-------------------------------------------------------------
Posted on 06/18/2011 9:52:42 AM PDT by Sonny M
2012 hopeful Mitt Romney is taking heat today after news got out that he refused to sign a prominent pro-life group’s presidential pledge.
Romney, who has come under fire for his stance on abortion before, did not sign the Susan B. Anthony List’s 2012 Pro-life Presidential Leadership Pledge. The pledge, comprised of four statements, promises to appoint only “relevant” pro-life cabinet members as well push to end all taxpayer funded abortions.
“Governor Romney pledged in the last campaign that he would be a pro-life president and of course he pledges it today,” the Romney campaign said in a statement. “However, this well-intentioned effort has some potentially unforeseen consequences and he does not feel he could in good conscience sign it. Gov. Romney has been a strong supporter of the SBA List in the past and he looks forward to continue working with them to promote a culture of life.”
For example, a Romney spokesperson told the Wall Street Journal that signing the pledge could mean promising to “strip taxpayer funding from thousands of health-care facilities, including (Veterans Administration) hospitals around the country.”
Michele Bachmann, Newt Gingrich, Ron Paul, Tim Pawlenty and Rick Santorum did sign the pledge. Herman Cain and Gary Johnson joined Romney in not signing. It’s unclear if Jon Huntsman was asked to sign. Below is a copy of the pledge signed by Bachmann:
Click on the link to see the copy
“We applaud those candidates who did sign the pledge for vowing to support and advance the protection of life at all stages,” Marilyn Musgrave, a former Republican congresswoman from Colorado and the policy director for the SBA List, told the WSJ.
“Mitt Romney will appoint judges who will faithfully interpret the Constitution and not legislate from the bench,” a Romney spokesperson tried to make clear to the WSJ. “The bottom line is that Gov. Romney is firmly pro-life.”
But “firmly pro-life” could be debatable. Weasel Zippers drudged up a video from the former governor’s 2002 gubernatorial campaign that shows him fervently defending a “woman’s right to choose,“ vowing to ”protect” it and even supporting the ability of girls under 18 to get abortions approved by judges:
He seems to have backed off of that strong stance since, but the truth is he has not always been a staunch pro-lifer.
I think the resolution is overly broad. Why apply a pro-life litmus test to all cabinet members? Do I care if the secretary of defense is pro-life?
It needs to be reworded to address judges, and just those cabinet members that oversea funds that could be used to pay for an abortion.
But I support the general concept of trying to get these guys to pledge to commit to specific actions that support their claimed positions.
This is just stock rhetoric which all Pubbies, including RINOs, like to use to fool people. Yet the reality is that they stick us with the likes of David Souter and Sandra Day O'Connor, who legislate like crazy from the bench.
Herman Cain had a very good reason for not signing it, one that I agree with.
Whoops- the link is in the last sentence of the first paragraph located above the images (posted) of those that have signed the pledge.
-------------------------------------------------------------
Romney serves a purpose.
Now, conservatives simply need to unite behind the “Anti-Romney” in enough time to make sure Romney does not get the nomination.
However, Romney IS better than Obama.
It is entirely disingenous when you report the news, but fail to report the statement by the candidate as to why he did or did not do such a thing. I heard Cains explanation and it made perfect sense to me. But, this is politics and people will in fact demogogue, leave out information, etc. etc.
To the headline: why would he, Romney supports abortion.
Romeny is like Trump without any guts or a backbone.
I think the pledge is worded badly.
I don’t know that I want federal judges who are restrained in getting back to original intent. (Of course I don’t want them to be reckless about it either).
I don’t know that I want the head of the Department of Justice to be opposed to the death penalty by virtue of being pro-life.
Can someone post the pledge? When I went to the link and clicked no on the news letter, all I got was a blank page.
There is a constitutional problem with one of four aspects of "the pledge". Cain opposed signing it due to the one problem area. I am sure Mitt opposed THE WHOLE THING because it is HE who is anti-life and pro-choice/abortion.
I agree.
Romney serves a purpose.
Now, conservatives simply need to unite behind the “Anti-Romney” in enough time to make sure Romney does not get the nomination.
However, Romney IS better than Obama. My cat's better than Obama but my cat can't get elected either.
We have to give the conservative voters a reason to go to the poles and voting. Voting against Obama wasn't enough last time. Why would one think it will work in 2012?
Its not broad at all...Here is the pledge.....
I PLEDGE that I will only support candidates for President who are committed to protecting Life. I demand that any candidate I support commit to these positions:
FIRST, to nominate to the U.S. federal bench judges who are committed to restraint and applying the original meaning of the Constitution, not legislating from the bench;
SECOND, to select only pro-life appointees for relevant Cabinet and Executive Branch positions, in particular the head of National Institutes of Health, the Department of Justice, and the Department of Health & Human Services;
THIRD, to advance pro-life legislation to permanently end all taxpayer funding of abortion in all domestic and international spending programs, and defund Planned Parenthood and all other contractors and recipients of federal funds with affiliates that perform or fund abortions;
FOURTH, advance and sign into law a Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act to protect unborn children who are capable of feeling pain from abortion.
It doesn't matter if the SecofDef is pro-abortion or pro-life, and its pretty specific.
freepersup wrote:
FYI: I’m getting a >>> file not found 404 <<< prompt/warning at the link provided.
Try this link: Romney Refuses to Sign Prominent Pro-Life Group’s Pledge.
Red_Devil 232 wrote:
According to the pledge, if elected President, candidates will:
- Only nominate to the U.S. Supreme Court and federal bench judges who are committed to restraint and applying the original meaning of the Constitution, not legislating from the bench;
- Select pro-life appointees for relevant Cabinet and Executive Branch positions, in particular the head of National Institutes of Health, the Department of Health & Human Services, and the Department of Justice;
- Advance pro-life legislation to permanently end all taxpayer funding of abortion in all domestic and international spending programs, and defund Planned Parenthood and all other contractors and recipients of federal funds with affiliates that perform or fund abortions;
- Advance and sign into law a Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act to protect unborn children who are capable of feeling pain from abortion.
Well, I'm not sure what Cain's reasoning is. But I can tell you that I have a problem with that pledge.
First, I'm on board with the first three points 100%. Also, you probably won't find a more pro-life person than me. However, I'm also 100% pro United States Constitution. Indeed, I think the first point goes well above and beyond "Pro Life" issues. It goes to the foundation of our United States.
Which brings me to Item 4 in that pledge from the SBA List. They are advocating a Federal "Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act."
Perhaps someone can point out exactly where in the powers actually enumerated in Article 1 Section 8 of the United States Constitution Congress would have the authority to pass such an act? And wouldn't a President who is committed to folllowing the Constitution have an issue with Congress passing an act for which there is no power actually enumerated in Article 1 Section 8 of the United States Constitution? I would hope that a conservative president who believes in the United States Constitution would veto any bill for which there is no delegated power for the Congress to act.
As with most "Pro Life" groups, this group hasn't thought through their pledge. I worked as a volunteer for a candidate in the Primaries in 2010. He was the most "limited government conservative" you could imagine, and he was very strongly pro-life. But we would get questionaires to the candidate from Pro Life groups which would start out with: "Do you think that Roe v. Wade should be overturned and the power to regulate or ban abortions should be returned to the states?" That's an obvious "Yes." But then they would go on with a wish list of Federal legislative proposals that they wanted their Congressional candidates to support. Federal requirements for parental notification, federal laws for this and for that. Well, as a strict constitutionalist, our candidate couldn't support those measures because he saw nothing in the actual delegated powers of Article 1 Section 8 of the United States Constitution which would allow Congress to pass such legislation.
QFT.
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.