Posted on 05/09/2007 3:17:54 PM PDT by Capt. Cox
BOSTON --Mitt Romney makes a brief return trip to Massachusetts Thursday to collect an award from an anti-abortion group, but the former governor shouldn't expect a completely warm homecoming.
Abortion rights activists plan to picket the Republican presidential contender's appearance in Agawam at the Massachusetts Citizens for Life Mother's Day Dinner, while abortion opponents are expected to demonstrate on Romney's behalf.
A news conference planned by the event's organizer has also been canceled, but Romney's staff said its scheduling was a mistake and he never speaks separately with reporters when he is delivering a speech.
.....
"There's no shortage of irony here," said Lisa Dacey, spokeswoman for the Planned Parenthood Advocacy Fund. "He is somebody who will say anything and change his mind a great deal to get elected. He did that here in Massachusetts and we have no doubt he will do that in the presidential race as well."
Along with its picketers, Planned Parenthood plans to dress up four people as beach flip-flops to underscore Romney's position changes.
(Excerpt) Read more at boston.com ...
Interesting talking points on their part too. They sound familiar...
Ping-A-Romney
I suggest Mitt just come clean as to his alleged pro-life conversion. If it's a true conversion, he could provide a sort of testimonial, something like:
"I was a pro-abort candidate in good standing with the LDS church. Now I am a pro-life candidate in good standing with the LDS church."
To spend all this time protesting a guy who is a distant third in the polls indicates they must have some reason to be afraid of him.
And that's a good thing.
Sure.. she is mobilizing a full cadre of moonbat protestors against him because she thinks he is on her side.. that makes perfect sense to me. /s
Another possibility is that she is aware of his pro life record:
He vetoed the bill providing state funding for human embryonic stem cell research
He vetoed a bill that provided for the “morning after pill” without a prescription because it is an abortifacient and would have been available to minors without parental notification and consent
He vetoed legislation which would have redefined Massachusetts longstanding definition of the beginning of human life from fertilization to implantation
He supported parental notification laws and opposed efforts to weaken parental involvement
He fought to promote abstinence education in public school classrooms with a program offered by faith-based Boston group Healthy Futures to middle school students.”
just a thought..
This is a classic example of why there’s no middle ground on abortion. You are either pro-life or pro-abortion. There is no “moderate” position on abortion. That’s why the abortion issue continues to bite Romney and Giuliani in the ass.
RECONRICK, do you know a guy named EternalVigilance?
He was never pro abortion. This is the LIE that is being disseminated by all these left wing groups and the MSM to destroy Mitt Romney.
He said in Massachusetts that he wouldn’t try to change the pro choice laws already on the books in deference to the constituents there but he was always clear about being personally pro life.
Since he knew he didn’t have the numbers to change those laws in the legislature anyway, as a practical matter he made no concessions. I challenge anyone to point any pro abort legislation that he signed.
You sure? Drudge has a story up saying that like Rudy his wife also made a financial donation to planned parenthood.
I just saw that. But his wife is not running for office. And she only donated $150 which is nothing considering he is worth about $500 million. She probably donated out of pity to some beggar on the street.
Guess what year it was? Yep, 1994.
I think there are moderate positions on abortion. Those positions aren't popular with the people who control primaries and donations, but they do exist.
On the pro-life side, the first point of moderation is the question of exceptions. I don't believe that justice is served by punishing a rape victim or her doctor for aborting the child forced on her by rape. I understand that allowing abortion in those cases means allowing the unborn child who is innocent of the rape to be killed, but I would rather allow that evil than be part of the evil of forcing the rape victim to give a year of her life to bringing that child into the world. I don't advocate abortion in the case of rape, but I will not support punishing abortion in that circumstance.
Given that position, I certainly don't believe in punishing a woman or her doctor if she has an abortion because the pregnancy represents a real, medical threat to her life or health. For instance, a tubal pregnancy almost always results in the death of the mother before the child is old enough to be viable outside the womb. Making abortion illegal in those cases means that we either have two deaths instead of one or we send the woman or her doctor to jail for saving the one life that can be saved.
These are both positions that are more moderate than those of the most extreme pro-lifers. Maybe no one could ever win the pro-life vote by standing for them, but they represent the edges of a true middle ground.
Going a little further along that path, many people do not believe that the fertilized egg is a person at conception. Most fertilized eggs do not implant in the womb and become children. I've heard doctors say that up to 75% of them never implant and are lost in the menstrual cycle. If life begins at conception, then 75% of all people lived less than a month and never developed beyond a few dividing cells. Personally, I don't believe that 75% of people never went beyond a few dividing cells, so I don't believe that life begins at the moment of conception. I suspect that a person doesn't become a person until a few days after implantation. Because of that, I don't have a problem with true "day after" contraception.
Going further from the pro-life extreme, some people say that the child isn't a person until there is a heartbeat and brain waves. I think the person is a person before this time, but the "heartbeat and brain waves" definition has merit. I can respect someone who has studied the issue enough to draw this kind of conclusion based on real medical evidence. This position would represent a real "middle ground." A politician espousing this view would have a hard time in the primaries, but I bet many real voters out there would prefer this approach over the more extreme approaches on either side.
Another "middle ground" position could be viability. I believe that babies have survived outside the womb after 20 or 22 weeks gestation. Some people would like to say that abortion should be legal before this time and illegal afterwards by any means. Pro-lifers would never vote for someone who was willing to accept a dividing line at 18 weeks gestation, but a pro-lifer who banned all abortions after 18 weeks gestation would be considered a hero. Again, I suspect that a candidate who promised to draw a very hard line at 18 weeks would have a hard time in the primaries but be remarkably popular among many common voters during a general election.
As we approach the pro-abortion extreme, we still find some middle ground with many pro-abortion people being repulsed by partial-birth abortion and supporting that ban. While supporting all abortion except partial-birth abortion is hardly a "middle ground," that position represents a step away from the pro-abortion extreme.
Bill
Ah, yes where have he heard the above before?
Ah, yes where have he heard the above before?
Ah, yes where have he heard the above before?
A triple? I don’t know how that happened. My apologies.
Folks,
I hasten to caution you about Mitt Romney.
In the debate when asked about how he feels if a Roman Catholic bishop were to deny communion to a pro-abortion Politician, he says : “The Catholic Church can do whatever the heck it wants.” Which seems to imply a separation of church and state.
But Just look at his record...
Then why did Romney:
1. Force Catholic hospitals in Massachusetts to hand out the abortion drug “Plan B” or close their doors?
2. Ignore the Catholic Action League who lobbied for a conscience clause so Catholic civil service workers wouldn’t be forced to perform same-sex “marriage” ceremonies? Romney’s position: Perform homosexual “marriages” or you’re fired.
3. Tell Boston’s largest adoption agency, Catholic Charities, they had to place vulnerable orphan children in the homes of homosexual activists or go out of business? Rather than bow to the Romney-enforced homosexual agenda, Boston Catholic Charities closed their doors. Even Michael Dukakis said Romney was wrong to force Catholics to violate their beliefs.
4. Force Catholics (and other pro-life people) to fund abortions in his (post-conversion) health-care plan that he’s so “very proud” of?
And what about Terri Schiavo, who Romney agreed should be starved to death? She was a Catholic, too. As Ronald Reagan said, “Facts are stubborn things.” Sit down, Mr. Romney. I don’t care whom you’ve paid to say nice things about you; you’re disqualified.
Just like Reagan and Bush Sr. They were once pro-choice too.
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.