Posted on 05/09/2007 4:47:37 PM PDT by wagglebee
Washington, DC (LifeNews.com) -- Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney says he's getting tired of the questions about his shift a few years ago from supporting to opposing abortion. In a television interview last night, he said he wouldn't be barraged with so many questions if he had switched from pro-life to pro-abortion.
The comments came during a Monday night interview on the Fox News Channel program "Hannity and Colmes."
Romney has frequently explained how he became pro-life a few years ago after having to deal with the issue of embryonic stem cell research as governor -- after campaigning as a pro-abortion candidate on previous occasions.
"What I find interesting is, had I been pro-life and then changed to pro-choice, no one would ask the question," the former Massachusetts governor said.
He added: "But if you go the other direction, as I have and as Ronald Reagan did and (former Illinois Rep.) Henry Hyde and (former president) George Herbert Walker Bush, it's like the media can't get enough of it: 'Oh, well, why did you change?' "
Romney talked about his abortion views during the Republican presidential debate last week.
Asked whether "the day that Roe v. Wade is repealed" would "be a good day for Americans" Romney replied, "Absolutely."
The former governor was also asked about his position change -- something that presumably led to the Fox News comments.
"I've always been personally pro-life, but for me there was a great question about whether or not government should intrude in that decision. And when I ran for office, I said I’d protect the law as it was, which is effectively a pro-choice position," Romney explained.
"About two years ago when we were studying cloning in our state, I said, look, we have gone too far; it’s a brave new world mentality that Roe v. Wade has given us; and I change my mind," he added.
"And I said I was wrong and changed my mind and said I'm pro-life. And I'm proud of that and I won't apologize to anybody for becoming pro-life," he concluded.
You’re deeply in denial about Reagan’s actual record. Go ahead and pretend he was always pro-life, even as he signed one of the earliest pro-abortion bills in the country.
What does the PUBLIC debate have to do with the decision?
I notice you still want to link Reagan to this decision, even by resorting to factual inaccuracies. You made a statement earlier trying to link Reagan to this decision because both he and Earl Warren were California governors. However, none of this is relevant, because BURGER WAS CHIEF JUSTICE WHEN ROE WAS DECIDED.
There is no escaping the fact that Romney was pro-abortion for at least the better part of three decades after Roe was decided and he may still be pro-abortion today (he signed bills funding abortion). Stop trying to make your candidate seem conservative by demeaning Reagan.
“You’re deeply in denial about Reagan’s actual record.”
You need to produce some actual evidence of that assertion.
I’ve read the actual legislation.
It is close to what most pro-lifers would like abortion law to be TODAY. Thus, it’s disingenuous to call it “pro-abort” or “pro-choice.”
On the other hand, perhaps, by your definition, Mr. Reagan WAS pro-choice, in that he accepted, in 1967, that abortion should be available in cases of rape, incest, and when a woman’s health was gravely threatened by continued pregnancy.
Of course, by that definition, you’ve just labeled most actual pro-lifers - folks who would make illegal 96+% of abortions - as “pro-choice.”
Go ahead and pretend that moderate pro-lifers - folks who would ban 96+% of abortions - are actually “pro-choice.”
Go ahead and pretend that these folks are the equivalent of folks - like Mitt Romney (at least from 1970 - 2005) - who believe that abortion should be generally legal, that it is a woman's "right."
sitetest
I doubt that many would be surprised...
Thanks for the ping!
I know virtually nothing about Mitt Romney other than that he is a Mormon and a good family man and has flip-flopped on Abortion.
I wasn't able to catch the first "Question and Answer Conference" of the GOP Candidates. Unfortunately, I forgot the channel block code for MSNBC and CNN long ago!
There is a difference between saying there is a constitutional right to do X, and saying that X is morally acceptable to God.
It is not morally acceptable to God to blaspheme Him, but you have a constitutional right to do so. Mitt wrongly considered abortion to be an immoral option that people had a right to choose under the constitution and has come to see his error and change.
Strange how Christians can sometimes be the least forgiving people around.
Link?
All I generally have to post on this subject is Romney's own words and actions concerning "scary guns" when he signed the MA permanent assault weapons ban:
Not true at all.
Gosh, I come back to FR, and what do I see: Romniacs once again dissing Ronald Reagan to try and somehow elevate their liberal candidate. No different than what the Rooty-toots attempted here in recent months, and so signally failed to accomplish.
Thanks for the link. I’ll check it out. I’m thinking of contacting him, to offer an interview regarding ESCR and cloning, from a Christian perspective.
How?
“Mitt wrongly considered abortion to be an immoral option that people had a right to choose under the constitution and has come to see his error and change.”
Great! I’d be happy to embrace Mr. Romney’s conversion!
If he didn’t keep implying that Mr. Reagan was “pro-choice” or that “personally pro-life but politically pro-abort” is a valid position.
If he’d stop with all the garbage, all the excuse-making, all the blame-shifting, all the effort to make himself look better than he was, his alleged “conversion” would be more credible to me, more believable.
But at this point, all the nonsense about he’s no different than Ronald Reagan, or that he was really, really pro-life all along, except that he publicly embraced Roe v. Wade with gusto, just makes me think he’s a liar and a fraud.
As well, I just don’t accept the “personally pro-life, but...” line of argument.
I’m Catholic. I’ve been listening to pro-abort Catholic politicians make this distinction for over two decades, now. I consider them to be frauds, hypocrites, liars, thugs and murderers. I see no reason to think better of non-Catholics who hold the same garbage.
I see it for what it is: a dodge. A cowardly out. A way to remain “politically viable” while lying to oneself and to everyone else who will listen and be duped. A way to excuse oneself to not lift a finger to stop the mass murder. I haven’t accepted it in Catholic pro-abort politicians, why should I start crediting it with Mormon pro-abort politicians?
sitetest
RE:
If you have links handy for the info you’ve given at post 89, I sure would appreciate them.
Here is the link where I copied the allegations against Romney verbatim for all to read:
http://worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=55581
TITLE : WILL THE REAL RONALD REAGAN PLEASE STAND UP ?
READ THE fifth paragraph down...
What can I tell ya? This place attracts trolls like honey attracts critters.
sitetest
FYI, He's talking about the MSM, not conservatives. Read the article before shooting your mouth off.
you: I see to you're into just reading headlines and shooting your mouth off like an idiot without reading the article..
From the article:
"What I find interesting is, had I been pro-life and then changed to pro-choice, no one would ask the question," the former Massachusetts governor said.
And I was addressing that line and calling Mitt dead wrong.
So I did read the article. You, apparently, are too busy being a Romney flack to read what I've posted.
Total BS. I signed it. What more "disclosure" do you need? LOL...
I actually post on FR as myself, and always have. What's your name, "Rameumptom"?
He also doesn't answer allegations from unmarked package that some of the sources he has relied are crap.
The sources I quote from, and consistently link, stand on their own.
I've consistently taken issue with the lying Romney-campaign sourced spin on UP's homepage, because it is rife with deception, and does little but attempt to cloud the facts about Romney's extreme liberal record as Governor of Massachusetts.
I have thoroughly addressed all of these things here more times than I can count. I can't help it if Romney supporters are willfully deaf, dumb and blind.
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.