If I may offer a possible correction to that thought, Romney has apparently held a pro-abortion position since before Roe v. Wade, in 1970--at a time when legalizing abortion was a radical idea, and the public on the whole was far from supportive.
As SDGOP posted earlier, Mitt has said:
Just like John Kerry, the Mitt Romney of today calls himself "personally pro-life." Beware the candidate who cloaks himself with that terminology. No matter what he prefers "personally," a person's true abortion position is measured by his view of justice and the necessary response in the law.
It is clear that Romney doesn't believe the unborn child has a right to life that must be protected by law against the choice of the mother. He seems to say, "Whatever the people want today, I will support."
That is what makes Romney an acceptable candidate to me. It's a shame some are blinded by his religious affiliation, when the real reasons for opposing him are so glaring.
..... an UNacceptable candidate .....
FWIW in 1970 Ronald Reagan signed the most liberal abortion rights bill in the US when he was California's Governor. It was even more liberal than Roe v. Wade allowed. It even allowed for partial birth abortions. Ronald Reagan was as guilty of political expediency as anyone else. He was also a great president.
GWB has supported some rather liberal causes in the name of Political expediency. IMO he panders to the illegal alien crowd, he spends too much money on social programs and other than his firm stand on terrorism, is probably as liberal on social issues as Bill Clinton. The only difference is that GWB seems to be the kind of guy who appoints conservative judges.