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.
Link is broken. If Cain won’t sign it there must be something wrong with some specifics in it. I generally don’t like the concept of “pledges” anyway and trying to make a candidate agree with someone else’s specific language on an issue. Let each candidate state their full views and respond to specific questions so we know where they are coming from and let the voters decide. It doesn’t matter to me if Mitt signs this “pledge” or not — I ain’t supporting him.
Another article states why Cain doesn’t support it and I see why now - the wording is pretty sloppy. Go Herman! he uses this pledge as a way to instruct the public how legislation works.
“He said he agrees with the first three parts of the pledge because he “adamantly” supports the appointing pro-life judges and selecting pro-life appointees to his Cabinet and the Executive Branch as well ending taxpayer funding for abortions, but he had a problem with the last part of the pledge.
“The fourth requirement demands that I ‘advance’ the Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act. As president, I would sign it, but Congress must advance the legislation,” he said.
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.
Your right. Thanks for posting that. I don’t see why any real pro-life candidate would have a problem signing that.
Romney is of the same cabal that foisted McCain onto the Republican ticket. I always thought Palin was an unwitting/ unknowing cover for the cabal. I believe she has learned a lesson in the art of big politics treachery unlike Bachmann. It is mind boggling that Romney appears so high in the polls. By the way it is the same cabal that brought us the new world order so infamously touted by Bush1.
Shift the balance of power? Huh?
McRomney.
I didn’t say it was broad. But thanks for posting the pledge.
Apparently you missed why a pro life candidate might decide not to sign this specific pledge:
“I support right-to-life issues unequivocally and I adamantly support the first three aspects of the Susan B. Anthony pledge involving appointing pro-life judges, choosing pro-life cabinet members, and ending taxpayer-funded abortions,” Cain said in a statement. “However, the fourth requirement demands that I ‘advance’ the Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act. As president, I would sign it, but Congress must advance the legislation.”
“I have been a consistent and unwavering champion of pro life issues,” Cain added. “In no way does this singular instance of clarification denote an abandonment of the pro-life movement, but instead, is a testament to my respect for the balance of power and the role of the presidency.”
I’m starting to think we would be better off with Obama then a Rockefeller Republican.
To answer your question the real republican vote is divided.
Or as dear ol Dad would say, "there are two sides to every coin. Find out what the other party says about it, too" (in a dispute of some sort).
If the man Herman Cain which as much lengthy pro-life credentials did not sign it, I am sure he would be more than happy to give a justification as to why. Had anyone even had the decency and fairness to seek to a) get that quote and reasoning, and b) post it here to round out the picture to help people before pronouncing sentence and imprisonment? Or we are all just shoot from the hip first, ask questions later cowpokes here nowadays?
That is a noble and respectable reason for Cain not to sign the pledge.
The pledge reads:
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...
“...Or we are all just shoot from the hip first, ask questions later cowpokes here nowadays?”
As demonstrated by this and several other threads on this same subject, MANY around here are not only shoot form the hip and ask questions later — they are condemn without a trial and don’t even bother to ask questions later.
It’s ironic. Many argue the way liberals argue to some degree. They paint false choice scenarios - and demagogue the issue inaccurately - and have ear plugs firmly planted before an answer comes forth. No doubt some have left FR for the day in light of the perfectly reasonable answer that did finally arise.
I did miss that. Thank you for posting that.
I understand Herman’s point, though I wouldn’t say a president is without power to advance legislation. He can advance it by jawboning it, lobbying for it, and by signing it should it ever come to him from congress.
If that’s his only objection, then I think the pledge’s supporters should amend the pledge by stating clearly what they mean by a president “advancing legislation”. And then let’s see if Herman refuses then.
>> If that’s his only objection, then I think the pledge’s supporters should amend the pledge by stating clearly what they mean by a president “advancing legislation”. And then let’s see if Herman refuses then. >>
Or we could just accept his reasoning, look at his entire life, and not get obsessed by a single pledge that anybody could cynically sign even if they don’t believe half of it....
Romney will get horsewhipped by 0bama in the general. It’ll be an exact replay of the CA gov. race. The base ran away from the RINO Romney protoge Meg Whitman.
Oh sure, who needs a pledge when a person's entire life work is evidence of their values? The problem is the only thing I know about Herman Cain is Godfather's pizza. So bring on the pledge.
Even the used car salesmen won’t invite him to any of their meeting as they consider him bad for their image.
>> The problem is the only thing I know about Herman Cain is Godfather’s pizza.>>
Then that is your choice. His bio has been posted maybe 300 times on FR the last 2 months, not to mention his various websites and Face Book pages.
In case you are (legitimately) interested, his resume is far more than just the Godfather’s turn around story.
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.