Mass. Republicans to Romney: Don't apologize for RomneyCare

The fight for the Republican presidential nomination hasn’t officially started, but conservatives around the country are already pressuring former Mass. governor and likely presidential candidate Mitt Romney to apologize for signing the Commonwealth’s health care reform bill into law.

“Stopping Obamacare cold has become an article of faith on the right,” Politico reported earlier this week, “and Romney is facing the prospect that his health care plan could be his undoing as a presidential contender.”

But calls for Romney to disown his own health care plan haven’t sat well with many Massachusetts Republicans. As Romney's Republican opponents prepare to rip his — and their — health-care legacy apart, they are urging the former governor to defend the law.

That hasn't stopped the calls from mounting. In a blog post entitled, “Say Goodbye to Mitt Romney,” Republican strategist Bill Pascoe encouraged Romney to “say six simple words” about Massachusetts health care reform: “‘I was wrong. I am sorry.’” L. Brent Bozell, president of the Conservative Victory Committee, said he “would advise [Romney] to acknowledge he made a mistake.” Penny Nance, chief executive officer of Concerned Women for America, said that “the [health care] failure in Massachusetts is going to be a huge hurdle to get over to win the support of conservatives,” and that to “get over that hurdle, [Romney] needs to acknowledge that failure.” And Tom McClusky, vice president for government affairs at the Family Research Council, has knocked Romney as well: “He has defended the law and continues to defend it. And there are things in the law that are indefensible,” he said.

According to interviews with several Bay State Republican lawmakers and spokespeople, these out-of-state critics are missing two key points.

First, Massachusetts Republicans argue that RomneyCare, as passed, was a solid bill that deserved Republican support.

Carpetbagger and fascist Mitt RomneyCARE used improper executive authority
to impose HIS whim-of-the-day upon citzens.
The ONLY vote was his.
Romney micturated upon on the Mass. Constitution. [The Romney Way™]

"Experts: Credit Romney for homosexual marriage"
"What he (Governor Bishop Mitt Romney) did was exercise illegal legislative authority'

"While former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney claims he did everything possible to throttle homosexual marriage in his state – his campaign now saying he took "every conceivable step within the law to defend traditional marriage" – several constitutional experts say that just isn't so.

"What Romney did [was] he exercised illegal legislative authority," Herb Titus said of the governor's actions after the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court released its opinion in the Goodridge case in 2003. "He was bound by what? There was no order. There wasn't even any order to the Department of Public Health to do anything."

Titus, a Harvard law graduate, was founding dean of Pat Robertson's Regent University Law School. He also worked with former Alabama Supreme Court Chief Justice Roy Moore, ...

Romney's aides have told WND that after four of the seven court members reinterpreted the definition of marriage, he believed he had no choice but to direct clerks and others to change state marriage forms and begin registering same-sex couples.

Some opponents contend that with those actions, Romney did no more or less than create the first homosexual marriages recognized in the nation. And Titus agrees."

"....But the court's decision conflicts with the constitutional philosophy of three co-equal branches of government: executive, legislative and judicial, Titus said. It also violates with the Massachusetts Constitution, which states: "The power of suspending the laws, or (suspending) the execution of the laws, ought never to be exercised but by the legislature..."

And it cannot even be derived from the opinion itself, asserts the pro-family activist group Mass Resistance, which says the decision did four things:

* First, it acknowledged that the current law does not permit same-sex marriage.

"The only reasonable explanation is that the Legislature did not intend that same-sex couples be licensed to marry. We conclude, as did the judge, that G.L. c. 207 may not be construed to permit same-sex couples to marry."

* Second, it said it is NOT striking down the marriage laws (among other things, the Massachusetts Constitution forbids a court to change laws)

"Here, no one argues that striking down the marriage laws is an appropriate form of relief."

* Third, it declared that not allowing same-sex marriages is a violation of the Massachusetts Constitution.

"We declare that barring an individual from the protections, benefits, and obligations of civil marriage solely because that person would marry a person of the same sex violates the Massachusetts Constitution."

* And fourth, given that the court is not changing any laws, the SJC gave the Legislature 180 days to "take such action as it may deem appropriate."

"We vacate the summary judgment for the department. We remand this case to the Superior Court for entry of judgment consistent with this opinion. Entry of judgment shall be stayed for 180 days to permit the Legislature to take such action as it may deem appropriate in light of this opinion."

After the Legislature did nothing during the 180 days, Romney then took action "on his own," the group said.

"Gov. Romney's legal counsel issued a directive to the Justices of the Peace that they must perform same-sex marriages when requested or 'face personal liability' or be fired," the group said."

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.