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.
ME, you’re either incapable of simple reading comprehension, or you’re intentionally pretending you are.
The issue of the bill being law by his signature or over his veto is irrelevant.
After the law was in effect, the question was whether a previously existing conscientious objector law (still on the books) exempted from the new law anyone who objected on moral grounds.
Romney said anyone with moral objections, and Cat hosps in particular, were exempt from the new law because of the old law, consistent with the findings of his Dept of Health and the legal opinion of Mass Cat Conference, among others.
Then, only days later, after being publicly criticized for exempting Cat hosps, he flip-flopped. Listen to the radio report in post #1.
Unless you’re just PRETENDING not to understand in order to try to absolve Romney of responsibility for his obvious flip-flop.
Now, if you’re still too dense to understand what happened, just refer back to this post any time you have or pretend to have any further questions.
I thought that the First Amendment guaranteeing Freedom of Religion WAS the law.
How can you force the Catholic Church to commit what, in their religious belief (your religion may say otherwise), is considered a mortal sin and still claim to have Freedom of Religion in the United States of America?
What next?
Force the Catholic Church to perform the Sacrament of Marriage for gay couples in order to comply with Massachusetts gay rights laws?
The Constitution trumps state law.
If Romney cannot get his head out of the lastest Gallup Poll results long enough to defend the First Amendment, what on Earth will that man ever take a stand on?
I would point you to this statement in the article: "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."
Perhaps you missed that part.
So again, what was the governor to do (that was within the law)?
LOL You're still the pot calling the kettle black.
“If Romney cannot get his head out of the lastest Gallup Poll results long enough to defend the First Amendment, what on Earth will that man ever take a stand on?”
I will tell you what he will take a stand on. He is firmly in favor of....himself.
“So again, what was the governor to do (that was within the law)?”
Perhaps explain why he had announced earlier in the week that Cat hosps WERE exempt. Which means that his legal counsel either changed his mind, or that Romney did not check with his legal counsel (unlikely) before making the previous announcement.
I think explaining that element of his flip-flop would be within the law.
He'd already done that. It might have made you feel better, but it would have been useless repetition.
Which means that his legal counsel either changed his mind, or that Romney did not check with his legal counsel (unlikely) before making the previous announcement.
I think we can only speculate on that.
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.