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.
It requires the President to advance legislation (we seen the horror of Obamacare).
It is my choice. And it's great that his bio has been posted, that's more than our current President has done.
I'm paying attention now, to what he is saying and doing, or not doing as the present case may be. If his cumulative actions and statements eventually warrant me reading his nicely edited bio, I'll do so.
Oh, darn. And I was so close to supporting him.
I see two problems: point 4 excludes great masses of the unborn and makes "pain" a criteria on whether a human deserves to live or die; and also, it assumes that expanding the federal government is the way to solve this, not telling them to butt out and leave abortion law to the states.
sorry - I got a 404 when I clicked. But I have since read the text - thanks much. an interesting topic.
That from me, svcw, DEFINITELY came out the wrong way and in no way was meant to be target to YOU. And for that I am deeply sorry. I can see now how you read it and could make that interpretation. Stupid me. I should have written that more carefully and more consideratly, so you knew in fact where I was directing my fire power.
:-)
Actually, almost every election is based on those who vote “against” and not “for” -—
The public did not know Obama last time around.
Now they do.
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.