Romney vetoes law on pill, takes aim at Roe v. Wade

Boston Blob ^ | 7/26/05 | Scott S. Greenberger

[bitt]

Three years after expressing support for ''the substance" of Roe v. Wade, Governor Mitt Romney today criticizes the landmark ruling that legalized abortion and says the states should decide separately whether to allow it.

Romney outlines his abortion position in an opinion article today in The Boston Globe, a day after he vetoed a bill that would expand access to the so-called ''morning after" pill, a high dose of hormones that women can take to prevent pregnancy up to five days after sex.

In a written response to a questionnaire for candidates in 2002, Romney told Planned Parenthood that he supported ''the substance of the Supreme Court decision in Roe v. Wade," according to the group. Today, Romney describes himself as a ''pro-life governor" who wishes ''the laws of our nation could reflect that view." Calling the country ''divided over abortion," he says states ''should determine their own abortion laws and not have them dictated by judicial mandate."

''I understand that my views on laws governing abortion set me in the minority in our Commonwealth," Romney says in the op-ed article. ''I am prolife. I believe that abortion is the wrong choice, except in cases of incest, rape, and to save the life of the mother. I wish the people of America agreed, and that the laws of our nation could reflect that view."

Romney said he had vetoed the emergency contraception bill to fulfill his 2002 campaign promise not to change state abortion laws.

But supporters of the measure, pointing out that Romney has also pledged to support expanded access to emergency contraception, accused the GOP governor of trying to burnish his conservative credentials for a possible presidential run.

The bill that Romney vetoed would allow trained pharmacists to dispense the morning-after pill without a prescription and would...

[EQAndyBuzz]

Someone considering a run at the Presidency in 2008?

[Conservativegreatgrandma]

interesting.

[epson8750]

This is a tough call. I, too, believe abortion should be decided at the state level; there is nothing mentioning abortion anywhere in the US constitution, so, per the 10th amendment, it is obviously left for the states. Whether a state allows abortion on demand up to 8.9 months of pregnancy, or outlaws it entirely, should depend upon a legislature REFELCTING THE WISHES OF THE ELECTORATE. Problem here is that public servant Romney may not be a good "employee" in so far as his veto of the morning-after pill-bill may not reflect the wishes of most of his "employers" (the people of Massachusetts). Of course, said "employers" could always "fire" Romney in 2006.

[nj26]

We can't nominate somebody that plays both sides of the issue like a Democrat (e.g. John Kerry, Hillary Clinton.) We need a principled conservative, not a flip-flopper.

[Agrarian]

Yup. Romney would be a disaster candidate.

[Final Authority]

You mean a flip-flopper with respect to the criminal alien problem and amnesty?

[Final Authority]

I see from your posting history that you enjoy posting about your Christian life. Could it be, a good Christian like you has a certain hatred for LDS? Could this be Mitt's problem in your mind? Is it the problem for many of the posters on the Romney threads who see to react in your way, as in, he's a disaster?

It is unfortunate that seem to be a bigot, being Christian and all.

[massgopguy]

I got five stars from Mass Citizens for Life and I'm a Second Degree Knight. I don't have a problem with a Morning After Pill.

[massgopguy]

I got five stars from Mass Citizens for Life and I'm a Second Degree Knight. I don't have a problem with a Morning After Pill.

[Fido969]

Romney is ambitious, and thinks he needs to move away from the RINO image, and get some of that Massachusetts stink off him.

This is good news as far as political winds - this (combined with Dean's insistence that the dims back off their hard line pro-abortion position) shows the sharply decreasing influence of the radical left on politics today -politicians are distancing themselves from the perpetually "outraged" NOW loonies, who have been exposed for what they are - a very small, but very loud, group of spoiled middle-class whiners who get full coverage by the MSM, but command about NO votes.

[Final Authority]

No, I suspect you don't because you would never have to take one and you are not the Governor. You are not in charge of doing what you think is right.

I raise my children in the RC church, although I am Methodist, as my father in law asked me to do that. I am involved with my wife in family ministry with Baptisms. We meet a lot of folks and befriend them. Few are committed pro-life or committed to all of the church's teachings and requirements.

Mitt on the other hand, is committed to his word and the word of his faith tradition. We know he doesn't take a drink, either of alcohol or caffeine. Of course he doesn't smoke.

I do not know where I stand on this issue but if I had the opportunity to listen to Mitt discuss this topic I certainly would know more of the issue and have a better understanding of his position. He took a stand. He could have walked.

[massgopguy]

I think a Morning After pill in a case of rape is reasonable. If not uncruel. Maybe you should put your name on a ballot like I do and let the electorate know where you stand on the issue.

[AuH2ORepublican]

"I got five stars from Mass Citizens for Life . . . . I don't have a problem with a Morning After Pill."

---

Boy, those Mass Citizens for Life must really be grading on a curve. The "morning-after pill" is an abortifacient that destroys the embryo before it can attach to the uterine wall, and, just in case the embryo survives, it attacks the uterine wall so that the embryo can't attach and will therefore die. The "morning-after pill" is no different from surgical abortion when it comes to the moral issue of protecting the unborn.

And if you did not know until today what the "morning after pill" actually did, then I pray that you reconsider your position now that you know the facts.

[AuH2ORepublican]

"I think a Morning After pill in a case of rape is reasonable."

---

I think rapists should be given the death penalty for their crime. But the baby should not be killed for his or her father's sins.

[AuH2ORepublican]

*PING*

[Final Authority]

There are a lot of things deemed reasonable by those who think it is proper and OK to pick and choose what to believe and what to practice within a religion or lifestyle. That is the whole problem with liberalism and RINO's, they act often without principle. If you are a Roman Catholic, or a person who claims to be, can one support abortion and still be considered faithful? Even if you think the morning after pill isn't abortion, isn't the medicine referred to as an abortafacient?

Mitt is taking a stand, I suspect, to demonstrate his fidelity with his beliefs and his word.

[DrewsDad]

Agrarian responds to a post about Romney's flip-flopping on the abortion issue and somehow you accuse him of being a bigot because he has previously posted about his "Christian life".

It appears that you are the one prejudging in this case.

[epson8750]

So you'd condemn the woman to carry the rapists "incubus" for 9 months then force her to give birth to it. All you are doing is protecting a rapist's patrimony!

[Final Authority]

He has never flip-flopped on abortion that I know of. He never said it was right, he said he would enforce the law, as the law exists, but he would never allow for the so-called right to abortion to be broadened while he is in office.

The specifics of his language all depend on who reported it and when it was written. Mitt knows what he believes then and what he said, better than anybody else and he knows what he believes now and what his intentions are now. If he said he made an error in the past and has changed his ways, then I would believe him and if I or you wanted, we could call him a flip-flopper on the issue.

Rather than rejoice at a politician who makes an unpopular stand in the name of life and human dignity, haters of his faith have to denigrate him. If those who voted for GWB thinking he would honor his word with respect to his stand on criminal alien amnesty that he would not offer it and now knowing that all along he lied, would speak up, it would speak volumes, but on the other hand, why would I think the same people speak and act with principle.