[Canticle_of_Deborah]

don’t know what faithful Latter-day Saint could have been “effectively pro-choice” for so long, when the prophets and general authorities, and the scriptures themselves, have all decried abortion as an abomination.

So far I've heard that Mitt's alleged pro-choice position consisted of choice in the cases of rape, incest and when a woman's life is in danger. I'm looking at his record in MA. All I've found are liberals angry over the way Romney derailed their anti-life legislation. I haven't found any instances where he supported abortion on demand outside those three exceptions.

Many people who are pro-life allow for the three exceptions. So now Romney has changed his identifying label but his position is still the same. I'm comfortable with it.

[Choose Ye This Day]

If it were only for those "emergency contraception" exceptions, I would be more comfortable with Mitt, especially if he would have taken the time to clearly enunciate that he had limits to his pro-choice stance.

But when he writes letters to NARAL in 2002 saying things like this:

''I respect and will protect a woman's right to choose. This choice is a deeply personal one," Romney wrote in answer to a NARAL questionnaire during the campaign. ''Women should be free to choose based on their own beliefs, not mine and not the government's." (from Boston Globe)

He doesn't sound like he's making any distinctions. No mention of rape, incest, or life of mother. He merely says it's a personal choice.