You: What pro-abortion committment?
Romney, May 27, 2005 press conference: "I am absolutely committed to my promise to maintain the status quo with regards to laws relating to abortion and choice."
That "committed...PROMISE"
Me: Then a year full of 2007 where he would alternately tell us that he was "effectively pro-choice...the last multiple years" but that he was "always pro-life" (11 days apart).
You: This isn't hard. Prior to 2005, he was personally pro-life in that he thought abortion was immoral, but he did not want to make it illegal. That's why he didn't like the pro-choice label, because to some people in means that you approve of abortion as well as want keep it legal. Prior to 2005, he didnt' approve of abortion, but he still wanted to keep it legal. He has explicitly said this. You're taking a few of his poorly worded sentences and ignoring his very clear explanations of the substance of his positions.
Supposedly “personally pro-life...didn't approve of abortion" candidates don't...
(1) ...show up @ racist child-killing organizational rallies like Planned Parenthood events to promote that organization like he did in 1994...
(2) ...have their wives give $150 donations to racist child-killing organizations like Planned Parenthood like Ann Romney did in 1994...
(3) ...try to "cement" endorsements from child-killing orgs like NARAL by meeting with three NARAL execs if a questionnaire would suffice to show his shared "legal" live & let die mentality as he did in 2002. (See http://www.weeklystandard.com/content/public/articles/000/000/013/222htyos.asp
(4) ...tell NARAL execs what Romney told them in 2002: According to the Weekly Standard: He also tried to pique the executives' interest in endorsing him by bluntly acknowledging that he had higher political aspirations, saying, "You need someone like me in Washington." [Source: Weekly Standard] ...
(5) ...go out of their way, after already netting two pro-abortion endorsements, personally telephoning organizations like Majority for Choice as did Romney in the Spring of 2002. Again, from The Weekly Standard: That spring, Romney also personally telephoned the group Republican Majority for Choice and asked for its endorsement. Completing a questionnaire similar to those of other pro-choice groups, Romney got what he wanted from the pro-choice Republicans. His campaign trumpeted the endorsement with a press release.
(6) ...go around using the strongest possible language for a Mormon to state their support for Roe vs. Wade.
"I believe that abortion should be safe and legal in this country. I have since the time when my Mom took that position when she ran in 1970 as a U.S. Senate candidate. I believe that since Roe v. Wade has been the law for 20 years that we should sustain and support it, and I sustain and support that law and the right of a woman to make that choice." (October, 1994 Senatorial debate vs. Ted Kennedy)
What? (Are you next going to try to explain away how the word "sustain" means almost nothing to a Mormon?)
”In the LDS context 'sustain' has a very special meaning. Whenever someone in a congregation gets a new responsibility (a calling), their names are presented in our sacrament meeting along with what they are being asked to do. This is usually presented to the congregation by a member of the local leadership as follows: 'Brother Jones has been asked to serve as the 15 and 16 year-old Sunday School teacher. All that can sustain him in this calling please show by the uplifted hand.' At this point members of the congregation who sustain the calling raise their right hand. The leader than says 'any opposed may manifest it', and anyone who opposes the calling may raise their hand. To me this is one of the greatest things about the Mormon experience, that when we are asked to do something in our local congregation, we can look around us and see that the people around us know what we are being asked to do, and are showing a willingness to help and support us. It is an exceptional sense of community, especially considering that at the local and regional levels there is no paid clergy. Since as a rule everyone has some responsibility in the congregation, and those responsibilities change sometimes every 2-3 years, sometimes more frequently, there is a very egalitarian aspect to how local congregations are run. We are also taught that once we sustain someone we should do all we can to help someone in their calling, and not needlessly tear them down....Everyone in the Church from the highest ranked ecclesiastical official on down, is supported by a sustaining. ...Current president of the Church Gordon B. Hinckley said: “The procedure of sustaining is much more than a ritualistic raising of the hand. It is a commitment to uphold, to support, to assist those who have been selected” -Ensign, May 1995, p. 51 ...We take the same approach to sustaining other things, such as the law of the land. Our 12th Article of Faith says that we are to sustain the law. What does this mean? The best explanation I have found is when past President of the LDS Church David O. McKay said: “To sustain the law, therefore, is to refrain from saying or doing anything which will weaken it or make it ineffective” -Conference Report, Apr. 1937, p. 28 When we sustain someone or something, and especially when we make that sustaining an overt public act, we take on very specific responsibilities. Support, strength, assistance even when we might personally disagree with something in the person or thing, are all things required of us in 'sustaining'. When Mitt Romney was an LDS bishop he was in charge of the sustaining process every Sunday. On Sundays he didn't officiate in the process, the process was still done under his very close oversight. The LDS concept of 'sustaining' can't be far from his mind when he makes statements saying he 'sustains' a law... Source: http://massresistance.blogspot.com/2006/12/mormons-against-romney-analyze-romneys.html
Me: back to aiding & abetting Planned Parenthood & taxpayer subsidized abortions in Spring of 2006.
You: That's just false.
April 12, 2006--Mitt signs his "Commonwealth Care" into existence, thereby not only expanding abortion access for wealthier Bay State women, but expanding Planned Parenthood's reach into GuvCare. As governor, Romney could exercise veto power to portions of Commonwealth Care. Did Romney exercise this power? (Yes, he vetoed Sections 5, 27, 29, 47, 112, 113, 134 & 137). What prominent section dealing with Planned Parenthood as part of the "payment policy advisory board" did Romney choose NOT to veto? (Section 3) That section mandates that one member of MassHealth Payment Policy Board must be appointed by Planned Parenthood League of MA. (See chapter 58 of the Acts of 2006, section 3 for details).
Romney said 7% of Bay State residents were covered by RomneyCare (previously uninsured). He also said 1/4th of them--almost 2% of his state--earned $75,000 or more. (So it can't be written off that the taxpayer-subsidized $50 abortions were only for poor women according to a court order. As it is less than 40% of the 7% covered by RomneyCare are Medicaid eligible individuals.
He promised to the voters in 2001 that he wouldn't change the abortion laws. Keeping a promise is not a flip-flop.
Supposedly “personally pro-life...didn't approve of abortion" candidates don't...
(1) ...show up @ racist child-killing organizational rallies like Planned Parenthood events to promote that organization like he did in 1994...
Planned parenthood does more than just provide abortions. They also do some good things, like provide pre-natal care for poor women. That's why every single budget president Bush has signed includes Federal money that goes to Planned Parenthood.
Is president Bush insufficiently pro-life because he signed those budgets?
(2) ...have their wives give $150 donations to racist child-killing organizations like Planned Parenthood like Ann Romney did in 1994...
So he's supposed to control his wife as if she were his daughter?
(3) ...try to "cement" endorsements from child-killing orgs like NARAL by meeting with three NARAL execs if a questionnaire would suffice to show his shared "legal" live & let die mentality as he did in 2002. (See http://www.weeklystandard.com/content/public/articles/000/000/013/222htyos.asp
NARAL's mission is to keep abortion legal. Romney agreed with that stance before 2005. I don't see the inconsistency.
(4) ...tell NARAL execs what Romney told them in 2002: According to the Weekly Standard: He also tried to pique the executives' interest in endorsing him by bluntly acknowledging that he had higher political aspirations, saying, "You need someone like me in Washington." [Source: Weekly Standard] ...
At that time he wanted to keep abortion legal, and so did NARAL. What's the inconsistency?
(5) ...go out of their way, after already netting two pro-abortion endorsements, personally telephoning organizations like Majority for Choice as did Romney in the Spring of 2002. Again, from The Weekly Standard: That spring, Romney also personally telephoned the group Republican Majority for Choice and asked for its endorsement. Completing a questionnaire similar to those of other pro-choice groups, Romney got what he wanted from the pro-choice Republicans. His campaign trumpeted the endorsement with a press release.
All he had to declare to get the endorsement was make clear he intended to keep abortion legal. There's nothing inconsistent with that and his view that abortion is immoral but should be kept legal.
(6) ...go around using the strongest possible language for a Mormon to state their support for Roe vs. Wade.
If you want to keep abortion legal, you support Roe v. Wade. That's doesn't necessarily mean you think it is moral.
"I believe that abortion should be safe and legal in this country. I have since the time when my Mom took that position when she ran in 1970 as a U.S. Senate candidate. I believe that since Roe v. Wade has been the law for 20 years that we should sustain and support it, and I sustain and support that law and the right of a woman to make that choice." (October, 1994 Senatorial debate vs. Ted Kennedy)
More of the same: he wanted to keep it abortion legal, so he wanted to sustain the SCOTUS decision that makes it legal. How is that inconsistent with his position that it should be legal even while it is immoral?
Next you post an anti-Mormon screed. I'm not going to dignify it with a response.
Moving on, you write:
April 12, 2006--Mitt signs his "Commonwealth Care" into existence, thereby not only expanding abortion access for wealthier Bay State women,
Only women for incomes within 300% of the poverty line can sign up for CommonwealthCare, which is a subsidized insurance program available to only a small segment of the population. Because of an 1980's Supreme Judicial Court decision, all state-subsidized healthcare programs have to cover abortion, so there was no way to prevent CommonwealthCare from covering abortion. Now most of these women already had access to state-subsidized abortion previously, since they qualified for medicade. However, a small number of women who qualified for this program but previously did not qualify for Medicade did gain access to tax-funded abortions as a result.
The important question is whether this increased the number of abortions in the commonwealth. The evidence suggests not: abortions actually declined slightly after it was passed. Ther reason is pretty simple. Think about it. A woman who is too rich to qualify for Medicade but still within 300% of poverty can afford the $250 to get an abortion. Now instead of paying $250, she can get one for $50. I don't like it, but I seriously doubt that the $200 savings is going to be critical in any woman's decision on whether to get an abortion.
As governor, Romney could exercise veto power to portions of Commonwealth Care. Did Romney exercise this power? (Yes, he vetoed Sections 5, 27, 29, 47, 112, 113, 134 & 137). What prominent section dealing with Planned Parenthood as part of the "payment policy advisory board" did Romney choose NOT to veto? (Section 3) That section mandates that one member of MassHealth Payment Policy Board must be appointed by Planned Parenthood League of MA. (See chapter 58 of the Acts of 2006, section 3 for details).
Planned Parenthood was already on the MassHealth board before the legislation was passed. They're also involved in Medicade at the Federal level. The reason for it is that they're a big provider of pre-natal services to poor pregant women, those that want to keep their babies. Romney signing this part of the bill is no different than president Bush signing budgets that send money to Planned Parenthood. I don't like it either, but it is political reality.
No politician, no matter how principled, can afford to be ideologically pure.