Romney buys pro-life credentials

In the world of movies and television shows, producers rely on the viewers' "willing suspension of disbelief" to draw and maintain large followings. Shows like "24" – arguably one of the greatest shows on TV today – employ this practice by which the audience willingly suppresses its natural desire to reject fanciful premises often used in these productions in order to be entertained by the show.

In 1956, noted psychologist Leon Festinger coined the term "cognitive dissonance" to define the condition that results whenever an individual attempts to hold two incompatible, if not contradictory, thoughts at the same time even in the face of mounting evidence to the contrary. Many leading pro-life groups, especially the Vitae Caring Foundation, have conducted extensive research that has consistently demonstrated the prevalence of this condition among self-described pro-choicers who recognize the humanity of the pre-born child in the womb, but nonetheless vote pro-abortion virtually without fail.

In spite of this wealth of psychological knowledge, the recent endorsement of former Gov. Mitt Romney for president by James Bopp Jr. – best known for his work as general counsel of the National Right to Life Committee, or NRLC – may require a new term altogether. Bopp's endorsement stated: "Mitt Romney has stood side-by-side with those seeking to protect the weakest and most innocent of our society … he has acted to protect the sanctity of life. [His] record on fundamental life issues is one of not just words but action. I am proud to count myself among his supporters."

The terms intellectually dishonest, disingenuous, willing suspension of disbelief and/or cognitive dissonance just don't seem to adequately describe the magnitude of Bopp's betrayal – even combined.

By virtually any political observer's account, it is a stretch to consider Mitt Romney pro-life. After all, this is the same man who once boasted in 1994, "I believe that abortion should be safe and legal in this country. I have since … 1970. … You will not see me wavering on that."

Of course, Romney now maintains that he has enjoyed a road-to-Damascus experience and is now pro-life – conveniently, just in time for 2008 … but more on that later. This endorsement would hardly raise an eyebrow if it were just the typical posturing of a political campaign. That's not to say this wasn't a decidedly political move, which it most certainly was. But the truly troubling part of this endorsement is who gave it and what he represents to the pro-life movement at large.

One look at Bopp's long and distinguished career – as general counsel of Focus on the Family and NRLC, and a client list that includes Catholic Answers, Christian Broadcasting Network, the Gerard Health Foundation, Priests for Life and the Traditional Values Coalition, among others – begs the question of how someone so involved in the pro-life, pro-family movement could so readily ignore far more qualified, more stable candidates to jump on the bandwagon of an unknown quantity at best.

The annual March for Life was held in Washington, D.C., a few weeks ago. Neither Romney nor any representative was anywhere to be found – newfound conversion notwithstanding. Conversely, stalwart defenders of the dignity of the pre-born, like fellow presidential hopefuls Sen. Sam Brownback and Rep. Duncan Hunter, were there as they have been for several years running.

To the Romney camp's credit, they seem to clearly recognize that they lack credibility with the conservative base. Unfortunately, they've opted to close that gap by spreading around barrels of cash to purchase those bona fides by hiring people who do possess said standing, apparently giving them such lofty titles as "Special Adviser on Life Issues." The possibility that Bopp may be receiving payment for his advisory services would readily explain his gushing endorsement, which both defies fact and logic, but it does not excuse it.

Far be it from me to question Romney's Saul-to-Paul experience regarding the pro-life cause; if true, it would be wonderful news. But a president of the United States this change does not make.

To take the biblical analogy further, Paul did not readily or easily ascend to a leadership role in the early church. First, Paul was sent to Ananias to be healed and taught the faith. Then he labored for years to prove the validity and sincerity of his conversion. To that end, if Romney truly wants to help the pro-life movement, he should spend the next several years dedicating his time, talent and treasure to enacting real change at the state and/or federal level in whatever capacity he can that doesn't include running for the highest office in the country.

Frankly, hasn't the presidency of George W. Bush – replete with federally funded embryo-destructive stem cell research, Harriet Miers nomination and over-the-counter status for the abortifacient Plan B – demonstrated that if the pro-life movement wants to end abortion, it needs to be just as demanding and discerning as their pro-abortion counterparts?

Kate Michelman, Cecile Richards and company will never compromise on their 100 percent pro-abortion stance when considering candidates. For example in the recent Virginia gubernatorial race, NARAL refused to endorse Tim Kaine, an openly pro-abortion candidate, because he believed that parents should know if their underage daughters were seeking the invasive surgical abortion procedure. The pro-abortion movement is so ardent that they fight tooth and nail in every state that tries to approve "Choose Life" license plates for fear that such a simple message on the back of cars might lead to mass pro-life conversions.

Conversely, one of the most respected heavyweight legal champions of the pro-life movement – who has made a career and a living off the $10 donations made to nonprofits by retirees who want nothing more than the rights of the pre-born to be protected – trips over himself to endorse and defend a candidate who has consistently governed in favor of the pro-death, pro-homosexual movement, who still favors embryo-destructive stem cell research and who does not support passage of the Human Life Amendment.

As for Bopp's support of Romney and his status as a paid campaign consultant: Shouldn't such a detail be made public to those who would otherwise trust such an endorsement as a heartfelt expression of someone concerned with the best interest of the pro-life movement, rather than a politically expedient offering awarded to the highest bidder?

Such information might better inform the public how much weight they should give Bopp's support of Romney. And it also might illuminate what such a betrayal costs: 10, 20 or perhaps 30 pieces of silver?

I predict that Joseph R. Giganti's email, phone machine, fax, mailbox, etc., are going to be swamped for many weeks to come for this despicable attempt to smear the sterling reputation of Jim Bopp. Legions of pro-life activists will come to the defense of Bopp and will denounce Giganti.

Giganti clearly doesn't know the facts and obviously didn't take the time to review Romney's record as Governor or to question Romney personally as Bopp did before making his endorsement (see Exclusive Interview with James Bopp on Mitt Romney).

More about James Bopp, Jr. Esq.:

James Bopp is a very prominent attorney and leading figure in the pro-life movement. His practice of law emphasizes the biomedical issues of abortion, foregoing and withdrawing life-sustaining medical treatment and assisted suicide, not-for-profit corporate and tax law, and campaign finance and election law. Bopp is a leading opponent of the McCain-Feingold campaign finance reform law.

Many hundreds of pro-life activists have used Bopp’s legal arguments and memos in their lobbying efforts and work to draft legislation. Bopp has given speeches at many pro-life events and has been an editor for multiple publications. He has served as a member of several committees including:

• General Counsel to National Right to Life Committee (1978-present)
• General Counsel to James Madison Center for Free Speech (1994-present)
• Special Counsel to Focus on the Family (2004-present)
• President of National Legal Center for the Medically Dependent and Disabled, Inc (1984-present)
• President’s Committee on Mental Retardation
• Congressional Biomedical Ethics Advisory Committee
• National Institutes of Health, Human Fetal Tissue Transplantation Research Panel
• RNC member

Cognitive dissonance is holding two conflicting opinions at the same time. Romney says he has changed his mind or undergone a conversion, which is quite a different matter.

Romney demonstrates cognitive dissonance more than any politician I've ever seen. He is known as, not middle of the road, but "cover the road," for very good reasons.

Here's my favorite example:

"I support the right of the Boy Scouts of America to decide what it wants to do on that issue. I feel that all people should be allowed to participate in the Boy Scouts regardless of their sexual orientation." -- Mitt Romney, Boston Globe Oct 27, 1994

Now, think about that quote, if you would. Can you see that the man took BOTH sides of an important issue in ONE BREATH?

And here's the worst part: If you really look at his record, it is easy to see that while he is always careful to pay lip service to a modicum of conservative ideals, while at the same time paying proper homage to liberalism as well, his POLICIES tend to fall almost exclusively on the liberal side.

Are you aware that Romney appointed more Democrats than Republicans to the bench during his term as Governor?

"Are you aware that Romney appointed more Democrats than Republicans to the bench during his term as Governor?"

Already asked and answered many times, but it appears EV is paid by the word to write the same stuff over and over.

Mitt Romney nominated judges who were tough on crime for the 36 district court and clerk magistrate positions he filled in criminal courts. They were not in courts that ruled on matters of constitutional law. Furthermore, all the nominees had to be approved by an elected, eight-member board dominated by liberal Democrats in Massachusetts.

David French, a Harvard-educated lawyer who works for the Alliance Defense Fund (ADF) which is James Dobson’s organization fighting the ACLU, has written about Romney's record of judicial appointments in liberal Massachusetts. An excerpt is provided below from a post on the Evangelicals for Mitt blog which French co-founded. Emphasis is added for the critical facts.

_______________________________

"Regarding judges, here I think Steve blurs the difference between federal and state court judges and the federal and state (in this case, Massachusetts) systems of judicial nominations and approvals. First, when we talk about the Governor's allegedly "liberal" judicial appointments, we are talking about judges who deal primarily with criminal matters--not the constitutional issues that can dominate the federal judicial debate. Given this reality, Governor Romney did not nominate judges who were "liberal" or "leftist" within their job description. The Governor wanted individuals who were tough on crime. As he said, "With regard to those at the district court and clerk magistrate level, their political views aren't really going to come into play unless their views indicate they will be soft on crime." So the reality is that the Governor nominated judges who were tough on crime to fill spots that dealt primarily with crime. State court judges at this level have absolutely no say over abortion rights. None. Abortion is primarily a matter of federal--not state--constitutional law."

"Second, every one of Governor Romney's judicial nominees has to be approved by the "Governor's Council", a popularly-elected, eight member board that is dominated by Democrats (as is most of Massachusetts state government). Imagine a situation where the President of the United States had to run all of his judicial nominees by a Senate that contained 85% Democrats--most of them of the radical sort. That would change the picture a bit, wouldn't it? I think the best way to think of Governor Romney's track record in nominating judges is that he did the best that he could have done.

Romney supports abortion in general, and believes in sustaining Roe v. Wade.

· “Romney ran against Senator Edward M. Kennedy in 1994. During a debate, Romney declared: ‘I believe that abortion should be safe and legal in this country. I have since the time that my mom took that position when she ran in 1970 as a US Senate candidate. I believe that since Roe v. Wade has been the law for 20 years we should sustain and support it.’ "
(NOTE: Romney has supported abortion since before the 1972 Roe v. Wade ruling!)
- Boston Globe, 3/2/2006

· “When [during their debate] Kennedy called him 'multiple choice,' Romney demanded an extra rebuttal. He revealed that a close relative died of an illegal abortion years ago and said, 'Since that time, my mother and my family have been committed to the belief that we can believe as we want, but we will not force our beliefs on others on that matter, and you will not see my wavering on that.' "
- Boston Globe, 3/2/2006

· “On a questionnaire Planned Parenthood gave to the gubernatorial candidates in 2002, Romney answered ''yes" to the question, ‘Do you support the substance of the Supreme Court decision in Roe v. Wade?’ Romney also professed support for state funding of abortion services for low-income women, [Erin] Rowland [spokeswoman for the Planned Parenthood League of Massachusetts] said.”
- Boston Globe, 3/25/2005

· “Marie Sturgis, legislative director of Massachusetts Citizens for Life, said she hasn't detected any change in Romney’s stance. The group considers Romney to be an abortion-rights supporter, as do national antiabortion groups such as the Family Research Council.”
- Boston Globe, 3/25/2005

Romney campaigned for Governor of Massachusetts as a pro-choice candidate, and was endorsed by a pro-abortion political group

· “Romney, a Republican and the former Winter Olympics chief, was endorsed by the New York-based Republican Pro-Choice Coalition. He mentioned his mother, Lenore Romney, who favored abortion rights when she ran for the U.S. Senate in 1970, even before the 1973 Roe v. Wade case affirmed women's constitutional right to abortions. . . . Lynn Grefe, director of the Republican Pro-Choice Coalition, applauded Romney's ‘commitment to family planning and protecting a woman's right to choose’ in a letter on Wednesday.”
- Associated Press / New Bedford Standard-Times 10/3/2002

· “Gubernatorial candidates Shannon O'Brien and Mitt Romney sparred yesterday over who was the strongest abortion rights supporter by touting endorsements from abortion rights groups and challenging each other's records on the issue . . . O'Brien and Romney both say that if elected they'll uphold state and federal laws protecting abortion rights. ‘There isn't a dime of difference between Mitt Romney's position on choice and Shannon O'Brien,’ said Kerry Healey, Romney's running mate.”
- Associated Press / New Bedford Standard-Times 10/3/2002

· In 2002, Romney responded to the National Abortion Rights Action League's candidate survey: ''I respect and will protect a woman's right to choose. This choice is a deeply personal one. Women should be free to choose based on their own beliefs, not mine and not the government's. The truth is, no candidate in the governor's race in either party would deny women abortion rights." Notably, Romney refused to answer the candidate questionnaire sent to him by Massachusetts Citizens for Life.
- Boston Globe, 7/3/2005

· During the 2002 governor's race, Romney's platform stated, "As Governor, Mitt Romney would protect the current pro-choice status quo in Massachusetts. No law would change. The choice to have an abortion is a deeply personal one. Women should be free to choose based on their own beliefs, not the government’s."
- Romney's 2002 campaign website

Romney is willing to support some embryonic stem cell research

· “Romney has decided to support experimentation on surplus frozen embryos from in-vitro fertilization procedures.”
- National Review Online 2/11/2005

Romney Approves of Abortion Pill and Supports the Legalization of RU-486

· “When he ran for governor in 2002, Romney said he supported expanding access to the emergency contraception pill, a high dose of hormones that women can take to prevent pregnancy up to five days after sex . . . On a questionnaire Planned Parenthood gave to the gubernatorial candidates in 2002, Romney answered ‘yes’ to the question, ‘Do you support efforts to increase access to emergency con-traception?’ ”
- Boston Globe 7/7/2005

· In 2002, the Boston Globe reported Romney’s positions from his1994 campaign as follows: “ABORTION: Favored basic Roe v. Wade abortion rights, though would not endorse a specific version of the Freedom of Choice Act, which would codify those court-established rights as federal law . . . Said he would leave the matter of Medicaid funding for abortion to individual states . . . Endorsed legalization of RU-486, the abortion-inducing drug.”
- Boston Globe, 3/19/2002

· "I don't really understand how it works or when it works but my understanding is it's an effective morning after pill and I think it would be a positive thing to have women have the choice of taking morning-after pills….I would favor having it available."
- Boston Herald, 5/19/1994

· "A new law to make emergency contraception more available in Massachusetts continues to be a political rollercoaster for Governor Mitt Romney. He supported expanded access when campaigning for governor, but vetoed a bill expanding access, earlier this year. The bill then passed over his veto. Earlier this week, the governor sought to exempt Catholic and other private hospitals from having to offer 'morning after pills' to rape victims. Then yesterday, he reversed his position."
- WBUR Radio, Boston, 12/9/2005

http://massresistance.org/docs/marriage/romney/record/

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.