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Asked whether "the day that Roe v. Wade is repealed" would "be a good day for Americans" Romney replied, "Absolutely."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.
No kidding.
Well, the pro-life owl is out and the crows are once again getting blown out of the sky in their fury to attack it.
I'm sick and tired of the two lies above.
1) Romeny's plan is not socialized medicine. Socialized medicine means the government runs the healthcare system. Under Romney's plan, everything remains in the private sector.
2) Massachusetts taxpayers already funded abortions before the plan under medicade. The Romney plan did not change anything in this regard.
He’s talking about questions from the MSM. RTFA.
:-)
Try reading the posting rules about profanity and personal attacks, jack. I read the article. You just don’t like my interpretation of it.
From Mitt's quote:
no one would ask the question,
Last I checked, that does not mean just the MSM.
So, what other personal attack are you going to try next in your flacking for Mitt?
So far, I count four crows and one goose down. And no bag limit on crows.
Romney Care Is a Sham
by Michael Lewis
Posted: 05/09/2006
I owe HUMAN EVENTS readers a big apology. I allowed the good spin put on Massachusetts’ new Romney Care legislation by the New York Times tilt my view in favor of the program enacted in an attempt to provide every citizen in the state with healthcare.
My column “Massachusetts Not as Blue as it Seems” reflects my violation of a crucial rule: never trust any law endorsed by the Times. At first glance, the much-heralded Massachusetts reform uses free-market principles to universalize healthcare. Upon reading the actual bill, the Wall Street Journal reported May 5 that the well-intentioned bill is actually a death warrant for small business in the Bay State.
The bill was hailed as a success in that it required individuals who could afford it to buy health insurance or pay an income tax penalty. The legislation also sought to mandate that companies move to provide all employees with health coverage. It was an improvement in that it wasn’t Hillary Care, and it is a disappointment in that it saddles businesses with expenses that threaten their ability to stay open, and shams individuals in that it requires a specific kind of policy be purchased.
Being a native of Massachusetts, I am of course more inclined to look favorably on a bill prided by a Republican governor than legislation sponsored by the commonwealth’s congressional delegation of Neanderthals (Kerry, Kennedy, Frank, Meehan, et al). The lesson here is to never let party allegiances blind you. The bill is destined to fail, according to the Wall Street Journal.
Upon a full comprehensive study of the legislation, it is clear that Romney was pandering to the Democrat-controlled legislature. The new healthcare law, according to the Wall Street Journal, requires businesses with 10 or more employees to provide them health insurance, or face a yearly $295 penalty per employee. While the fee seems punishment enough, businesses that cannot afford to provide insurance to all employees are responsible for all the expenses which the employee cannot pay, with no cap on the liability. After the bills reach in excess of $50,000, the commonwealth will fine companies $5,000 a week for every week they fail to submit the required paperwork on uncovered employees. The Wall Street Journal asserted that the regulations are burdensome enough for businesses to either limit their workforce to 10 employees, or begin laying people off.
Alas, I have learned to be skeptical of blue-state Republican governors. These governors must often sell out to Democrat-controlled legislatures to get anything done. Romney initially vetoed the provision which levied a $295 per employee penalty on businesses, only to be overruled by the Democratic legislature. Additionally, Section 65 of the law mandates that individuals buy HMO policies, rather than PPO plans, which allow much more consumer choice in providers and treatments. A Republican has betrayed the people by restricting choice insurance plans. What a sad day for the party.
As a Republican, Romney should have been more attentive to the consequences of the law for Mom n’ Pop businesses. Under the new cumbersome law, small businesses will be the first to fold because of unsustainable financial burdens. A more sensible bill would have allowed multiple businesses to pool resources in order to provide healthcare benefits to employees through trade associations. A similar bill has been pending in the Congress for two years, but is being opposed by — surprise — Democrats, who cite it as a giveaway to the insurance industry.
My aunt and uncle, owners of Foodmaster Supermarkets, with about 16 stores located throughout the greater Boston area, feel betrayed by Romney, as every Republican should. Foodmaster Supermarkets are renowned throughout Boston for their commitment to public service and charitable causes, such as Hospice of the North Shore, United Cerebral Palsy, the Lupus Foundation, and many others. But as with any business, there is a limit to how much the company can afford to give. The regulations imposed on my family’s business by Romney Care far surpass that limit. As Foodmaster already faces obstacles to survival from conglomerate chains such as Shaw’s and Stop n’ Shop, the new Massachusetts healthcare reform bill saddles the company with burdens which will challenge its ability to remain operational, and will reduce its ability to make much-needed contributions to the greater Boston community.
I hope my readers will forgive me of my misdeeds. But more importantly, I hope my uncle will forgive me for acting like a liberal.
http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=14651
Hillary Clinton, John Kerry, [and James Carville] Back Mitt Romney’s Health Plan
“To come up with a bipartisan plan in this polarized environment is commendable,” Sen. Hillary Clinton told the Associated Press on Thursday.
“I like this health care bill that’s passed,” Sen. John Kerry told radio host Don Imus Friday morning. “I think it’s terrific. Massachusetts has set a good course on that and I give everybody involved in that credit.”
The Romney plan would tax individuals who don’t buy their own health insurance. And businesses who didn’t provide health insurance for their employees would be penalized $300 per year. A similar proposal in New York carries a much stiffer penalty for businesses - $300 every five weeks.
Romney says he favors removing the business tax. However, when Mrs. Clinton was asked about cutting back the penalty, she told the AP: “That would unravel the plan.”
The comments echoed Hillary’s defense of her own 1994 proposal. When small businessmen complained that it would bust their budgets, the then-first lady famously declared: “I can’t be responsible for every undercapitalized business out there.”
The Romney plan is also winning praise from another strange bedfellow, Clinton strategist James Carville, who likes the proposal’s bipartisan pedigree.
“It’s a feel-good story, this Romney thing. Republican Governor. Democratic legislature,” Carville told the AP. “Romney is an ascendant guy.”
http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2006/4/7/111004.shtml
Heh...
“Upon a full comprehensive study of the legislation, it is clear that Romney was pandering to the Democrat-controlled legislature. The new healthcare law, according to the Wall Street Journal, requires businesses with 10 or more employees to provide them health insurance, or face a yearly $295 penalty per employee. While the fee seems punishment enough, businesses that cannot afford to provide insurance to all employees are responsible for all the expenses which the employee cannot pay, with no cap on the liability.”
Yikes!! Is that true??
Did he actually SIGN this piece of...??
sitetest
Yep.
As I said earlier, I can fully understand why every candidate wants to make himself seem the most Reaganesque. WHAT I CANNOT ABIDE BY IS THE ATTEMPTS OF THEIR SUPPORTERS TO MAKE THE CANDIDATE SEEM REAGANESQUE BY SMEARING REAGAN’S RECORD.
you haven't debunked a thing.
you typically cite a quote, law, or event out of context which is extremely disingenous - a pure Michael Moore tactic. You tend to cite snippets conducive to distortion. Unmarked Package, others, and the plain historical record, show a much more contextual (and therefore more truthful) account.
Yes, indeed, he did.
"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?' "
He's pointing out a double standard in the media. Whatever you believe about Romney's supposed conversion to pro-Life, he is correct in this instance.
Perhaps, but he still doesn’t seem to grasp the significance of pro-life principles and this makes me very skeptical about his supposed conversion.
I generally post Mitt’s own words.
Your guy, and his hacks, however, are attempting Kerryesque parsing and “nuance.”
The above were Mitt Romney's words while signing a permanent assault weapons ban. How "contexualized" do those who care about the Second Amendment need that fact to be?
This is the first I heard of this provision. I read the WSJ almost every day, and I never ran accross an article making this claim. I also looked through the text of the actual law, and could not find this provision.
Please provide a source, and by source I mean a reference to an article in a reputable legal journal documenting the above (not just some vague reference to a newspaper) or the relevent section of the actual law.
Additionally, Section 65 of the law mandates that individuals buy HMO policies, rather than PPO plans, which allow much more consumer choice in providers and treatments.
This is false. Here's what Section 65 actually states:
"SECTION 65. Said section 1 of said chapter 176J, as so appearing, is hereby further amended by striking out the definition “Carrier” and inserting in place thereof the following definition:—
“Carrier”, an insurer licensed or otherwise authorized to transact accident and health insurance under chapter 175; a nonprofit hospital service corporation organized under chapter 176A; a non-profit medical service corporation organized under chapter 176B; or a health maintenance organization organized under chapter 176G.
It's quite obvious that MA residents can pick may pick a plan from any liscenced insurer. The law explicitly lists an HMO as an option, but clearly it is not the only one. EV, I suggest you read the law for yourself before shooting your mouth off in the future:
http://www.mass.gov/legis/laws/seslaw06/sl060058.htm
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.