Oh, I apologize for my misunderstanding. I don’t have an exact date. I’ve heard approximately two years ago he claimed to be pro-life. He’s not pro-life enough for me, though. Here is a snippet of this, but a few paragraphs before he was fully pro-abortion.
“Now Romney says he opposes abortion except in cases of rape and incest or to save the life of the mother, and supports overturning Roe. At the National Review Institute Conservative Summit last month — at the very hotel where he had told us of his commitment to not altering state law one way or another — Romney boasted that each time an issue involving reproductive rights came up during his governorship, “on every single one of them I came down on the side of respecting human life.”
Romney’s “Extreme Makeover: Political Edition” goes beyond abortion rights. Once he supported allowing gays to serve openly in the military and backed a federal law to prohibit discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation — not anymore. He’s gone from saying “I don’t line up with the NRA” to becoming, last August, a life member.”
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/02/20/AR2007022001266.html
Here is part of this as well:
Lopez: In a 1994 debate with Senator Kennedy, you said “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 U.S. Senate candidate. I believe that since Roe v. Wade has been the law for 20 years we should sustain and support it.” Further confusing matters, the Boston Globe reported in 1994 that “as a Mormon lay leader [you] counseled Mormon women not to have abortions except in cases of rape, incest, or where the mother’s life was at risk.” Governor: What is your position on abortion today? On Roe? How do you account for what is obviously a change — certainly publicly — on the issue?
Gov. Romney: My position has changed and I have acknowledged that. How that came about is that several years ago, in the course of the stem-cell-research debate I met with a pair of experts from Harvard. At one point the experts pointed out that embryonic-stem-cell research should not be a moral issue because the embryos were destroyed at 14 days. After the meeting I looked over at Beth Myers, my chief of staff, and we both had exactly the same reaction — it just hit us hard just how much the sanctity of life had been cheapened by virtue of the Roe v. Wade mentality. And from that point forward, I said to the people of Massachusetts, “I will continue to honor what I pledged to you, but I prefer to call myself pro-life.” The state of Massachusetts is a pro-choice state and when I campaigned for governor I said that I would not change the law on abortion. But I do believe that the one-size-fits-all, abortion-on-demand-for-all-nine-months decision in Roe v. Wade does not serve the country well and is another example of judges making the law instead of interpreting the Constitution.
What I would like to see is the Court return the issue to the people to decide. The Republican party is and should remain the pro-life party and work to change hearts and minds and create a culture of life where every child is welcomed and protected by law and the weakest among us are protected. I understand there are people of good faith on both sides of the issue. They should be able to make and advance their case in democratic forums with civility, mutual respect, and confidence that our democratic process is the best place to handle these issues.
And yes, as a private citizen I have counseled women not to have abortions.
http://www.evangelicalsformitt.org/front_page/gov_romney_explains_prolife_po.php
Besides the link EV gave me, you might wish to check this blog out:
http://romneyisapro-lifefraud.blogspot.com/
Once again, I apologize for the confusion.
Hmmm, a little more
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/04/13/politics/main2682034.shtml
(CBS/AP) Republican Presidential hopeful Mitt Romney declined Friday to weigh in on a South Carolina proposal that would require women seeking an abortion to view an ultrasound.
Instead, the former Massachusetts governor said states should make their own abortion laws.
“I would like to see each state be able to make its own law with regard to abortion,” Romney said after a speech to about 50 small business leaders. “I think the Roe v. Wade one-size-fits-all approach is wrong.”
As the AP reports, Mitt Romney refuses to back pro-life ultrasound legislation in South Carolina.
His reasoning?
“I would like to see each state be able to make its own law with regard to abortion. I think the Roe v. Wade one-size-fits-all approach is wrong.”
As a reader has pointed out in an earlier post, while Mitt Romney is anti-Roe, he certainly is not pro-life. By refusing to support a Human Life Amendment to the Constitution, Romney is rejecting one of the key planks in the platform of the Republican Party that has been there since 1980. Furthermore, he finds himself to the left on life issues of even Sen. John McCain, who supports such an amendment.
Here is the actual text of Mitt Romney’s published Q&A in the Feb. 10th issue of National Journal:
NJ: You would favor a constitutional amendment banning abortion with exceptions for the life of the mother, rape and incest. Is that correct?
What I’ve indicated is that I am pro-life, and that my hope is that the Supreme Court will give to the states over time or give to the states soon or give to the states their own ability to make their own decisions with regard to their own abortion law.
NJ: If a state wanted unlimited abortion?
The state would fall into restrictions that had been imposed at the federal level, so they couldn’t be more expansive in abortion than currently exists under the law, but they could become more restrictive in abortion provisions. So states like Massachusetts could stay like they are if they so desire, and states that have a different view could take that course. And it would be up to the citizens of the individual states. My view is not to impose a single federal rule on the entire nation — a one-size-fits-all approach — but instead allow states to make their own decisions in this regard.
Ok, he wants the states to decide EXCEPT that if a state wanted unlimited abortions, then he wants the feds to speak up. Why not just let the feds deal with it in the first place? It’s like he doesn’t want to take a stand and THAT is NOT pro life. imho