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.
Romney LIED when he said Reagan was ever “adamantly pro-choice.”
Pull the pro-lifer’s down into the pro-abortion gutter. Slime them with “everybody does it, you’re no better.”
Pretend to be converted just long enough to ascend to power.
LifeSite News called Romney’s turnaround “shocking” because only two days earlier, he had publicly taken the exact opposite position legally. Thus the turnaround or flip flop, all with a matter of 48 hours.
So, which time was Romney wrong?
When he said on Wednesday that Catholic hospitals were exempt?
Or when he said on Friday that they were not exempt?
Please explain why being wrong on either occasion was a virtue?
If you say he was wrong on Wednesday, I’ll ask why you think it’s OK that he would make a public announcement to that effect without checking with his attorney first (assuming that the attorney gets to make the decisions, not the governor, which, if true, suggests the people of Mass could have saved some money — i.e., the Gov’s salary — and simply let the attorney make the decisions).
Reagan was pro-choice at one time. At worst, one can only express the opinion that Romney overstated by saying 'adamantly'.
No, at worst I can state that he lied, which he did.
MEGoody: “Please site the Massachusetts state law that allows the governor to override a law passed by the state legislature.”
No such citation is necessary.
All that’s required is to cite the preexisting Mass law that exempted Catholic hospitals under a conscientious objector policy.
That is, the same law Romney cited earlier in the week when he said Cat hosps were exempt. The same law cited earlier in the week by the Romney Adm’s Department of Health when they said Cat hosps were exempt.
The law didn’t change between Wed and Fri, the 48 hours in which Romney flip-flopped. The only thing that changed was the cool feeling of wind on Romney’s finger as he held it up in the air, and thus the change in his position.
How did he take the exact opposite position 'legally'? Governors do not pass legislation, so I'm curious as to what you mean specifically.
Huh?
Romney didn’t do this despicable CYA tactic just with Ronald Reagan.
He did the same thing with his own church!
“There are Mormons in the leadership of my church who are pro-choice. ...Every Mormon should be pro-life? That’s not what my church says.”
Gov. Mitt Romney explaining that his past support of abortion on demand was not in conflict with the values of his church
WHO Radio
Des Moines, Iowa
August 2, 2007
Video:
http://www.politico.com/blogs/jonathanmartin/0807/Mitt_unplugged.html
Then he went on Today and lied about a “hidden camera” ambush, making an enemy of the biggest name in Iowa talk radio (as I understand it).
But remember, Willard is the smartest man in the room...any room.
MEGoody: “I’m curious as to what you mean specifically.”
I mean, specifically, that on Wednesday of that week, Romney publicly said that Catholic hospitals were exempt from the new law, based on a preexisting “conscientious objector” law in Mass. His own Dept of Health issued the same legal finding based on the previous law.
Then on Friday, Romney did a 180 and said exactly the opposite.
Go back up to Comment #1 above and listen to the WBUR Radio story on the same subject.
If you expect Romney to have overridden a law passed by the legislature, then you should be able to show how he can do so legally.
All that’s required is to cite the preexisting Mass law that exempted Catholic hospitals under a conscientious objector policy.
If you (and the Catholic hospitals) believe that the previous law overrides the newer law, then take it to court. The governor doesn't have the power to make that call.
Which proves that you either have an agenda for which you have no qualms about twisting the facts to make your position appear better or that you are too ignorant to know the difference between your disagreement with a subjective statement and a lie.
In either case, your claim is silly and not worthy of serious consideration.
ping!
MEGoody: “The governor doesn’t have the power to make that call.”
Seriously, man, can you not follow the story?
The entire article is ABOUT Romney “making the call.”
He made the call one way earlier in the week.
Then he made the call the exact opposite way earlier in the week.
Romney does in fact “make the call” as to whether and how his own state agencies enforce state law, and he announced that the Dept of Health first would, then wouldn’t, exempt Cat hospitals.
READ the story. If Romney hadn’t “made the call” two different ways in the same week, there wouldn’t have been a story in the first place.
Is there no limit to the lengths you’ll go to try to absolve this man of ANY responsibility for his actions?!
Joe Isuzu Romney, the Planned Barrenhood candidate.
I haven't twisted any facts. You, however, are engaged in a massive act of psychological projection.
In either case, your claim is silly and not worthy of serious consideration.
Second verse, same as the first.
You seem to be deliberately stupid.
Get educated? Romney's own legal counsel knows it causes an abortion.
From the article:
Romney’s flip on the issue came afterTaking your words literally "The “morning after pill” is not an abortion" of course it isn't an abortion, it causes one.his legal counsel, Mark D. Nielsen, concluded Wednesday that the new law supersedes a preexisting statute related to the abortifacient pill.
"Abortifacient" means a substance that causes an abortion. Thus it kills a baby.
I does not prevent pregnancy, it terminates it.
I remember you when you were pro life and against abortion.
LOL
Sometimes irony can be so damned ironic.
Seems to me you’re quibbling over nothing.
Only if you consider PRINCIPLES to be "nothing."
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.