Mitt Romney is not for funding abortions. Fred Thompson is not homophobic. Romney is pro-gun.
Does he even own one yet? Not a rhetorical question.
“Mitt Romney is not for funding abortions.”
Really? The below is from a post by Brices Crossroads elsewhere in FR:
On Abortion: 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: