Mitt Romney holds fundraiser with manufacturer of the Morning After Pill

LifeSiteNews.com ^ | May 18, 2012 | Ben Johnson

[EternalVigilance]

MIAMI, FLORIDA – Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney scheduled a $50,000-a-plate fundraiser at the home of Phil Frost, the executive of the company that makes the Morning After Pill, on Wednesday night. Plan B One-Step is produced by Teva Pharmaceuticals, Frost’s company.

[Charles Henrickson]

I just saw your proposed resolution: "we will henceforth deem failure to carry out this supreme sworn duty to be cause for removal from public office via impeachment or recall, or by statutory or electoral means, notwithstanding any law passed by any legislative body within the United States, or the decision of any court, or the decree of any executive officer, at any level of governance, to the contrary."

"Impeachment or recall." Do you really think you could get the Senate to impeach the pro-abort SC justices or the pro-abort Obama, because of their position on abortion? How realistic is that?

I don't think that's realistic. What is possible, though, is to get a majority on the Supreme Court that would overturn Roe v. Wade. Even that is not a given, no matter who is appointed to the SC. But it is much more likely than impeaching the pro-aborts.

[Cringing Negativism Network]

It would be nice if some posters paid even half as much attention to criticizing Obama, as they do tearing down Romney.

Pick a lane.

[DBeers]

Is that the only pill they make?

Does Planned Parenthood ONLY perform abortions? LOL

You use the same arguments the leftist use to advance evil under the umbrella of good. In this case you promote Romney.

Romney sucks and this is just one of the reasons. I would agree with you though that Romney is not primarily taking monies from these guys to promote the morning after pill. I think it more likely the drug company is seeking influence to get a piece of the large government nanny state progressive subsidized healthcare 'action' that Romney supports at supposedly ONLY the State level.

Chuckle chuckle hee hee lol....

[DBeers]

It would be nice if some posters paid even half as much attention to criticizing Obama, as they do tearing down Romney.

Pick a lane.

I picked a lane many years ago -the conservative lane; the lane that both Obama and Romney veered of off.

I will stay on my lane while you pretend to be on a lane that is in actuality a progressive detour with a dead end called "winning the future" through government tyranny.

[Colofornian]

It would be nice if some posters paid even half as much attention to criticizing Obama, as they do tearing down Romney.

Perhaps.

On the other hand let me know who all of those Obama "supporters" on FR who need to be "set straight" re: any intentions to vote for Obama.

As far as I know, there are none on FR.

On the other hand, how many FREEPERs are there who've become sudden apologists for abortion, for govt healthcare, for big govt, and for Mormonism? (A LOT)

[presently no screen name]

$50 for abortion under his RomneyCare. 50,000 a plate for him. POS the he is. He is evil to the core.

How any republican ever voted for him I have no idea - they need to come to grips and change parties.

[netmilsmom]

muawiyah - I remember the days when you rarely encountered a Catholic in a Republican discussion ~ nor a Mormon anywhere ~ they stayed away from the Gentiles lest they be polluted or something.<<

netmilsmom - Two questions.

How old are you?
My definition of Gentiles is non-Jew. What is yours?

muawiyah - For mormons all non-mormons, even jews, are gentiles.

Okay, so I know what you WANT to answer but it’s not the answer to either question I asked. Unless you are a Mormon.

[Colofornian]

What Romney is stating is a pro-life position. (Whether he'll follow through or not, no one knows.) I am especially interested in where he stands on the abortion question, since that has been a personal "litmus test" for me all my voting life (since 1972). I will not vote for any candidate who is avowedly pro-abort and supports Roe v. Wade. So, e.g., I would not vote for Giuliani or, of course, for most any Democrat. In early 2008, I went to hear Romney speak at an appearance in St. Louis. Rick Santorum was there, traveling with Romney and campaigning for him. I knew Santorum was "Mr. Pro-Life," so I took him aside and had a five-minute conservation with him as to Romney on the pro-life issue. He assured me Romney was genuine on this. Notice also, that now, in 2012, a lot of prominent, reliable, pro-life people are endorsing Romney. That is an indicator to me.

Charles, then you need to explain these two Romney statements -- one made by Mitt Romney Dec of 2008; the other by Ann Romney -- as published Nov. of 2011:

Remember, Romney said he "converted" to a pro-life position November of 2004...and when you look @ Ann's comments from Nov. 2011, remember that Romney has at times conceded his supposedly "previous" pro-abortion position:

Mitt Romney: Romney: ...surplus embryos...Those embryos, I hope, could be available for adoption for people who would like to adopt embryos. But if a parent decides they would want to donate one of those embryos for purposes of research, in my view, that's acceptable. It should not be made against the law." (Source: Candidates Reveal Their Biggest Mistakes)

[Charles...got any kids or grandkids you're willing to "donate" to "research"...and then care to tell us how "pro-life" that is...if ya wanna be consistent with defending Mitt's comments from 4.5 years ago, that is]

Ann Romney: In the past you’ve said he’s changed positions only once, on abortion. Was that your doing? No, no, I never talked to Mitt about that. Our personal opinions have never changed; we’ve always been pro-life (Ann Romney Reveals Mitt's Softer Side)

So Mitt's "always been pro-life," eh????

Hence, the need to constantly monitor the Romneys....'cause they're all over the map on NOT defending the pre-born...and then attempting to cover that up...like when Mitt wrote a letter to the editor of a Utah newspaper in July 2001 -- claiming he wasn't "pro-choice."

YEAR	Obvious Pro-Abortion Romney	Romney Feigning 'Pro-Life'
Bottom-Line Summary: ANN Romney Lies Thru Her Teeth	Ann Romney, 1994: Romney's wife gives donation to Planned Parenthood (Ann Romney’s Planned Parenthood Donation	Ann Romney, 2011: In the past you’ve said he’s changed positions only once, on abortion. Was that your doing? No, no, I never talked to Mitt about that. Our personal opinions have never changed; we’ve always been pro-life (Ann Romney Reveals Mitt's Softer Side)
Bottom-Line Summary: Mitt Romney Lies Thru His Teeth	“Over the last multiple years, as you know, I have been effectively pro-choice." (Bruce Smith, "Romney Campaigns in SC with Sen. DeMint," The Associated Press, 1/29/07) + ...”my position was effectively pro-choice." (Source: 2007 GOP Iowa Straw Poll debate 8/5/2007)	So, not only does Ann Romney tell Parade Magazine November 2011 that they've “never changed” re: abortion and that they've “always been pro-life,” but Mitt Romney told Chris Wallace part-way through their 2007 campaign that: “I never allowed myself to use the word pro-choice because I didn't FEEL I was pro-choice. I would protect the law, I said, as it was, but I wasn't pro-choice”...This was seven months after he said in January 2007 that he was “always for life.”
2006	April 12, 2006--Mitt signs his "Commonwealth Care" into existence, thereby expanding abortion access/taxpayer funded abortions for women--including almost 2% of the females of his state who earn $75,000 or more. (Wait a minute, I thought he told us post-'06 that ALL of his actions were "pro-life?"). Also, not only this, but 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).	"As governor, I’ve had several pieces of legislation reach my desk, which would have expanded abortion rights in Massachusetts. Each of those I vetoed. Every action I’ve taken as the governor that relates
Early 2007	On January 29, 2007 during South Carolina visit, Romney stated: “Over the last multiple years, as you know, I have been effectively pro-choice." (Bruce Smith, "Romney Campaigns in SC with Sen. DeMint," The Associated Press, 1/29/07) = OK how could "every action I've taken as the governor that relates to the sanctity of human life..." AND this statement BOTH be true?	Another South Carolina campaign stop has Romney uttering "I was always for life”: "I am firmly pro-life… I was always for life." (Jim Davenport, "Romney Affirms Opposition to Abortion," The Associated Press, 2/9/2007) = Oh, of course as the above shows, he's always been pro-life!
Summer 2007	"I never said I was pro-choice, but my position was effectively pro-choice." Source: 2007 GOP Iowa Straw Poll debate 8/5/2007 = OK...looking at '94 & '02 campaigns, both his public statements, his 2002 voter guide responses, & his actions (which are a major form of expression, ya know!) how could he say he "never said" he was "pro-choice?"	Then comes his 8/12/07 interview with Chris Wallace of Fox: "I never called myself pro-choice. I never allowed myself to use the word pro-choice because I didn't FEEL I was pro-choice. I would protect the law, I said, as it was, but I wasn't pro-choice, and so..." = Whatever he was from '70 when his mom ran as pro-abortion senator & he sided w/ her, to 5/27/05, w/whatever interruption he had due to a pro-life altar call in Nov of '04, whatever that was...well, he assures us it wasn't a pro-abortion 'inlook' or outlook 'cause he didn't feel "pro-choice..." = So does that make him a life-long pro-lifer?
December 2007 vs. November 2011 (Pro-treating offspring as research refuse late in previous POTUS campaign vs. now claiming 'never changed...always pro-life'	December 4, 2007: Romney: ...surplus embryos...Those embryos, I hope, could be available for adoption for people who would like to adopt embryos. But if a parent decides they would want to donate one of those embryos for purposes of research, in my view, that's acceptable. It should not be made against the law." (Source: Candidates Reveal Their Biggest Mistakes) Any "inquiring minds" want to try wrapping their minds around how a politician in one sentence mentions "adopting" embryos out (yes, a great thing to mention!) -- but then in the very NEXT breath says if a "PARENT" wants to be "pro-choice" (Mitt used the word "decides" which is what "pro-choicers" say they want) "to donate one of those embryos for purposes of research, in my view, that's acceptable." Say what???? How about 8-month gestationally-aged infants in the womb, Mitt? Or already-born infants, too, Mitt? If a "parent decides they would want to donate one of those...for purposes of research, in my view, that's acceptable..." No??? What's the 'pro-life' difference, Mitt? Here you call an embryo's mom&dad "parents" -- but "parents" w/ "research" give-away rights? How bizarre we have such a schizophrenic "candidate!"	In the past you’ve said he’s changed positions only once, on abortion. Was that your doing? No, no, I never talked to Mitt about that. Our personal opinions have never changed; we’ve always been pro-life (Ann Romney Reveals Mitt's Softer Side)

[presently no screen name]

But he was the governor of the most liberal state in the country

Mitt's talking points. Before CA and NY? LOL!! He's the kinkmaker when it comes to ANTI-American. RomneyCare, same sex marriage - what a POS! EVIL, anti- American. He has NOT one redeeming trait.

[muawiyah]

Age? You want to know my age?

I"m older than dirt!

[j_tull]

yet the anti-Romney posts far outweigh the anti-Obama posts.

Romney with a complicit, ballwashing, RINO Congress could be more dangerous than 0bummer with a Congress offering even minimal opposition. Those of you who have enjoyed having Romney rammed up where the sun don't shine and can't wait to pull the lever for him will simply confirm to the GOP-e that Republicans will grab their ankles on command.

[Colofornian]

And that's enough to get me to vote for Romney. ;^) I'll take some chance over no chance.

Charles, May I suggest you reread that Biblical account where two women claiming the same baby appealed to Solomon to decide the matter, and he wittily chose to cut him/her in half to determine who the real mother was?

'Twas the real mom who said, "No, I don't need a place @ the baby's table if it means only half a baby."

Some of those pro-life groups you referenced in your post #263 ("Notice also, that now, in 2012, a lot of prominent, reliable, pro-life people are endorsing Romney") are ones who can't stand being left on the outside and having no place at the endorsement or influence table...they'd rather be @ table with "half a baby" than "no baby" -- even if the baby was kept alive by keeping him away from that table!

After all, if some of those ex-"pro-life" groups don't have any baby to show for their continued existence (even if only half of one), they're out of business. (Got to keep the pro-life movement alive, even if the immobilized babies for the large part aren't kept alive)

Bottom line: Your "some chance" gamble (and since when are men in your position advocating gambling with the lives of pre-born?) is the "we'll-take-half-a-baby syndrome" too many Pro-lifers are committing to. You'll take half-a-baby or none, eh?

[netmilsmom]

>>Age? You want to know my age?

I”m older than dirt!<<

You still didn’t answer the questions.

[Flycatcher]

Very astute analogy, Colofornian.

Great post.

[Colofornian]

Choosing to be shot in the foot vs being shot in the head is a simple choice for me.

Easy for you to reduce this to some "foot-shooting" equivalency.

You haven't been dismembered in the womb in the Bay State @ Romney expense.

Unless you're a police officer or deployed military or something like that, you can't say like the average pre-born person alive (and almost half of 'em then dead) in the womb since 1973, that you've been in the life & dead trenches of warfare...in this case, warfare upon the pre-born, can you?

[netmilsmom]

>>Romney with a complicit, ballwashing, RINO Congress could be more dangerous than 0bummer with a Congress offering even minimal opposition.<<

Obama has ruled by executive order, czars and agencies. He has totally ignored the congress.

He is a marxist, Muslim Brotherhood Jihadi loving, Israeli hating dictator. The only thing that has stopped him has been the Supreme Court. He gets in again and he stacks it.

Love your country more than you hate the GOPe.

[big'ol_freeper]

Piss on Romney

[COBOL2Java]

There is a chance that Romney will appoint a Conservative judge. For the sake of the unborn I will take one last chance

LOL! Here's your chance! Hope you win!

[Colofornian]

I don't trust Romney. He may very well be a political chameleon....Also, now that he's got the nomination wrapped up and he's running against Obama, if deep down he were a liberal (assuming there is a "deep down" there), then why is he still campaigning on a conservative platform?

Charles, you answered your own Q here earlier in your post! The very reason Romney is campaigning on a conservative platform is because he IS such a political chameleon!

(It's already built-into Mormon leader DNA to be a counterfeit Christian wannabe; the DNA just extends the counterfeit currency into other arenas)

First, if you take the time to wade thru what's below, look @ how Romney catered to 3 groups of people on the pro-life/pro-abortion matter alone:

(a) Massachusetts voters (1994, 2002)
(b) Fellow Utah (Mormonites) who would "judge" Romney during the time of the Olympics if they thought he was pro-abortion (hence his disclaimer via a letter-to-the-editor in 2001)
(c) Republican voters (2007-2008...minus his "true" position evidenced in the Katie Couric interview Dec. of 2008); 2011-2012

*******************************

(1) Romney's on record saying his "pro-choice" opinions go back to when his mom ran for Senate (1970).
Assessment: [Pro-abortion, then, eh, Mitt?]

(2): "'He's been a pro-life Mormon faking it as a pro-choice friendly,'" Romney adviser Michael Murphy told the conservative National Review last year, says the Concord Monitor (Source: http://www.concordmonitor.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20061210/REPOSITORY/612100304/1217/NEWS98)
= Assessment: So I guess that made him a below-the-radar "flip" acting like a "flop?"

(3) Romney now invokes in this thread's article a "nuanced stance" about what he was in 1994: He says "Look, I was pro-choice. I am pro-life. You can go back to YouTube and look at what I said in 1994. I never said I was pro-choice, but my position was effectively pro-choice.

Well, what are the 1994 facts?

FACT a: Romney's wife gave a donation in 1994 to Planned Parenthood...
FACT b: On June 12, 1994, Romney himself attended a private Planned Parenthood event at the home of a sister-in-law of a Planned Parenthood board member where the president of Planned Parenthood recalls talking to Romney.
"Nicki Nichols Gamble, a former president and chief executive of Planned Parenthood League of Massachusetts, said today that the photo shows Mitt and Ann Romney at a private home in Cohasset in June 1994." Source: See http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1941932/posts
"Gamble said the pic was snapped at an event at GOP activist Eleanor Bleakie’s house and that she “clearly” remembered speaking with Romney at the event." Source: See http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1941627/posts
"In fact Romney personally attended the Planned Parenthood event in question on June 12, 1994. Gamble, the President of Massachusuetts Planned Parenthood in 1994, also attended the event at the home of a Republican, Eleanor Bleakie, the sister-in-law of a Planned Parenthood Board member. Both Romney and Michael Kennedy, who appeared on behalf of nephew of Ted Kennedy, attended the event." Source: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1941240/posts
FACT c: 1994 campaign in Massachusetts "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)
= Assessment: Mitt the flipster from what most LDS represent

(4): Fast forward to 2001, when Romney needs to reassure Utah Mormons that...he's not really "pro-choice," after all: "I do not wish to be labeled pro-choice." (Mitt Romney, Letter to the Editor, The Salt Lake Tribune, 7/12/01)
= Assessment: So he doesn't want to be known as a "flop" (so what is he?)

(5) “I will preserve and protect a woman’s right to choose, and have devoted and am dedicated to honoring my word in that regard…(Nov. 2, 2002) = Well, now guess what? He's solidly pro-abortion AGAIN! See also: "I respect and will protect a woman's right to choose. This choice is a deeply personal one … Women should be free to choose based on their own beliefs, not mine and not the government's." (Stephanie Ebbert, "Clarity Sought On Romney's Abortion Stance," The Boston Globe, 7/3/05)
= Assessment: Ah, back securely in the "flop" saddle again?

(6): In November of '04, he & his wife had simultaneous pro-life "conversions" where he links it to stem cell research
= Assessment: (So the pro-abortion-but-no-pro-choice-label-please-is-now-a-pro-life-convert?)

(7): On May 27 '05, he affirms his commitment to being "pro-choice" at a press conference. ("I am absolutely committed to my promise to maintain the status quo with regards to laws relating to abortion and choice.")
= Assessment: OK, this is at least a flop from November '04!

(8): What about his gubernatorial record 2003-2006? Mitt later says his actions were ALL pro-life. So I assume somewhere in 2005 or so were so pro-life decisions. ("As governor, I’ve had several pieces of legislation reach my desk, which would have expanded abortion rights in Massachusetts. Each of those I vetoed. Every action I’ve taken as the governor that relates to the sanctity of human life, I have stood on the side of life.")
= Assessment: So, then THESE ACTIONS were not only a reversal of his 2002 commitment, but his May 27, 2005 press conference commitment. So "flipping" is beginning to be routine

(9): April 12, 2006--Mitt signs his "Commonwealth Care" into existence, thereby expanding abortion access/taxpayer funded abortions for women--including almost 2% of the females of his state who earn $75,000 or more. Assessment: (Wait a minute, I thought he told us post-'06 that ALL of his actions were "pro-life?"). Also, not only this, but 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).

(10): On January 29, 2007 during a visit to South Carolina, Romney stated: “Over the last multiple years, as you know, I have been effectively pro-choice." (Bruce Smith, "Romney Campaigns in SC with Sen. DeMint," The Associated Press, 1/29/07)
= Assessment: OK how could "every action I've taken as the governor that relates to the sanctity of human life..." AND this statement BOTH be true?

(11): Another South Carolina campaign stop has Romney uttering that "I was always for life”: "I am firmly pro-life… I was always for life." (Jim Davenport, "Romney Affirms Opposition to Abortion," The Associated Press, 2/9/2007)
= Assessment: Oh, of course as the above shows, he's always been pro-life!

(12) "I never said I was pro-choice, but my position was effectively pro-choice." Source: 2007 GOP Iowa Straw Poll debate 8/5/2007
= Assessment: OK...looking at the 1994 & 2002 campaigns, both his public statements, his 2002 voter guide responses, & his actions (which are a major form of expression, ya know!) how could he say he "never said" he was "pro-choice?"

(13): Then comes his 8/12/07 interview with Chris Wallace of Fox: "I never called myself pro-choice. I never allowed myself to use the word pro-choice because I didn't FEEL I was pro-choice. I would protect the law, I said, as it was, but I wasn't pro-choice, and so..."
= Assessment: That whatever he was from 1970 when his mom ran as a pro-abortion senator & he sided with her, to 5/27/05, w/whatever interruption he had due to a pro-life altar call in Nov of '04, whatever that was...well, he assures us it wasn't a pro-abortion inlook or outlook 'cause he didn't feel "pro-choice..." = So does that make him a life-long pro-lifer?

(14): By December of 2007, you'd think after THREE supposed FULL years of being "pro-life," he'd have his talking points down by then...But no: December 4, 2007: Romney: ...surplus embryos...Those embryos, I hope, could be available for adoption for people who would like to adopt embryos. But if a parent decides they would want to donate one of those embryos for purposes of research, in my view, that's acceptable. It should not be made against the law." (Source: Candidates Reveal Their Biggest Mistakes) Any "inquiring minds" want to try wrapping their minds around how a politician in one sentence mentions "adopting" embryos out (yes, a great thing to mention!) -- but then in the very NEXT breath says if a "PARENT" wants to be "pro-choice" (Mitt used the word "decides" which is what "pro-choicers" say they want) "to donate one of those embryos for purposes of research, in my view, that's acceptable." Say what???? How about 8-month gestationally-aged infants in the womb, Mitt? Or already-born infants, too, Mitt? If a "parent decides they would want to donate one of those...for purposes of research, in my view, that's acceptable..." No??? What's the 'pro-life' difference, Mitt? Here you call an embryo's mom&dad "parents" -- but "parents" w/ "research" give-away rights? How bizarre we have such a schizophrenic "candidate!"

(15): Now we come to the 2011-2012 campaign. The Romneys do an interesting Parade Magazine interview (Nov. 2011). Ann Romney is interviewed: In the past you’ve said he’s changed positions only once, on abortion. Was that your doing? No, no, I never talked to Mitt about that. Our personal opinions have NEVER CHANGED; we’ve ALWAYS BEEN PRO-LIFE: (Ann Romney Reveals Mitt's Softer Side)

What? Did you Romneybots & would-be Romney voters not get the Romney campaign memo issued late in 2011: Per Ann Romney, the Romneys have "ALWAYS been pro-life..." They personally "NEVER CHANGED."

Which all means you can't trust a damn word Romney says. He has no personal integrity -- no core values.

[StAnDeliver]

"Two things... 1) Romney cannot beat obomba. PERIOD. 2) Even if by some fluke he does"

Entertaining.