Posted on 12/21/2007 12:39:38 PM PST by AFA-Michigan
Romney slander on Reagan abortion record "totally untrue," former Reagan campaign manager said
(snip)
CBSNews.com: But the Romney people would argue that Ronald Reagan, whom you served as political director and campaign manager, changed his position (on abortion).
Ed Rollins: Let me tell you the Ronald Reagan story. The Ronald Reagan story which (the Romney people) have used over and over again is totally untrue. First of all, Roe vs. Wade had not occurred yet [during his early years as governor].
RONALD REAGAN WAS NEVER PRO-CHOICE.
Ronald Reagan signed a law that allowed women who had had psychiatric damage and were suicidal to have an abortion. He thought it was about maybe 300 a year, which is what he was told. You know, it turned out to be a very significant abortion bill because a lot of women just went and got a sign off from a psychiatrist.
Ronald Reagan was opposed to that from day one. He was very upset about that. So I mean I find real fault with Romney basically saying, "Ronald Reagan did this. Ronald Reagan did that." I mean I remember him basically saying he wasn't for Ronald Reagan. He belittled Ronald Reagan in '94 when he ran against Kennedy.
(snip)
(Excerpt) Read more at cbsnews.com ...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7pVqZzHm3Z4
I’m not a fan of the Huckster, but I’m glad someone is saying this. You could sign the bill Reagan signed and still be considered “pro-life”.
Earth to ed, Ronald Reagan is not running for office!
Romney is a liberal and so is Rudy.
Mike Huckabee is a socialist. He would destroy our party.
This Rollins guy is getting tiresome fast. I never heard of him before he hitched his wagon to the Huckster and Reagan got himself elected by being who he was.
Please, let’s stop calling it “pro-choice.” It’s “pro-abortion” It’s like the fraud known as “affirmative action” or calling homosexuals “gay”.
If Romney paid Rollins more than Huckabee is paying him, he’d be saying the opposite. I wouldn’t trust any of the three.
LLS
He seem to have a propensity to make an ass of himself. Let him talk!
Rollins is a paid mouthpiece for Huck now.
In 1967, a democrat state lawmaker (Beilenson) pushed to liberalize the laws for just three reasons: to allow abortion in the case of rape, incest, or where the baby might be deformed. ...Governor Ronald Reagan's first response was "Here's an emotional problem that has so many facets of consideration. It is not only spiritual, but also legal... when does life begin? What right does the unborn life have? What legal right? I'm not prepared to answer now."
In subsequent statements, Reagan took great exception to the portion of the law addressing the possibilty of deformity. "I am satisfied in my own mind we can morally and logically justify liberalized abortions to protect the health of a mother. I cannot justify the taking of an unborn life simply on the supposition that the baby may be born less than a perfect human being... [this kind of thing] wouldn't be much different from what Hitler tried to do."
The deformity provision was dropped shortly thereafter. The final statute permitted abortions in the case of forcible rape, incest, statutory rape if the victim was under 15 years old or if there was a "substantial risk" that continued pregnancy would "gravely impair" the "physical or mental health" of the mother.
Several months before Reagan signed the final bill, Colorado passed similar legislation (thus, California was not "the first" as some have asserted.)
Yea, that position is not pro-choice. If a woman is going to kill herself because she’s nuts and the pregnancy is driving her over the edge, then if she commits suicide, both people die. Reagan made the decision I would hope: the only time it’s acceptable is when it’s to lose one life instead of two.
Although I have to admit, if I had a wife and her life was threatened by childbirth, I think that I may not want a woman who would make that decision.
This Reagan as pro choice attack by Romney’s people has resurfaced here as recently as a few days ago.
It might be good news if you want Huck to lose. Rollins has sabotaged some campaigns he has worked on, based on some freeper posts I've read over the years.
That same attack is what got quite a few people banned when they used it to try to justify Rudy's abortion stance. Even when corrected, they kept it up--and got zotted.
.
Candidates have never learned to put these guys on the incentive system because they're totally ingrained in "The Public Sector!" (which is why we shouldn't elect them till they confess their sins and acquire some redeeming social value to society)
So your sabotoge scenario is not far-fetched at all!!!
That’s not even the one I was thinkin’ of! LOL
http://news.aol.com/political-machine/2007/12/14/huck-hires-ed-walking-around-rollins/
Huck Hires Ed ‘Walking Around’ Rollins
Hey! Rollins was Ross Peeerots “crazy ain’t in da basemint,” too!!! (talk about sabotoge that gave us the Clintons)(ew! That almost sounds like an STD!!!)
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.