Posted on 01/31/2008 11:37:43 AM PST by AFA-Michigan
BOSTON -– In a shocking turn-around, Massachusetts’s governor Mitt Romney announced yesterday that Roman Catholic and other private hospitals in the state will be forced to offer emergency contraception to sexual assault victims under new state legislation, regardless of the hospitals’ moral position on the issue.
The Republican governor had earlier defended the right of hospitals to avoid dispensing the “morning-after pill” on the grounds of moral dissent. The Boston Globe reported that Romney’s flip on the issue came after his legal counsel, Mark D. Nielsen, concluded Wednesday that the new law supersedes a preexisting statute related to the abortifacient pill.
The pill, a high dose of hormones, acts as an abortifacient by preventing a fertilized egg from implanting in the uterine wall, thereby causing the death of the child.
The Department of Public Health issued a statement earlier in the week allowing hospitals to dissent from the new law, under a previous statute that protects private hospitals from being forced to provide abortion services or contraceptives.
Daniel Avila, associate director for policy and research for the Massachusetts Catholic Conference, said yesterday in an interview with the Boston Globe that Catholic hospitals still have legal grounds to avoid providing the pill, despite the new legislation. The new bill did not expressly repeal the original law protecting the rights of Catholic facilities.
“As long as that statute was left standing, I think those who want to rely on that statute for protection for what they’re doing have legal grounds.” (Boston Globe)
The Conference has been fighting this new legislation for several years. In 2003, in a statement to the Joint Committee on Health Care, they outlined their concern over the proposed Emergency Contraception Access Act (ECAA), stating: “It will force Catholic medical personnel to distribute contraceptives even in cases involving the risk of early abortion. It also furthers a national strategy ultimately directed towards coercing Catholic facilities to provide insurance coverage for, and to perform, abortions.”
The governor’s turnaround is especially unexpected since Romney has been presenting himself as a conservative on social issues in anticipation of a possible run for the presidency in 2008. This decision will certainly undermine the credibility of his conservatism with Republican Party members that may have been inclined to support him up to now.
“Sorry I can’t vote for someone that follows the law. (/sarcasm)”
Curiously, earlier in the same week, Romney said Catholic hospitals WERE exempt under Mass law.
His Health Dept. lawyers said they WERE exempt under Mass law.
Then, whaddaya know, the pro-abort groups and his own lt. gov. objected to his letting Catholic hospitals follow their own consciences on the issue...and wa-la, Romney flip-flopped on both the law and his position.
(Among a cavalcade of flip-flops, this was perhaps Romney quickest flip-flops, all within one week.
Go back and listen to the radio report in post #1.
And Mass Catholic Conference attorneys disputed Romney’s allegation of what the “law” was. No doubt for Romneyphiles, that makes MCC’s pro-life credentials suspect.
I am not saying that he is necessarily pro-abortion (though he certainly once was), I am saying that I don’t think he’s really pro-life.
As far as being the “best we have right now,” I think the best outcome of all of this would be for Romney and McCain to pretty much split the delegates and neither of them get enough to win before the convention. Then in a brokered convention we can nominate Fred Thompson who seems to have been just about everyone’s first or second choice.
Surrender is the name of the game, eh?
Well, at least I understand you now.
Romney has not proposed state-run health care. You are either deliberately misrepresenting facts or you are clueless.
Saundra educates us: “The ‘morning after pill’ is not an abortion. It prevents pregnancy.”
Oh?
Be sure to call up the Diocese of Boston, Saundra, and offer to educate them on what you say they should believe.
People are so blinded by their preconceived notions. How long does it take to change a law ?
Did you read the article?
This was a NEW law which Romney signed into law.
Ok, clarify something for me. You think the Church has no right to point out something immoral because of its past?
MYTH is the BIGGEST LIBERAL LIAR running today.
He will institute an assault weapons ban, an internet tax, a national health insurance mandate enforced by the IRS, gay marriage and adoption nationwide, nominate more democrats than republicans to judgeships and pull the troops out of Iraq after declaring victory.
He will be worse than McCain, and that is tough to pull off.
That is a moot point, Romney could have VETOED the bill. You seem to want to overlook that FACT in your blind support for him.
Nah, it's typical Mitt.
He met with the Catholics and told them what they wanted to hear.
Then the Globe and Kerry Healey started screeching and he flip-flopped and told THEM what they wanted to hear.
Romney is wrong on abortion. But this exception on Rape is not the reason why.
You can find many abortion articles other than this to knock him down with.
it is backdoor socialism (as some conservative groups has stated) ...
but, I’ll guess you’ll quote the Heritage Foundation ... however, didn’t Romney buy them off?
Well put!
“I agree that criminal sexual assault victims are a special case.”
Salute, Eagle. In this case, the assault is not the issue. Plenty of hospitals dispense the morning after pill in cases of assault or even at the user’s discretion.
The issue was whether Catholic hospitals — who morally object to the morning after pill precisely because they dare disagree with Saundra — should be forced by law to dispense it.
Reading isn’t important to Mitt bashers.
So, what other laws do you support where a child is punished for the crimes of their father?
Although I agree with you on this, I think it is a very unlikely long shot. In the event of a brokered convention I think Huchabee will put McStain over the edge for a VP deal.
Resty returns: “You really leave out a lot of imformation to make your sick case!”
Take it up with LifeSite News, a pro-life web newsletter. They’re the ones who wrote the article.
The case makes itself: Romney is a coreless, gutless empty shell, who folds and molds his passionately held principles to take the path of least resistance.
He’s with ya, til he’s against ya.
Exhausting.
The Church, yes. The cardinals and archbishops who covered up crimes and support the Kennedy and Kerry families ? No.
Sorry, it’s the same as a slut preaching abstinence.
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.