Posted on 12/25/2007 2:34:26 PM PST by Brices Crossroads
Romney:
When Romney took office in 2003, under the law in Massachusetts, enacted by the Massachusetts Supreme Court in Moe v. Secretary of Admin.& Finance, 382 Mass. 629, 417 N.E.2d 387 (Mass. 1981), the taxpayers of Massachusetts were forced to subsidize ONLY abortions performed on Medicaid eligible women. In 2003, there were 4,859 publicly funded abortions in Massachusetts, according to the Massachusetts Citizens for Life. link
In 2003, there were 25,741 total abortions performed in Massachusetts. link
Post-RomneyCare, the state forces every Massachusetts taxpayer to fund every abortion performed on any Massachusetts resident for a very modest $50 copay. Thus, under Romney Care, the number of abortions that will be funded on the backs of the taxpaying citizens of Massachusetts will be at least 500% more than the number when he took office (approx. 25,000 versus 5,000).
Romney's answer to this is as predictable as it is disingenuous: The Courts made me do it. The Court in Moe did no such thing. The court did not require the legislature to subsidize health care. In finding that the state had to cover abortions for Medicaid eligible women in the same way it covered child bearing, the Court was explicit that: "... the legislature need not subsidize any of the costs associated with child bearing or with health care generally. Once it chooses to enter the Constitutionally protected area of choice, it must do so with genuine indifference." This is Massachusetts double speak which is translated: "If you do not want to have universal funding of abortion on demand, then do not pass a universal and mandatory health care program." Romney could have avoided this five fold increase in publicly funded abortions which was put across on his watch and with his enthusiastic support, by vetoing the whole plan. Instead, he chose to sacrifice the lives of unborn children (and to require the taxpayers of Massachusetts to pay for it) on the altar of compulsory, yes socialized, health care. All the bromides about an unpassable Constitutional Human Life Amendment cannot conceal the fact that, when he could have done something to prevent an increase in abortion, Romney not only did nothing. He actually cooperated with it. At the signing ceremony attended by Ted Kennedy, in April 2006 (after his supposed conversion to a prolife position), the mood was ebullient, according to the news reports:
"Mostly, however, the tone was congratulatory. 'This isn't 100 percent of what anyone in this room wanted,' Mr. Romney said. 'But the differences between us are small.' Mr. Kennedy said, 'You may well have fired the shot heard round the world on health care in America. I hope so.'" link
I guess there were not any unborn children in the room, because I daresay their differences with all the celebrants there would have been rather more than "small". Here's hoping that this "shot" Kennedy predicted is heard at least as far as Iowa, where Romney has more or less successfully reinvented himself as a prolife zealot.
Huckabee:
Apparently, according to the documents below, Mike Huckabee took $35,000 in honoraria from a major embryonic stem cell research firm, Novo Nordisk, in late 2006 and early 2007. Earlier this year, Mitt Romney got substantial flack for owning stock in the same firm, and he divested himself of it. See the article below, with links to the documents and websites:
"The Cooler has obtained documents that show Mike Huckabee received $378,000 in consulting fees during 2006, while he was still governor of Arkansas. Most noteworthy, $35,000 came from Novo Nordisk, one of the world's largest embryonic stem cell researchers. It seems that when money is at stake Huckabee may be able to look past his supposedly fervent opposition to this procedure."
There is no doubt that Romney's divergence from the prolife position in RomneyCare is far more serious from a policy standpoint and has graver consequences for the unborn. Huckabee, however, is guilty of real hubris in taking this cash from a company that traffics in human embryos for research, while railing against embryonic stem cell research and even showing pictures of children who were once frozen embryos to try to tug at the heartstrings of his supporters. link
I can only imagine if youtube was around prior to Reagan’s conversion to a pro-life platform.
It was apparently speaking fees. This company does diabetes research, which Huckabee was interested in. Their website, which is at the link in the article, prominently mentions embryonic stem cell research. As to whether Huck knew or not, he has not explained himself or addressed this at all. (The company also purchased thousands of copies of his weight loss book.)
Romney took a hit in August for owning stock in this company because it does embryonic stem cell research. It was widely reported, yet Huck never followed suit by returning the 35K or giving back the money for the books. He needs to address this issue. What did he know and when did he know it? (Where have we heard that before?) It is a major red flag, considering the fact that he is going all over Iowa condemning the very same research.
You got a guy banned, and you consider that a win?
Now back on point...
Romney’s plan requires people to buy *private* health insurance. Those insurance plans cover abortion...much like many of the insurance plans that every Tom, Dick, and Harry pay a premium to every month.
Taxpayers aren’t funding abortions in MA any more so than you’re funding abortions if you pay an insurance premium to a private insurance company that covers abortion.
See something you do not remember or maybe don’t know is that it was brought up back then, and dismissed as a minor issue since time had passed and Reagan had take CONSISTANT stands for more than just one election cycle....
As for the rest, it is what it is. You are ordering people to buy private health insurance. That is basically fascist actually, not socialist.
I understand your reservations about Romney, but suppose he wins the nomination?
Mitt says he’s pro-life, but you don’t believe him. All of the Dems say they are pro-choice.
Do you not believe them too?
Since you seem to know so much about Reagan, could you explain his definition of the “11th amendment”?
You’re pursuing a scorched-Earth policy in a friggin’ primary in which Fred Thompson doesn’t stand a chance. The only winner will be the Democrats.
Bzzzzt. Wrong.
He got himself banned.
--------------------------------------------------------
I don't see you whining about mandatory car insurance, which is required so that the rest of us don't have to pay for some guy's lack of financial common sense. To say that mandatory *private* health insurance is the same as taxpayer funded abortions is laughable.
Mandatory car insurance requires you insure the other guy against loss for what you and your car might do to him.
Do you know of any state that requires you insure yourself for your own automobile loss?
You really shouldn’t have brought up Reagan . Reagan never tried to out Liberal a Kennedy ...
This is unfortunately too easy , watch the whole thing ....
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a9IJUkYUbvI
Oh and btw , how dare you try to disparage Reagan ....
Romney shreds Romney , just think what the Dims will do ...
“Romney’s plan requires people to buy *private* health insurance”
And the law which requires them to buy the insurance also requires the insurance to cover the abortion. The insurance claims (including those for abortion) are paid from the premiums. This is exactly the same as if you took it directly from their pockets. The only difference is that the premiums are cycled through private insurance companies. The taxpayers have no choice. They have to belong, whether they want abortion coverage or not. The fact that the money does not pass through the government hands is a distinction without a difference.
Why?
The state forces you to pay money into a which pays for abortions. At its essence it is indistinguishable from taxpayer-funded abortions.
They take their example from the top.
Remember: Willard lied about Ronald Reagan's pro-life credentials.
I’m beginning to wonder if maybe the Willardians just don’t understand this.
Romney’s past is catching up with him , and now we get to watch his campaign squirm .... very similar to the Kerry squirm ...
“I’m beginning to wonder if maybe the Willardians just don’t understand this.”
I am forced to conclude that the ones who are just shilling for Romney do not want to understand it. I think the ones who are misled can be reasoned with. You cannot argue with what he did. He expanded public funding abortion (or, if they insist, publicly coerced funding) in Massachusetts by 500%. That is his record and he cannot run from it.
The analogy is more apt to be: ‘so, if we have to have insurance and a license to use the public roads, we ought ordered to have insurance to use ...’
-----------------------------------------------------------
You guys are a hoot. The level of narcissistic sense of self-importance by a select few on this board could keep a shrink busy for an entire career.
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.