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Asked whether "the day that Roe v. Wade is repealed" would "be a good day for Americans" Romney replied, "Absolutely."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.
I don’t understand you question the way you frame it?
I will always defend my faith if you want to label it an apologist I have no control over your interpretation.
I defend not because of tradition or loyalty, I defend because I received a witness from the Lord!
And that ‘witness from the Lord’ leads you to ridicule and dissemble with fellow Freepers? Oooo kay
First you declined to support your claim by objecting that, if you did, I would shower you with endless objections.
I removed that problem by promising to introduce no comment at all on your evidence.
Now you decline to support your claim by objecting that you've already supported it elsewhere -- while effectively preventing its discovery by supplying no practical means of unearthing it, ie. you provide no links to your evidence.
By requiring others to search through hundreds or thousands of your FR posts in search of even one instance of restornu's evidence against the Tanners, you provide others with no reasonable or practical way to hear you out.
Who is treating whom to endless objections?
Your continued stonewalling makes it plain that you have placed a gag order on the evidence for your own claim. Either that, or you simply have no evidence to present.
If you do not support your argument, then you have no argument.
On this forum, claims can only be taken seriously when supported with evidence -- including the claim that you have posted this evidence in the past.
Where is the evidence, ie. the links, for that claim?
My facts are straight partner. You can teach me nothing about pro life issues and I wouldn't deign to think I could teach you something either. If I want condescension I prefer to get it from Condescension Central. Comprende? President Bush signed the legislation that allowed federal funds to be spent on those stem cell lines. The prerequisite for those lines was killing embryo's. Ergo, he subsidised the killing of embryo's. That's the fact Jack and it still doesn't change the fact that Bush has been the best pro life POTUS we have had. I won't bother to bore you with the statistics concerning abortion rates and legislation passed, I assume you know those like you know everything else.
It's not an either/or question.
Correct it's a question of politics, the art of the possible. It is currently possible to role back Roe to the first trimester. The science has made our argument easier, it is a relatively simple proposition to convince Americans that third trimester babies are human beings fully formed and deserving of constitutional protection. It is not even that hard to do the same with second trimester babies. However, convincing Americans, who fear death and the ravages of age, that embryo's sitting idly in refrigerators should be given the same protection while they are seeking the fountain of youth is a much more difficult endeavor politically.
So, what is the moral thing to do here friend? Do we save as many as we can where and when we can or let them fall under the knife until we can cobble together a majority for all or nothing?
My take on Romney is that he would be a pro life POTUS who would appoint Justices who recognize that Roe is garbage. My take on Rudy is the opposite. He climbed to the Mayoralty of New York on the backs of unborn babies sacrificed on the altar of NARAL. Big difference here. I would hope you would recognize it.
As for President Reagans book it sit's on my desk where it has been for quite some time now. Like I said he became a pro life warrior and we love him for that. Legislatively and statistically this POTUS has President Reagan beaten. That's the way I see it. How you see it is up to you.
But when you make claims to others who have not experienced that same "witness," you cannot hope to be taken seriously unless you give them some supporting evidence that they can access and review for themselves.
Anybody can claim "special knowledge."
For example, another might claim "special knowledge" that the Tanners are truthful and correct about Mormonism, by citing a "witness from the Lord," just as you have done.
How could anybody evaluate such competing claims, neither of which can be examined?
But when you make claims to others who have not experienced that same "witness," you cannot hope to be taken seriously unless you give them some supporting evidence that they can access and review for themselves.
Anybody can claim "special knowledge."
For example, another might claim "special knowledge" that the Tanners are truthful and correct about Mormonism, by citing a "witness from the Lord," just as you have done.
How could anybody evaluate such competing claims, neither of which can be examined?
This is just plain not true, as I explain in post 319, using the analysis of a highly respected MA labor law firm as my source.
You may want to incorporate some of that analysis on your Freeper pages to counter this new piece of misinformation making its rounds throughout the blogsphere and the MSM.
You just can't see the difference, can you. He allowed the research on existing lines, not the destruction of more embryos. Romney wants to kill more embryos.
My take on Romney is that he would be a pro life POTUS who would appoint Justices who recognize that Roe is garbage. My take on Rudy is the opposite.
I don't know why. All you have to go on is both of their words...the words of proven liberals. Their records are the complete opposite.
And, lastly, you might want to check your own condescension meter.
You can barely bring yourself to admit Reagan’s record.
As always, such a reasonable post, John.
If you went to court to contest a traffic ticket, would you expect the judge to dismiss the ticket merely because you said you received "witness from the Lord" that you did not go through that red light?
He would require evidence that he could examine, wouldn't he?
For example, if your evidence consisted of a written city traffic engineer's affadavit that the traffic light in question was inoperable at the time the citation was issued, the judge could examine that and dismiss the ticket.
Or if you submitted into evidence another ticket you had received with the same time stamp on it, showing you were over-parked at a meter on the other side of town, the judge could examine that and dismiss your red light ticket.
But simply telling the judge that you had "witness from the Lord" that you didn't go through that red light??
The source is Betsy McCaughey, former lieutenant governor of New York, who is chairman of the Committee to Reduce Infection Deaths, in the Wall Street Journal. Take it up with them.
I'm amazed, frankly, that the Romney campaign needs high-priced MA lawyers to back their spin.
The above is a dishonest cutting of corners on the truth.
Here's President Bush's statement on this very issue:
"As a result of private research, more than 60 genetically diverse stem cell lines already exist. They were created from embryos that have already been destroyed, and they have the ability to regenerate themselves indefinitely, creating ongoing opportunities for research. I have concluded that we should allow federal funds to be used for research on these existing stem cell lines, where the life and death decision has already been made."
I stand by what I said and I don't need to give examples there are plenty here on FR remember those days on the Religon Forum.
Examined all you want!
Anybody can claim "special knowledge."
Receiving a witness from the Lord is a Testamony!
My reply was to another poster is on a different subject and my receiving a witness from the Lord, needs no validation from you!
You are the one who is faultfinding with my faith I don’t inject myself on others unless posters gossip to malign the LDS with their falsehoods.
Whoever she is, she's got her facts wrong, and I've proved it by citing the relevent sections of the law. But since when have you cared about facts?
I'm amazed, frankly, that the Romney campaign needs high-priced MA lawyers to back their spin.
That was a newletter sent to the law firm's CLIENTS on how to comply with the law. It had nothing to do with the Romney campaign. But don't take their word for it. The MA restauranteers association says the same thing in a document circulated to their members:
A Free-Rider Surcharge will be imposed on employers of 11 or more who do not “offer to contribute to", or "arrange for the purchase of health insurance" for all of their employees. This surcharge will be based on an employee's and their dependents' use of the "free health care" services.
An employer can avoid the Free-Rider Surcharge by: Offering a group health insurance plan; or
Establishing a Section 125 Cafeteria Plan, which allows an employee to set aside wages on a pre-tax basis for qualified benefits, such as group health insurance costs.
It is important to note that an employer need not make a financial contribution to a plan in order to avoid this surcharge. The "arrange for coverage" requirement is satisfied by establishing a cafeteria plan.
Taken from here:
https://www.marestaurantassoc.org:442/documents/March2007HealthCareUpdate.doc
Better yet, read the law for yourself. I've already provided a link. It's all there in black and white.
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.