Signing a bill that is basically a pro-choice bill means Reagan is somehow responsible for it and it does not really matter whether Reagan was pro-choice or not at that period. You kind of slippery slop arguments doesn't add, Reagan did regret signing that bill and most of his supporters dont hold any grudge against him and respect his anti-abortion/pro life views even though he had signed a pro choice bill.
Mitt position on abortion has changed once- from prochoice to prolife and not many times as you claim. People are allowed to change their views and especially on the abortion issue where people get more educated and hold prolife views over the course of the period. Reagan or Romney, i like them both. Simply attempting to drive a wedge among Republicans would not work.
>>>>>Signing a bill that is basically a pro-choice bill ...
We know Reagan signed that liberalized abortion bill into law in 1967. Lets not get carried away, however. There is a strong tendency among some FReepers to employ 20/20 hindsight and engage in historic revisionism when dicussing the Reagan legacy and record. This one seems a bit over the top. Exceptions for rape, incest and to save the health/life of the mother, have never been associated with the term, "pro-choice". Most pro-lifers today, like Pres Bush & VP Cheney, actually support the three exceptions as legitimate in the overall context of abortion ethics. While still opposing 95% of abortions. Besides, had the new Governor vetoed that bill, from what I've read its likely the California State legislature would have overridden his veto. Most serious pro-lifers see the SCOTUS decision in Roe v Wade as the pivotal point in the abortion debate. Thereby making Reagan's change on abortion over several years, consistent with historic factors of the times in which he lived. Reagan's decision was based on principled conservatism, not on political expediency.