Posted on 01/23/2008 8:39:32 AM PST by maui_hawaii
This is part three of my vanity series on Mitt. What I have been doing is posting contextual and background information on Mitt as per my own analysis on each of the issues where people say they have 'concern'. As always everyone, pro or con is invited to participate but please stay on topic.
In this one I want to talk about Mitt and abortion. This is one topic where some will accuse Mitt of being an utter left wing liberal who supports and is an abortion lover who was marching down the road with N.O.W. shouting 'free choice'. I believe those people's accusations are extreme and not quite as accurate as they may think.
As stated I will cover abortion, and intend to cover each issue one at a time. If you are inclined to say “but what about the 2nd amendment” please find another thread because this one is about Mitt and abortion. In this request all I am asking for is an orderly discussion of the issues.
When people try to throw all issues into one pot all at once you get glancing blows with nothing more than a shout fest resulting. And you never get down to the core of what is going on. I want core, not shout.
Now, we cannot effectively discuss Mitt’s position on abortion without also talking about LDS views on abortion. The influence is most definitely there. In fact it would be instructive to hear the latter first… and a bit about where it came from and where it is now.
The LDS Church is, and has been very much against abortion and there is no equivocation on the matter. If any person desires to be baptized one of the questions asked prior to baptism of any and all converts is have they participated in any abortions. If the answer is yes, baptism can be denied.
Yes, people can be denied baptism as a Mormon if they have participated in an abortion, but there are steps to be taken that are not easy, but can allow exceptions to be made.
So, you have 60,000 missionaries around the world, they find someone who wants to get baptized but that person has either had an abortion, or if male, has assisted someone else in getting an abortion…. They cannot be baptized without an appeal to much senior church authorities.
They will determine if that person can or cannot be baptized based on particular situations.
As a member in the church the rules are clear. As a male, if I drive some woman to the hospital and knowingly help her get an abortion and/or encourage that… I can be excommunicated for that action. That goes without saying about females getting abortions.
The fact of the matter is, the rules are there and there is no kidding nor joking around about it and it is clear. It is equated quite literally scripturally with murder, as it should be.
So, Mitt grew up in a home where this was made crystal clear by all church leaders. So how did he wind up ‘pro-choice’?
This is exactly what I will explain.
Based on media reports Mitt stated that in his earlier years a person either in (or close to) his family died in a botched abortion. Understandably this has one role in things, but it is not at all the explanation. It was one factor.
Now, flash forward--- there was a group of people or persons---who were Mormons who were caught up in the abortion debate. They truly were seeking answers. They were asking very difficult questions. Things such as, “say a woman who is pregnant gets into a car crash and unless there is an emergency abortion---both she and the baby die…What is the church’s position on that?”
After much deliberation as is generally the case the church came out and effectively said that in dire situations which are very rare and very few in between….in those cases women or their families can approach church leaders on case by case instances. And if it is determined that it is warranted then no action will be taken by the church against those people.
So in a nutshell, the lady in the car crash didn’t have to worry about excommunication. As long as her or her family went through the right channels and show that there was an extra ordinary situation…then the church can accept that. This is by no means an endorsement of abortion. There was no equivocation on their overall position.
The position still stands to this day and isn’t changing. But they answered difficult questions about specific instances. To see how they came to that conclusion would take a long look at LDS theology.
So now you have Mitt, not only a business man, but a soon to be lawyer. His mind thinks in nuances. Listen carefully to how he talks. If you listen carefully he says a lot and very eloquently. Some call it ‘smooth’ or ‘slick’ but he has a very active mind.
All of these factors I am talking about here came together to mold Mitt’s position. Was he ever ‘pro abortion’ as in showing up and NOW rallys? Did he ever believe in ‘elective abortions’? No.
But by the law, should that doctor who performed the abortion on the woman in the car accident, should he go to prison? Should the woman go to prison?
His lawyerly and scholarly mind came down that on a matter of legality the answer should be no.
Now people are going to point out that Mitt was a Bishop. Yes, but he was actually one step in the hierarchy above a Bishop. He was not, and did not violate the church’s stance. How? Why? Because he did all he could to stop and counsel and prevent abortions. If he had ever not done so he would not have been put in position where he was overseeing multiple Bishops and multiple congregations.
So when Mitt says his position made him ‘effectively pro choice’ let’s put that into context. His position did not fall neatly within the boundaries of where the argument was at and his reasons for supporting it was not the same as your average person.
They were arguing that it was ‘her choice’ and that it was a ‘right’….but Mitt’s position had nothing to do with any of those. His position was that by definition of the law it should not be completely banned as in outright.
To use abortion as a social mechanism, NO WAY. As an excuse or an out for immorality? Definitely not.
When Mitt became Governor though, he got to see close up what was really happening. In a congregation of believing Mormons it comes up, but nothing like what he saw in Massachusetts.
He saw the effect of his ‘effective position’ and more so that so many people were abusing things. The world was not as idyllic as he once thought. Through one event or another…It kept on being re-enforced even until the stem cell issue. He saw that many people outside of his upbringing did not respect life anywhere NEAR what he thought they did. He gave the benefit of the doubt, which was too much.
So with all that, was his flip really a flip? Think about it. It wasn’t as much of a ‘flip’ as people are making it out to be. His position changed, yes. But what was the context of that change?
I last voted democratic for Jimmy Carter, But if McCain becomes nominee of the party I will vote Democrat because McCain has hurt the conservative movement more than any other Republican. Can you image what liberals ideas would become law if he became president? At least Hillary would have the Republicans in congress fighting her and not making McCain legislation go though which could kill the conservative movement for decades.
I’m a radical conservative but if McCain wins say goodbye to the Conservative movement for decades. Plus the politicians who back that phony would increase.
Why not just write in your choice?
ping
Like a dem will help the conservative movment - LOL.
As a side note, why is this news and not general chat?
I posted it directly under vanity/opinions.
Was pro-choice, now proudly pro-life
I was effectively pro-choice when I ran for office. When I became governor of Massachusetts, the first time a bill came to my life that dealt with life, I simply could not side with—with taking a life, and I came on the side of life. Every bill that came to my desk, every issue that related to protecting the sanctity of life, I came down on the side of life. I’m pro-life. I’m not going to apologize for becoming pro-life. I’m proud to be pro-life.
-Mitt Romney
............................................................
Following in Reagan’s footsteps in converting to pro-life
Q: In the debate last week, you said, “When I first ran for office [I was] deeply opposed to abortion but [I said] I’d support the current law.” But back then you said a lot more than just you support the current law. In 1994, you said, “I believe that abortion should be safe and legal in this country. I believe that since Roe v. Wade has been the law for 20 years that we should sustain & support it.” In 2002, you said, “I will preserve and protect a woman’s right to choose. I will not change any provisions of Massachusetts’ pro-choice laws.” For 8 years you said that you would protect & respect a woman’s right to choose.
A: Yes, that’s right. But when I became governor I laid out in my view that a civilized society must respect the sanctity of life. And you know what? I’m following in some pretty good footsteps. It’s exactly what Ronald Reagan did. As governor, he was adamantly pro-choice. He became pro-life as he experienced life. And the same thing happened with George H. W. Bush.
- mitt Romney
Mitt’s stance on Stem-Cells is a concern to me. He is anti-creation of stem cells for research; however, he is for using discarded embryos from In Vitro fertilization. This tells me he still does not get the “life” position.
That said, if McCain is the nominee, I will write-in a vote.
And Mormnon people and Mitt supporters actually demand to know how Mitt’s religion is relevant to this election cycle!
When you start attending NARAL fund-raisers and donate money to Planned Parenthood, you are way over the line from tortured soul on the issue.
I don’t buy it.
I voted for Romney the other day. On the other hand, I think the bottom line is that Romney leaned to the left so that he could get elected gov. of MA. Now he’s not leaning to the left.
Some people are bothered by the fact that a candidate leans toward his constituency. McCain does not lean toward his constituency. He’s been very liberal on virtually every issue, even though his state is conservative. Huckabee has been liberal on every issue except abortion, gay rights, and gun rights, despite the fact that his state is very conservative.
Ask yourself which candidate you’re more likely to get results from: a candidate who leans to the left in a blue state, or a candidate who doggedly sticks to his liberal positions even though his state is a conservative one. Personally, I think you’re more likely to get results from the guy who leans to the left in the blue state.
From http://www.mittromney.com/Issues/american-culture
GOVERNOR ROMNEY: “I am pro-life. I believe that abortion is the wrong choice except in cases of incest, rape, and to save the life of the mother. I wish the people of America agreed, and that the laws of our nation could reflect that view. But while the nation remains so divided over abortion, I believe that the states, through the democratic process, should determine their own abortion laws and not have them dictated by judicial mandate.” (Governor Mitt Romney, Boston Globe, Op-Ed, 7/26/05)
He doesn’t completely get it, no, but he won’t ask for federal funds for it, and NONE of the candidates are calling for a federal BAN on ANY embryonic procedures other than cloning.
I think Huck would. But, there’s all that other baggage with him. Romney likely has my vote. But I am torn because of this issue. Life is life. Pragmatism shouldn’t dictate anything, which I think is where this thinking comes along. Thompson was right when he said we need to pour our research $$ into adult Stem cells.
Sadly I’m not running for office this year, so we’ll all have to make do with the candidates who are running, feet of clay and all.
Most of them are decent men, with a rather uneven understanding of conservative principles. But Romney is the best of the batch, and he is the one I will be voting for.
Everything in your life influences how you believe, religion or not. When the attack is on Mormons, then lets attack all religion. Probably 99% of the entire population believes in some form of a God. Look at Islam, Buddhism, etc.
Willard consistenly proclaimed himself to be pro-choice during two campaign runs in Massachusetts and as governor and even went so far as to lie about his mother's position on abortion to impress the abortion rights crowd in Massachusetts.
http://www.boston.com/news/local/articles/2005/06/26/evolving_history/
Elly Peterson owes her career to George Romney, the late governor of Michigan and the father of Governor Mitt Romney.
She says she would never have risen to cochair the Republican National Committee if Romney had not promoted her in Michigan in 1965 to become the first woman to chair a major state political party. She worked to elect him and his lieutenant governor, William Milliken, who succeeded him when Romney became US secretary of housing and urban development in 1969. She worked, too, on Lenore Romney's unsuccessful bid for the US Senate in 1970.
That is why Peterson is dumbfounded to hear that Mitt Romney has described his mother as having been an abortion rights supporter during that campaign. ''If it happened, I'd remember it," she said in a telephone interview from her home in Colorado. ''It didn't, and I don't. The issue in 1970 was jobs, jobs, jobs, and that is what we talked about: the Michigan economy. The Romneys were great ones for talking about issues at the dinner table, though. Maybe she said it there to Mitt."
Lenore Romney's campaign stance is relevant only because her son, a prospective candidate for the GOP presidential nomination in 2008, raised it in 1994, during a debate with Senator Edward M. Kennedy, and he has been sending mixed signals on abortion ever since. ''I believe that abortion should be safe and legal in this country," he said in 1994. ''I have since the time that my mom took that position when she ran in 1970 as a US Senate candidate."
Exactly my thought!!! (see below)
Was he ever ‘pro abortion’ as in showing up and NOW rallys? Did he ever believe in ‘elective abortions’? No. [MH]
There’s numerous problems with your restatement of Romney’s pro-abortion history:
(1) Supposedly Non-rallying “mildly” pro-abortion candidates don’t show up @ racist child-killing organizational rallies like Planned Parenthood events to promote that organization like he did in 1994.
(2) Supposedly Non-rallying “mildly” pro-abortion candidates don’t have their wives give $150 donations to racist child-killing organizations like Planned Parenthood like Ann Romney did in 1994.
(3) Supposedly Non-rallying “mildly” pro-abortion candidates don’t go out of their way to complete favorable candidate questionnaires for child-killing organizations like Planned Parenthood & NARAL like Romney did in 2002. (See http://www.weeklystandard.com/content/public/articles/000/000/013/222htyos.asp )
(4) Supposedly Non-rallying “mildly” pro-abortion candidates don’t go out of their way to meet to child-killing organizations to “cement” their relationship: After completing the NARAL questionnaire in a favorable way, accordin to The Weekly Standard article, Romney met with three NARAL executives
(5) Supposedly Non-rallying “mildly” pro-abortion candidates don’t tell NARAL execs what Romney told them in 2002: According to the Weekly Standard: He also tried to pique the executives' interest in endorsing him by bluntly acknowledging that he had higher political aspirations, saying, "You need someone like me in Washington."
(6) Supposedly Non-rallying “mildly” pro-abortion candidates don’t go out of their to personally telephone organizations like Majority for Choice as did Romney in the Spring of 2002. Again, from The Weekly Standard: That spring, Romney also personally telephoned the group Republican Majority for Choice and asked for its endorsement. Completing a questionnaire similar to those of other pro-choice groups, Romney got what he wanted from the pro-choice Republicans. His campaign trumpeted the endorsement with a press release.
(7) Supposedly Non-rallying “mildly” pro-abortion candidates don’t go around using the strongest possible language for a Mormon to state their support for Roe vs. Wade. What am I talking about?
"I believe that abortion should be safe and legal in this country. I have since the time when my Mom took that position when she ran in 1970 as a U.S. Senate candidate. I believe that since Roe v. Wade has been the law for 20 years that we should sustain and support it, and I sustain and support that law and the right of a woman to make that choice." (October, 1994 Senatorial debate vs. Ted Kennedy)
I dare you, MH, to please explain for all of us why & what is so weighty about a Mormon using the word “sustain.”
(Since I’m not sure you will, allow me to cite another LDS who has done that for us):
”In the LDS context 'sustain' has a very special meaning. Whenever someone in a congregation gets a new responsibility (a calling), their names are presented in our sacrament meeting along with what they are being asked to do. This is usually presented to the congregation by a member of the local leadership as follows: 'Brother Jones has been asked to serve as the 15 and 16 year-old Sunday School teacher. All that can sustain him in this calling please show by the uplifted hand.' At this point members of the congregation who sustain the calling raise their right hand. The leader than says 'any opposed may manifest it', and anyone who opposes the calling may raise their hand. To me this is one of the greatest things about the Mormon experience, that when we are asked to do something in our local congregation, we can look around us and see that the people around us know what we are being asked to do, and are showing a willingness to help and support us. It is an exceptional sense of community, especially considering that at the local and regional levels there is no paid clergy. Since as a rule everyone has some responsibility in the congregation, and those responsibilities change sometimes every 2-3 years, sometimes more frequently, there is a very egalitarian aspect to how local congregations are run. We are also taught that once we sustain someone we should do all we can to help someone in their calling, and not needlessly tear them down.... Everyone in the Church from the highest ranked ecclesiastical official on down, is supported by a sustaining. ...Current president of the Church Gordon B. Hinckley said: “The procedure of sustaining is much more than a ritualistic raising of the hand. It is a commitment to uphold, to support, to assist those who have been selected” -Ensign, May 1995, p. 51 ...We take the same approach to sustaining other things, such as the law of the land. Our 12th Article of Faith says that we are to sustain the law. What does this mean? The best explanation I have found is when past President of the LDS Church David O. McKay said: I>“To sustain the law, therefore, is to refrain from saying or doing anything which will weaken it or make it ineffective” -Conference Report, Apr. 1937, p. 28 When we sustain someone or something, and especially when we make that sustaining an overt public act, we take on very specific responsibilities. Support, strength, assistance even when we might personally disagree with something in the person or thing, are all things required of us in 'sustaining'. When Mitt Romney was an LDS bishop he was in charge of the sustaining process every Sunday. On Sundays he didn't officiate in the process, the process was still done under his very close oversight. The LDS concept of 'sustaining' can't be far from his mind when he makes statements saying he 'sustains' a law... Source: http://massresistance.blogspot.com/2006/12/mormons-against-romney-analyze-romneys.html
MH, it's time to come clean & stop making excuses for his past behavior.
As for his “conversion” in the Fall of 2004 can you please explain why a “converted” pro-lifer would say the following over half a year later? May 27, 2005 press conference: "I am absolutely committed to my promise to maintain the status quo with regards to laws relating to abortion and choice."
Spencer W. Kimball, deceased LDS "prophet," wrote in his book THE MIRACLE OF FORGIVENESS that if a person asks for forgiveness on something but then recommits that sin, he was never really repentant to begin with. While I disagree with that as a good complete theological thought, that's the Mormon standard. If Romney was truly "repentant" of abortion after a meeting in early November, 2004, as he now claims, then why was he still making pro-abortion statements in May of 2005 and pro-abortion actions in April of 2006?
By a Mormon "prophet's" own standard (not mine), then Romney was NOT truly repentant in November of 2004.
"Romney ran against Senator Edward M. Kennedy in 1994. During a debate, Romney declared: 'I believe that abortion should be safe and legal in this country. I have since the time that my mom took that position when she ran in 1970 as a US Senate candidate. I believe that since Roe v. Wade has been the law for 20 years we should sustain and support it.' " (NOTE: Romney has supported abortion since before the 1972 Roe v. Wade ruling!) - Boston Globe, 3/2/2006
"On a questionnaire Planned Parenthood gave to the gubernatorial candidates in 2002, Romney answered ''yes" to the question, 'Do you support the substance of the Supreme Court decision in Roe v. Wade?' Romney also professed support for state funding of abortion services for low-income women, [Erin] Rowland [spokeswoman for the Planned Parenthood League
In 2002, Romney responded to the National Abortion Rights Action League's candidate survey: ''I respect and will protect a woman's right to choose. This choice is a deeply personal one. Women should be free to choose based on their own beliefs, not mine and not the government's. The truth is, no candidate in the governor's race in either party would deny women abortion rights." Notably, Romney refused to answer the candidate questionnaire sent to him by Massachusetts Citizens for Life. - Boston Globe, 7/3/2005
Romney's health care legislation provides taxpayer-funded abortions for a co-pay of just $50.
o Romney vetoed EIGHT provisions in his health care bill that he deemed objectionable, but he did not veto Planned Parenthoods' guaranteed position on the Advisory Board or ensure that abortions were covered only in medically necessary situations (as required by MA court ruling). All abortions are covered in the Commonwealth Care program with no medically necessary limitation.
· Romney included in his health care legislation a guarantee that Planned Parenthood would have a representative on his MassHealth Payment Policy Advisory Board. No such provision was included for a pro-life representative .
· Romney forced private Catholic hospitals to provide the morning-after-pill, a position applauded by Democrats and pro-abortions groups .
Romney's health care legislation provides taxpayer-funded abortions for a co-pay of just $50. Romney vetoed EIGHT provisions in his health care bill that he deemed objectionable, including the expansion of dental benefits to Medicaid recipients. He did not veto Planned Parenthoods' guaranteed position on the Advisory Board or ensure that abortions were covered only in medically necessary situations (as required by MA court ruling). All abortions are covered in the Commonwealth Care program with no medically necessary limitation. Under the program, abortions are available for a copay of $50. (Menu of Health Care Services: http://www.mass. gov/Qhic/docs/cc_benefits1220_pt234.pdf; "Romney's Health Care Vetoes," Associated Press, 4/12/06)
Romney included in his health care legislation a guarantee that Planned Parenthood would have a representative on his MassHealth Payment Policy Advisory Board. No such provision was included for a pro-life representative . "You cannot be personally opposed to abortion and then contribute money to an organization whose purpose is to provide abortions," said Jerry Zandstra. "Given the Romney family's support of Planned Parenthood, it now makes sense why he mandated that a member of the RomneyCare Policy board be appointed by the Planned Parenthood League of Massachusetts." (RepealRomneyCare.com, "Pro-Life Leaders Denounce Romney's Planned Parenthood Connections," Press Release, 5/10/07)
Romney forced private Catholic hospitals to provide the morning-after-pill, a position applauded by Democrats and pro-abortions groups . "Governor Mitt Romney reversed course on the state's new emergency contraception law yesterday, saying that all hospitals in the state will be obligated to provide the morning-after pill to rape victims. The decision overturns a ruling made public this week by the state Department of Public Health that privately run hospitals could opt out of the requirement if they objected on moral or religious grounds. Romney had initially supported that interpretation, but he said yesterday that he had changed direction after his legal counsel, Mark D. Nielsen, concluded Wednesday that the new law supersedes a preexisting statute that says private hospitals cannot be forced to provide abortions or contraception. 'And on that basis, I have instructed the Department of Public Health to follow the conclusion of my own legal counsel and to adopt that sounder view,' Romney said..." (Scott Helman, "Romney Says No Hospitals Are Exempt From Pill Law," Boston Globe, 12/9/05)
· Catholic leaders urged hospitals to reject Romney's mandate or risk "compromising their religious integrity and Catholic identity." "C.J. Doyle, executive director of the Catholic Action League of Massachusetts, a conservative Catholic organization, said Catholic hospitals should refuse to abide by the law. 'T he appropriate response for Catholic hospitals is noncompliance. Otherwise, they would be compromising their religious integrity and Catholic identity,' he said." (Steve LeBlanc, "Confusion Over New Emergency Contraception Law Deepens," Associated Press, 12/9/05)
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.