants, too, Mitt? If a "parent decides they would want to donate one of those...for purposes of research, in my view, that's acceptable..." No??? What's the 'pro-life' difference, Mitt? Here you call an embryo's mom&dad "parents" -- but "parents" w/ "research" give-away rights? How bizarre we have such a schizophrenic "candidate!"

1,276 posted on 08/12/2012 7:53:38 AM PDT by Colofornian (Why don't you 'birthers' ask Mitt about his 'spirit-birth' on planet near Kolob? Hypocrisy @ work?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1271 | View Replies ]

To: fabreeze

If their only, solitary difference was the Born Alive nightmare, then that would be enough for any human to realize that the keys of the country need to go to that idiot Mitt, and not that sick sub-human Obama. Some one is going to win - if you can’t stop someone sick enough to take the demonic side on Born Alive, then you have some pretty psychotic issues yourself.


1,277 posted on 08/12/2012 7:54:59 AM PDT by Hegewisch Dupa (Vote for Goode, end up with evil, pat self on back repeatedly)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1271 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Smoky Backroom
Topics · Post Article


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