And you answered a question that wasn’t asked. The issue is can a politician have an epiphany and change/modify their position on abortion? At one time Reagan thought it was okay if the health of the mother was at risk. Later he changed that to only the most extreme cases where the life of the mother was in danger.
But the opening he allowed by signing that original legislation resulted in the deaths of millions of babies.
I’m not saying Reagan was pro-choice, he was ADAMANTLY pro life. But pols make mistakes and sometimes they have to live with the political consequences.
And sometimes they don’t.
Reagan made a mistake. Romney TWICE made a political calculation that coming out as pro-abort would help him win statewide office in Massachussetts - a position that runs directly opposite of his own Church's viewpoint on abortion.
Once again, the two situations are vastly different, although Mitt tried the moral equivalence game in an interview with Chriss Wallace.
Reagan didn't allow anything! The 1967 California Therapeutic Abortion Act was designed to address the most difficult abortion cases. The bill was limited to the 1%-2% exceptions for rape, incest, or personal health risk of the mother. As with most states, abortion was legal to save the life of the mother under California law going back 150 years. The real problem was the California liberal medical community abusing the law and basically encouraging women to have an abortion.
You completely ignore the fact that the Democrat controlled legislature would have overrode any veto by Reagan. These cheap pot shots against Reagan to make a POS like Romney look better are wrong and have to stop.
You are spinning in the wind - comparing RR to Mitt - in ANY WAY! The wannabes always want to attached themselves to the real deal!
The trap you have fallen into and the problem Romney and his minions had was in saying that Reagan was like Mitt. Reagan was always against abortion. He made the mistake of loosening the definition for the health of the mother. But, he never became pro choice.
Mitt was for choice 100% and stated women had the absolute “right” to murder their children. Reagan never believed that. But Mitt did not just modify his position. Except for his current belief in embryonic stem cell research, he now claims to be completely pro-life. That’s a 180 degree turn, a from scratch, complete model change, not a modification.
To this day Mitt cannot explain what caused his opinion to change. He cannot even explain why he believes what he believes — a sure sign of someone making a change for expediency. Anyone making that drastic a change, going from completely pro choice/abort to completely pro life and wanting people to believe them, should have some viable reason other than ‘I want to get elected.’