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.
Abby: “You are correct it is a birth control pill. The idiocy on here can be amazing at times.”
So you believe the Catholic hospitals are wrong to object to being forced to dispense it, given their religious convictions?
Well, to apply Romney apologists’ standard logic, if you dare disagree with the Catholic Church, that obviously must mean you’re an anti-Catholic bigot. Right? Just like anyone who dares not support Romney or buy the convoluted transparent cover up of his pro-abort, pro-homosexual record can only be motivated by religious “bigotry,” right?
So youre pro-choice then..
Well, at least I understand you now.
Yeah, sure you do.
Apparently, 'tis nobler to valiantly beat one's head against a brick wall than to save the fight for another time.
Question - did the victims have a choice of hospital where they would be taken to be helped ?
When I have signed some laws then you can ask if I will deny Im responsible for them//
Madison: “There are many Conservatives that don’t agree with the Catholic rather extreme position on birth control.”
Which has what to do with the price of tea in China?
The issue is not whether the MAP is birth control or an abortifacient. The issue is whether the Catholic Church has a right of conscience to object in either case, and whether Catholic hospitals should be forced by law to dispense them.
Romney said they were exempt at the beginning of the week, took a little heat, and folded like a tent.
Religious freedom is the issue. Romney defended it, then capitulated.
People who are of the path of a coreless, gutless empty shell, who folds and molds his passionately held principles to take the path of least resistance are not sucessful they are in welfare lines!
The backdoor socialism is from the state using taxpayer funds to pay for insurance for the indigent. They already to that in every state - it’s called S-CHIP. Remember that one ?
Requiring taxpayers to buy private health insurance is not socialism. I’d probably call it fascism instead.
The only alternative to mandating insurance coverage is to repeal the 1986 law, signed by Ronald Reagan, that forces emergency services to be given regardless of ability to pay.
Excellent point!
I sure don't remember any of us Catholics rushing to defend Rooty's liberalism. And I can't help but wonder if much of the blind support for Romney is based on things that have NOTHING to do with his politics.
“I know the article states that the Catholic Church remains exempt...”
Integrity, appreciate and agree with your broader sentiment, but the article does not say the Catholic Church remains exempt. The Mass Catholic Conference lawyer simply stated his disagreement with the Gov’s legal interpretation.
The Gov’s edict still trumps the MCC’s legal opinion, meaning Mitt’s govt enforced the mandatory dispensing requirement as applicable to all hospitals, including Catholics, and it was left to the church or the hospitals to go to court to contest it.
Fascism IS socialism (despite what the left would have you believe).
WHAT are you talking about?
“It doesn’t sound like Romney had any real say in the matter.”
None at all. Except signing the new requirement into law.
And then told Catholic hospitals they it didn’t apply to them.
Then — as he did on so many other issues — he flip-flopped.
Is that you, Gary?
http://www.boston.com/news/local/articles/2005/07/07/eyes_on_romney_as_morning_after_pill_okd/
In case you don’t want to read the entire article, here’s a quote:
“Because both chambers approved it by veto-proof margins, the measure will become law no matter what Romney does. “
So put it in context - you all are trashing Romney for not performing a meaningless veto on a veto-proof bill.
So go ahead and hate him - then we get Juan McCain or as a long shot Huckabee, both of whom want to offer murdering, raping thugs citizenship, ie amnesty. Great tradeoff.
Yeah, the effect is the same, the form is different.
Oh yeah, no sense standing up for a principle, even once, when you need to save all your political capital to pass socialized health care.
Sadly, on our ballot, Romney and McCain had 2 and 3 spaces to vote for their delegates and Fred T. had 7. Fred would have taken AL, and probably a lot of other states, and he could have won against the Dems..
My information to prolifers, of which I am one--Abortion is one of the horrible results of secular humanism, and as Fred said--If you strictly interpret the Constitution, you must be prolife.
Please do not come back and tell me about Fred lobbying for a pro-abortion group. It was posted they had it in their minutes that he was hired by an orgn. to lobby for a better deal for them in down coming legislation. Someone else said he actually billed them for a few hours. All I know is that he always voted in the senate for pro-life. He worked for a law firm and if he was assigned to look at the legal ramifications for this group, he did it just like a lawyer is assigned every rapist and murderer. But Fred was not good enough for many pro-lifers.
The most important pro-life issue now is NOT an amendment, but more strict conservative judges. McPain has already said he would not appoint any more Alitos--no, he will doubtless confer with his friends across the aisle, Ted and Russ, et al to get names.We could have trusted Fred to name good judges and hang tough.
vaudine
So, you believe that someone who wants to be the leader of the free world should abandon his principles to suit the majority?
I guess you believe that it's okay that 3300 AMERICANS are being murdered every day as long as enough people are okay with it.
TChris: “How do you ‘overrule’ those who have no authority to ‘rule’?”
Did Romney’s attorney have the authority to rule?
TChris: “Department of Health attorneys? I don’t see any mention of ‘attorneys’ in the article.”
Let’s see if I understand you correctly.
1. On an obviously highly controversial issue, you think a cabinet department in the ROMNEY administration did not consult with its own staff attorneys before issuing a finding that the new law did not apply to certain hospitals because of a pre-existing law protecting the right of conscience?
2. You’re suggesting that the Mass Catholic Conference also has no “real” attorneys, but just makes up its public policy positions on legal matters out of thin air.
Obviously, there are few lengths to which Rombots won’t go to cover for the Great Prevaricator, but if you actually believe that a state agency or the MCC either don’t have or wouldn’t consult their respective “real” attorneys before publicly commenting, it’s your intelligence that’s called into question.
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.