We've found "your issue" havent' we?
I'm sorry that you don't seem to believe Romney's change on abortion.
You are also the beneficiary of 20/20 hindsight and have applied it to the benefit of Reagan, but don't give Romney any "benefit of the doubt". Reagan was a great leader and a true conservative in the end. You say:
"As Mr. Reagan related himself, years later, he didn't realize just how liberal was the piece of legislation he was signing. He thought it would liberalize the rules for abortions, but not that it would usher in abortion-on-demand. Thus, he was never a pro-abort in need of conversion, but rather someone who believed some exceptions should be made to the general rule that abortion ought not be permitted."
Those are some serious mental and moral gymnastics and you are giving Reagan more slack than is deserved, IMO. Abortion was legal . . . and he liberalized the laws restricting it. Stating that he didn't realize what what he was signing doesn't get much sympathy from me . . . it was his job to realize what he was signing. It was a real moral issue then and he was attacked for his actions by social conservatives. He signed it anyway. He was on the liberal side of the abortion issue then, but fortunately, he realized that and later fully repented.
Romney is the most Reaganesque Republican since Reagan. I hate to see people who idolize Reagan so quick to throw out Romney. I think many of the people who oppose Romney now would have opposed Reagan then. Of course, that's just my opinion.
Dear Jeff Fuller,
"We've found "your issue" havent' we?"
That's certainly a non-negotiable one for me. But I believe I said that some number of posts back. I believe I already said that quite clearly in post #73.
"...you are giving Reagan more slack than is deserved, IMO."
I thought you weren't attacking Mr. Reagan? ;-)
Anyway, I'm only going by what he said. Seems credible to me.
Mr. Romney's "explanations" don't seem credible at all. But there's still time. ;-)
By the way, please show me where Mr. Reagan ever said that abortion is a constitutional right. Mr. Romney has unambiguously stated that in the past.
I really need to know how he goes from believing this is a constitutional "right" to believing that it isn't. The whole thing about discussing it with the stem cell folks doesn't really add up for me (I watched your video link - very unpersuasive on the issue of abortion.). If it's a right, then it's a right, and what researchers do with embryos at 14 days isn't really much of a deal.
sitetest
Dear Jeff Fuller,
I checked... Mr. Reagan's law, as written, was not meant to usher in widespread abortion in California. Perhaps you didn't realize it when you wrote what you wrote, perhaps you didn't realize that even the 1967 bill he signed into law wasn't all that liberal after all (although it was very liberal for the time).
Indeed, the bill allowed for abortion only when a hospital committee voted that a woman required one because without one her physical or mental health would be "gravely impaired," or if a district attorney concluded there had been rape or incest.
Now, we all know what the courts have done with the health exceptions even embedded in Roe. They have become wide-open licenses for abortion on demand. And they became nearly so in California after 1967.
However, it is perfectly reasonable to think that Mr. Reagan didn't realize this would happen. Mr. Reagan could have certainly interpreted this law as providing a rather narrow liberalization of abortion law. It certainly doesn't suggest a "right" to abortion. It certainly doesn't require an interpretation that allows our current regime of abortion on demand.
In fact, the law is so conservative by post-Roe standards that it is, by those standards, unconstitutional.
It seems that you have (perhaps unwittingly) again derided Mr. Reagan undeservedly.
It ain't makin' me like Mr. Romney any more than I might already like him.
sitetest