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 would point you to this statement in the article: "The Boston Globe reported that Romneys 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)?