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.
I said that while the Church is to be respected and has moral authority, some members of the Church do not deserve the same respect.
Tell me, why does a Catholic archbishop politically support a politician who murdered a passenger in his car, cravenly left her to die, and is one of the most rabid supporters of abortion ?
And why should I respect such an archbishop ?
DEB: “The previous bill still protects the hospitals.”
So that we’re clear, you’re saying Romney and his attorney are wrong.
From the article above: “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.”
Can’t have it both ways, Deb.
So if you believe the MCC attorney, you obviously don’t believe Romney.
Smartest choice you’ve made all day.
No, that’s your interpretation.
What does an oath of office state ? That the holder faithfully upholds the laws ?
So, practically speaking, you have just said that no one who is anti-abortion can hold elective office in the United States because, in your opinion, a person who is anti-abortion cannot take such an oath and carry it out.
Here’s the deal - the Boston Globe starting doing hit pieces on Romney as soon as they found out he was going to run for POTUS, in 2005. Look at the last paragraph. It is very telling and is designed to undermine Romney as a conservative:
“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.”
Read it literally - TChris is saying that it was not stated in the article.
You can imagine all you want but the article as written does not support your interpretation.
Chaos: “I can only quote what he said...”
Me too. I can even provide videos:
Mitt and Ann in 2002 interview:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GKwVNUz52vo
Romney gubernatorial debate, November 2, 2002:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P_w9pquznG4
Romney senatorial debate, October 1994:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a9IJUkYUbvI
He didn't rule. He advised the Governor who had the legal authority to rule. So, Governor Romney did not "overrule" anybody.
Let’s see if I understand you correctly.
....
No, you apparently do not understand me correctly.
If we're going to debate, you're going to need to provide some evidence to support your position.
Your position is that the DoH and the Catholic Conference had attorneys review and/or endorse their statements. That's nothing more than a convenient assumption on your part unless you can provide some evidence of it.
I'm not just going to take your word for it.
Yeah, but the ultra-liberal Boston Glob is now a bastion of balanced and honest reporting, don'cha know. ;-)
See post 114. Rape is not the issue.
Religious freedom is the issue.
[insert Nürnberg defense here]
“Romney vetoes law on pill, takes aim at Roe v. Wade”
http://www.boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/articles/2005/07/26/romney_vetoes_law_on_pill_takes_aim_at_roe_v_wade/
“Romney vetoes law on pill, takes aim at Roe v. Wade
Opinion article reflects a shift from ‘02 view
By Scott S. Greenberger, Globe Staff | July 26, 2005
Three years after expressing support for ‘’the substance” of Roe v. Wade, Governor Mitt Romney today criticizes the landmark ruling that legalized abortion and says the states should decide separately whether to allow it.
Article Tools
Romney outlines his abortion position in an opinion article today in The Boston Globe, a day after he vetoed a bill that would expand access to the so-called ‘’morning after” pill, a high dose of hormones that women can take to prevent pregnancy up to five days after sex.
In a written response to a questionnaire for candidates in 2002, Romney told Planned Parenthood that he supported ‘’the substance of the Supreme Court decision in Roe v. Wade,” according to the group. Today, Romney describes himself as a ‘’pro-life governor” who wishes ‘’the laws of our nation could reflect that view.” Calling the country ‘’divided over abortion,” he says states ‘’should determine their own abortion laws and not have them dictated by judicial mandate.”
‘’I understand that my views on laws governing abortion set me in the minority in our Commonwealth,” Romney says in the op-ed article. ‘’I am prolife. 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.”
So, my question is, did his veto get overridden?
Those two sentences are completely unrelated.
Ethyl Waters' 13 yr old Mother (white) was raped by a black man.
Her Mother decided to not punish her child by killing her, and she became a very successful and talented Gospel Singer.
Romney’s pushback, btw, that if this was an issue, then why didn’t he raise it earlier, wasn’t a great debate comeback moment. As I’ve noted before, Romney just doesn’t come across well when he’s angry.
_______________________________________________________
RINO Romney arging with a reporter
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3NLo7nnHgfs&feature=related
Right, but that doesn't mean that a governor must SIGN bills into law that he opposes.
Ping to my post 152
Meanwhile there’s a paper in New Zealand that did a hit piece on Romney because he counseled a woman NOT to have an abortion when he was a Bishop in his church.
That little tidbit never made the MSM here in the US, as here in the US it suits their agenda to paint Romney as a baby killer. The New Zealand paper paints him as a killer of mothers because he advises against abortion.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1962238/posts
Bishop Romney’s Sadistic Anti-Abortion Counseling
(The title of the article really cracks me up)
If that's the case, whenever he takes credit for accomplishments in Massachusetts, he's lying.
KH: “Here’s the deal - the Boston Globe starting doing hit pieces on Romney as soon as they found out he was going to run for POTUS, in 2005. Look at the last paragraph.”
Only problem for you, KH, is that the article was not written by the Boston Globe, but by LifeSite News, a pro-life web newsletter.
Do you wish to retract the feeble deflection tactic, or merely redirect the attack to accuse LifeSite News of “doing hit pieces on Romney.”
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.