[wagglebee]

Given that Reagan did sign a key bill which led pretty directly to the Court issuing Roe,

The two had NOTHING to do with each other.

his claim to have been pro-life all along is actually pretty similar to Romney's.

No, Romney signed into law a socialist healthcare plan that included taxpayer-funded abortion AFTER his supposed conversion.

It seems that all of the candidates are now trying to portray themselves as being the most "Reaganesque" and that's fine -- but they need to be prepared to be called to task for their deficiencies. To call Romney "Reaganesqe" only makes sense when he is being compared to Rudy, and that's not saying much.

[George W. Bush]

The two had NOTHING to do with each other.

Nonsense. Roe did not come from a vacuum. The liberal Warren Court (headed by another California governor) imposed Roe on all the anti-abortion states (like Texas) only after other large key states like New York and California passed such laws as Reagan's groundbreaking 1968 abortion bill.

And it became his abortion bill the minute he put his signature on it.

No, Romney signed into law a socialist healthcare plan that included taxpayer-funded abortion AFTER his supposed conversion.

Taxpayer-funded abortion has existed for decades in MA. I don't think it has been established that every healthcare plan offered in MA must include abortion-funding. Maybe it does. But I think you should prove it.

[curiosity]

No, Romney signed into law a socialist healthcare plan that included taxpayer-funded abortion AFTER his supposed conversion.

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.