Replies

I recall Mitt talking about that issue, and from what I understand, he said the provision permitting abortion was required for the state to receive the money from the Medicare/Medicaid program. Essentially, his hands were tied...the legislature was able to over ride his "veto" power. Was that a lie or calculation, or was what he said accurate?

I think the fact that the pro-abortion crowd grew to hate Mitt's actions say so much more.

As way of analogy, many people love Ronald Reagan's legacy...and I do, too...and yet, if the same standard were applied to Reagan that is now being put upon Mitt, they would *hate* Ronald Reagan, because he appointed two pro-abortion Supreme Court justices: O'Connor and Kennedy.

“many people love Ronald Reagan’s legacy...and I do, too...and yet, if the same standard were applied to Reagan that is now being put upon Mitt, they would *hate* Ronald Reagan, because he appointed two pro-abortion Supreme Court justices: O’Connor and Kennedy.”

Appointing Supreme Court judges seems to a bit of a crap shoot, but these were republicans, and those choices were made 20 plus years ago.

I don’t know how liberal Romney’s judges are, but we do know that only 1 out of 4 of them are even registered republican, if that tells you anything.

Until he embarked on this national campaign there was no hint in Romney’s first 57 years that he was any kind of a conservative warrior that was eager to lead the right wing of America, in fact we see the very opposite.

Until this current campaign strategy was embarked on, we see a man who’s only passionate utterings were the passions of a liberal, proud to reject Goldwater, refusing to register republican under president Reagan, taking a stand against the Contract with America, his most passionate recorded moments were his sincere defense of abortion based on his claim that without it women die and Gay Power, including fully opening up the military to them.

When his life is compared to his recent total conversion, the conversion doesn’t seem real, he doesn’t really own guns, he had never been a member of the NRA until this election, when all of a sudden only a lifetime membership would suffice, he isn’t credible when he now says that ‘he longed to serve in Vietnam’, especially when he thinks that his squad of military aged boys working for his desires is equal to serving our nations war effort that he suddenly wants to lead.

Even the abortion conversion doesn’t hold up when the witnesses say that the already lame event that he describes as the epiphany causing event didn’t even happen, his wife at the same time went from handling the pro abortion elements of his political campaigns to handling his pro life elements of this new campaign, her epiphany has never been explained or even questioned.

During the primary people were confused, but now it is time to put Romney on the back of the stove and let him earn some street creds to back up this ‘new man’, and it would be nice if he would earn some of those battle scars while serving in an elected office somewhere like governor, or senator.

This tiny little resume of a weak one term governor with no reelection, followed by a 100 million dollar national ad campaign, both largely purchased with his own money is a little too thin to make him the star of our right wing dreams for the future.

Okay, here's the real story with the $50 abortions. I've done extensive research on this.

Back in the 1980's, the MA Supreme Judicial Court (henceforth "MA SJC") ruled that no government healthcare subsidy for the poor could exclude "medically necessary" abortions. As with SCOTUS, the MA court later deemed abortions for "mental health" reasons as medically necessary, which in effect means an abortion for any reason has to be covered by any state government healthcare program.

As a result, Medicaid in Massachusetts must cover abortions. This was true before Romney came into power, and it did not change with his healthcare plan. Women on medicade always did and continue to get abortions in Massachusetts. Romney didn't change this.

Now part of Romney's new healthcare plan was to provide a sliding subsidy to purchase PRIVATE health insurance for people who are too rich to qualify for medicade but to poor (within 300% of the poverty line) to afford insurance on their own. After the plan was signed into law, the state insurance commission, because of the past SJC decision mentioned above, determined that all subsidized health insurance plans had to include abortion coverage.

So it is true that after Romney's healthcare plan went into effect, a small number of women who previously did not have access to subsidized abortions now have it. But this number is quite small: it's limited to those who have incomes less than 31,000 of the poverty line and who don't qualify for medicade. I ran the numbers and it comes to something like 2% of the female population in the state. So yes, after the healthcare plan passed, the number of women eligible subsidized abortions increased, but by very, very little.

Some Freepers have presented this as if every woman in Massachusetts has access to $50 abortions. This is simply not true. Again, the program only applies to that very small number of women who make less than $31,000 per year but who are also too rich to qualify for medicade.

And, BTW, it's not as if the taxpayers pick up all the the rest of the tab for the abortion. The health insurance premiums are subsidized, but not completely. Someone making 31,000 is going to be paying over half of the premium. Someone making $20,000 will obviously be paying less.

Now consider this. The subsidized insurance plan requires a copay of $50. An abortion typically costs around $200. So a woman who qualifies for this subsidy is going to save $150 on her abortion. Do you really think $150 is going to make or break a woman's decision of whether to have an abortion? Remember, we're talking about women making around $25,000-$31,000 per year. Considering the huge costs associated with having a child, $150 is peanuts, even for someone at that low income level. Hence I seriously doubt this subsidy is going to cause any abortions that wouldn't have happened anyway.

Finally, this provision is NOT in the legislation Romney signed. It was later added by the state insurance commission in order to comply with the past SJC decision.

"$50 abortions" makes for a nice soundbite, but it really amounts to very little in terms of substance.

Another thing I really don't get: Thompson was openly pro-abortion when ran for Senate the first time. Why don't we hear anyone accusing him of flip-flopping?

Oh well, the primary is over, and I seriously doubt Mitt even wants to Veep spot. So really all of this is a big waste of time. Have a nice weekend!