Replies

Dear George W. Bush,

Your post in no way regards the context of things.

His position in 1967 - to permit abortion only in hospitals, only after a committee of doctors (or alternatively a district attorney, in cases of rape) had ascertained that a woman was a victim of rape or incest, or was in dire medical need of an abortion due to grave risk to her health - is about as pro-life as most pro-life folks are today.

As to being related to Roe - please document the connection. I can find none. It appears to be an assertion on your part without any actual evidence.

“And he did not become pro-life in any way that any person at the time could detect until 1975.”

The actual legislation that he actually signed in 1967 would be considered nearly model abortion legislation by most pro-lifers today. By his actual deeds, one can say that he was a moderate pro-lifer.

That he became more pro-life, and more adamantly pro-life over time is wonderful.

But to anachronistically use the terms “pro-choice” or “pro-abort” to him in 1967 borders on dissembling.

Mr. Romney, on the other hand, was a loud and proud pro-abort (and maybe still is).

sitetest

I have lost interest in debating someone who can't accept that Reagan:

Signed one of the country's most liberal abortion bills in 1968
Never spoke or wrote a single word in the pro-life cause until 1975, a year before he challenged the pro-abortion Ford for the nomination.

Beyond that, Romney's remarks only mentioned Reagan in passing to begin with and to no greater extent than Hyde or Bush I. His point was not making himself into Reagan, it was to highlight the press obsession and hounding of anyone who goes pro-choice to pro-life. But never the other way as with Gephart and Gore and others.

If you think Romney is being deceptive, then just say so. Dragging Reagan's record into it is a distraction and proves far less than you assert.