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
If I were trying to defend Slick Willard as an honest conservative, I’d change the subject too.
The internals are a lot more reliable than the horse race numbers. Romney has always had the highest negatives of all the GOP candidates.
Here is another internal that should cause you concern from Rasmusssen:
“Romney is now viewed as politically conservative by 38% of Republican voters and moderate or liberal by 43%. Those figures reflect an eight-point decline in the number seeing him as conservative and a ten-point increase in the number seeing him as moderate or liberal.”
In other words, as people focus on the race, they are seeing Romney for what he is-a liberal. BTW, Fred Thompson is once again seen as the most conservative candidate in the GOP field(with 50% saying he is conservative), which is where he was when he was leading the pack in Rasmussen in September and October. These perceptions are a leading indicator of where the race is heading, since the GOP is still at its core conservative. the horse race numbers follow these perceptions.
Romney at his core is not conservative, and people can see that in spite of his spinmeisters.
That IS a leading indicator.
I hope so. I really am looking forward to a Conservitive in the WH. I wish as a FR member you would want the same, but oh well...
“a leading indicator.”
“....of electoral doom in a party where the overwhelming majority is conservative.” Bye Bye Romney. Thanks for your contributions to the Iowa and South Carolina economies!
George Soros was big hit in business also.
I mean if you are going to go off the Conservitive reservation, why not go all the way?
In that same poll where 43% see Romney as moderate or liberal, 39% see Thompson as moderate or liberal...a statistically insignificant difference.
But you already knew that because you intentionally left it out of your cut and paste.
BTW—those numbers also blow a hole in your name-recognition theory.
Thompson: 50% see him as conservative, 39% see him as moderate or liberal. (11% with no opinion?)
Romney: 38% see him as conservative, 43% see him as moderate or liberal (19% with no opinion?)
Soros doesn’t pass the personal values test.
The requirement is success in business and ones personal life.
Having one and not the other doesn’t cut it.
WOW a twofer. You get the best of Soros and Jimmy Carter in one package with Romney...
So...Thompson is +11 on the conservative scale and Romney is -5. That is a 16 point differential and the trend for Mitt is that more people are tending to see him as a liberal since the last Rasmussen survey. That is bad news if you want to be the nominee of the conservative party.
But he is sooo good looking...
Check out Romney Fairy Tale: www.artlaction.com
Huckabee has surged because he won a couple of debates and he’s got evangelical support. If a quick rise can happen to the liberal pro-life evangelical Huckster, it can happen to the conservative pro-life evangelical Hunter.
.
.
.
According to Intrade, the winner of the December 12th GOP debate was... Duncan Hunter.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1938773/posts
Why the smart money is on Duncan Hunter
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1926032/posts
Have you looked into whether abortion coverage is mandated in the statute, which Romney had to sign for the bill to become law, or whether it was written in later, when the statute was translated into regulations?
I don’t know how it works in Massachusetts, but the governor often has no official role after the bill is signed. Bureaucrats can do a lot of damage after he puts pen to paper.
When one buy private health insurance, one may choose a choose a plan that does not provide abortions. Medicaid does not fund abortions. Neither does the military, the VA nor the federal employees’ health system, unless the mother’s life is in danger or in the case of rape or incest. In other words, it is difficult bordering on impossible to obtain a taxpayer-subsidized abortion...unless one lives in Massachusetts.
And yet Mitt Romney, the man who signed the legislation forcing Massachusetts residents to pay for abortions, has the nerve to say he’s pro-life.
Nope. Like in most states, the insurance commissioner's office determines what must be covered in the state. Such specifics are not written into any piece of legislation. Abortion was included in the coverage mandates long before Romney's plan was passed.
Depends on the state. Some states require all health insurance plans to cover abortion. Unfortunately, Masschusetts was such a state long before Romney was elected.
It was written in later and not in the statute.
The “but it was Massachusetts” argument doesn’t work with me. Leaders are supposed to lead, not follow the opposition party down the road to perdition. Romney rolled over for the Dems at every opportunity, proving that while he is an able manager, he is no leader at all, and we don’t need a manager in the Oval Office who will efficiently manage the wrong policies into being.
A true pro-life leader, President Bush, has advocated for and signed numerous pieces of pro-life legislation, including the partial birth abortion ban, laws prohibiting the use of Medicaid funds and foreign aid for abortions, and regulations prohibiting military and other government hospitals from performing them.
Governors are supposed to lead, not capitulate to their Democrat legislature at every opportunity. There is no evidence from the way he governed that Romney is pro-life at all. All we have are his words, which with his propensity toward flip flopping, mean nothing.
He led the fight to cut spending. He led the fight against tax increases and managed to get a corporate tax cut. He led the fight against gay marraige. He vetoed an embryo farming bill. He vetoed over-the-counter access to the morning after pill abortificient. He led on passing a healthcare bill that loosened regulations and lowered the price on health insurance.
He wasn't able to achieve everything, like eliminate the abortion coverage mandates that pre-existed his administration. Well, welcome to politics. That's how it works. You can never get everything you want.
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.