Replies

Really Stare decisis means also a law set in place before another came into office.

Yes, there was a court order...but the devil's in the details:

If you check this Jan 08 Freerepublic thread -- RomneyHealthPlanLinkedtoAbortionCriticsClaim -- then you'll see this excerpt from the article posted:

Massachusetts pro-life leader Marie Sturgis defends the plan, saying that the Bay State was already under court order from the state's top court to pay for abortions for low-income women in cases of rape and incest...Jerry Zandstra, who heads the Pro-Life Federation of Michigan, said the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court didn't actually rule that taxpayers had to pay for abortions on demand - it only issued a decision in a case where abortion was "medically necessary. "Even if it were true that his hands were tied - and it's not - a true pro-life governor would have fought that anyway," he said. "The state Supreme Court is not the end of the road. He certainly could have fought that through to the U.S. Supreme Court."

So did you catch that?
Whereas the court order applied only to low-income women in MA, RomneyCare opened up taxpayer-funded abortion in MA to also "moderate"-income women (with "moderate" being very loosely defined).
Secondly whereas the court order addressed abortions due to rape & incest, RomneyCare didn't limit coverage of abortion in MA to rape & incest, which BTW, are significantly less than 1% of all abortions, anyway.

So, tell us, Resty: Why is a very wealthy politician who expanded butchering-on-demand on the backs of MA taxpayers worth defending more than those innocents being dismembered in the womb?