Skip to comments.Mitt's abortion waffles deeply trouble Evangelicals [Vanity: 'Waffle chart' included]
Posted on 11/02/2011 6:04:36 AM PDT by Colofornian
A late October Fox poll revealed that 62 percent of potential voters are neither concerned by a generic Mormon candidate's social views nor their religious practices and beliefs.
Yet, what is interesting in much of the Fall 2011 polling is these questions are still being raised in a highly abstract voter environment. In other words, they haven't been sifted through an applied Mitt Romney filter.
The late October Fox poll, for example, assumes that the social views of a Mormon candidate are socially conservative. Yet, Mitt Romney has come under fire for lack of exactly lack of conservativism in his social positions. [See 10 reasons Christians should reject Romney]
And one of those reasons has been Mitt Romney's constant flip-flopping of actions and statements regarding abortion going back to at least 1994.
The other way that the polling data has tended to remain abstract is that according to a late October Public Religion Research Institute poll, only 42 percent of Americans even know Mitt Romney is Mormon.
Yet, "Mormon" is the first word that comes to mind when Mitt Romney is mentioned to voters. [See Poll: Cain = 999, Romney = Mormon and Perry = Texas]
If almost 6-in-10 voters...
...don't even know what Mitt Romney's most identified for -- per the above-linked Pew and Washington Post polling data...
...that he's a "Mormon"...
...what does that translate into regarding the shallowness of how far voters have dug into Mitt Romney's social-issues' stances?
The largest sub-group, per the PRRI poll, aware of Romney's Mormonism are Evangelicals at 53 percent and white Mainline Protestants at 49 percent. Catholic voters, at only 37 percent, were less likely to identify Romney as Mormon. Therefore, look for voter opinions on Romney to shift as almost 6-in-10 voters discover for the first time Romney's other-worldly worldviews.
The October Fox poll found 21 percent of GOP primary voters have concerns about electing a Mormon president. Of those, twice as many cite Mormon beliefs as cite the candidates views. White evangelicals -- a significant voting bloc in several key GOP primaries and caucuses -- are about equally concerned about the candidates views (16 percent) as their religious beliefs (17 percent).
Of Romney's troubling (social) views to about one in six Evangelicals has been his waffling on protecting his pre-born neighbors.
In August 2007 interview with Chris Wallace on Fox News Sunday, Mitt Romney responded: "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..."
As the chart below shows, Evangelicals wondered how, even from his own lips, he could say he...
...sustains Roe v. Wade in 1994 (Note: sustains is the strongest word possible for a Mormon to utilize as LDS are asked to sustain ALL their leaders from the LDS prophet on down);
...is devoted and dedicated to honoring his word to sustain and support Roe vs. Wade in 2002;
...continue to remain committed to my promise in May of 2005;
...expand state-funded abortion services via RomneyCare in 2006 while making Planned Parenthood part of the permanent healthcare oversight board at that time...
...All while simultaneously...
...eschewing the pro-choice label in 2001;
...claiming that every action Ive taken as the governor relates to the sanctity of human life and looking backward from February, 2007, I was always for life.
Indeed, how can you be? It was simple, per Romney's interview with Chris Wallace. You simply dont call yourself pro-choice? And why was that? Because, Mitt told Chris Wallace, you just dont feel pro-choice?
When an upstanding Mormon uses the term "sustain" he is using one of the most serious and solemn words in the Lds vocabulary.
Note this comment from a Mormon who actually took issue with Mitt's past commitment to abortion:
In the LDS context 'sustain' has a very special meaning. Whenever someone in a congregation gets a new responsibility (a calling), their names are presented in our sacrament meeting along with what they are being asked to do. This is usually presented to the congregation by a member of the local leadership as follows: 'Brother Jones has been asked to serve as the 15 and 16 year-old Sunday School teacher. All that can sustain him in this calling please show by the uplifted hand.' At this point members of the congregation who sustain the calling raise their right hand. The leader than says 'any opposed may manifest it', and anyone who opposes the calling may raise their hand. To me this is one of the greatest things about the Mormon experience, that when we are asked to do something in our local congregation, we can look around us and see that the people around us know what we are being asked to do, and are showing a willingness to help and support us. It is an exceptional sense of community, especially considering that at the local and regional levels there is no paid clergy. Since as a rule everyone has some responsibility in the congregation, and those responsibilities change sometimes every 2-3 years, sometimes more frequently, there is a very egalitarian aspect to how local congregations are run. We are also taught that once we sustain someone we should do all we can to help someone in their calling, and not needlessly tear them down....Everyone in the Church from the highest ranked ecclesiastical official on down, is supported by a sustaining...Current president of the Church Gordon B. Hinckley said: The procedure of sustaining is much more than a ritualistic raising of the hand. It is a commitment to uphold, to support, to assist those who have been selected -Ensign, May 1995, p. 51 ...We take the same approach to sustaining other things, such as the law of the land. Our 12th Article of Faith says that we are to sustain the law. What does this mean? The best explanation I have found is when past President of the LDS Church David O. McKay said: To sustain the law, therefore, is to refrain from saying or doing anything which will weaken it or make it ineffective -Conference Report, Apr. 1937, p. 28 When we sustain someone or something, and especially when we make that sustaining an overt public act, we take on very specific responsibilities. Support, strength, assistance even when we might personally disagree with something in the person or thing, are all things required of us in 'sustaining'. When Mitt Romney was an LDS bishop he was in charge of the sustaining process every Sunday. On Sundays he didn't officiate in the process, the process was still done under his very close oversight. The LDS concept of 'sustaining' can't be far from his mind when he makes statements saying he 'sustains' a law..." Source: "Mormons Against Romney" Analyze Romney's Promise to "Sustain" Roe v. Wade
Some have noted Romney's "change" on abortion -- and say, "So what? We ought to welcome converts to our cause, not shun them."
Yes, true pro-life "converts" are not to be shunned -- UNLESS they continue to make political ploy out of the pre-born -- waffling back and forth, back and forth, for their own political gain.
(1) Romney's on record saying his "pro-choice" opinions go back to when his mom ran for Senate (1970).
(2): Yet Romney advisor Michael Murphy told the conservative National Review in 2007 that: "'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, reported the Concord Monitor (Original Source: http://www.concordmonitor.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20061210/REPOSITORY/612100304/1217/NEWS98; URL address no longer a live link)
(3) Romney went on to invoke a "nuanced stance" at the 2007 GOP Iowa Straw Poll about what he was in 1994, claiming "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.
For documentation on this and other Romney waffles, see the chart below:
|YEAR||Obvious Pro-Abortion Romney||Romney Feigning 'Pro-Life'|
|Romney, goin' back to 1970 when Romney's Mom ran for Senate||"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. (October, 1994 Senatorial debate vs. Ted Kennedy)||"'He's been a pro-life Mormon faking it as a pro-choice friendly,'" Romney adviser Michael Murphy told the conservative National Review..., says the Concord Monitor = So I guess that made him a below-the-radar "flip" acting like a "flop?"|
|1994 (Campaign)||"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) = Mitt the flipster from what most LDS represent their faith as being...BTW, Romney uses the strongest word possible for support sustain ...Note for non-Mormons: Lds use the word sustain for support for their own prophet||Romney has since invoked 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. (Source: Source: 2007 GOP Iowa Straw Poll debate Aug 5, 2007)|
|1994 (Planned Parenthood ties) → 2001||(a) Romney's wife gives donation to Planned Parenthood... (b) On June 12, 1994, Romney himself attends private Planned Parenthood event at 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 Bleakies 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||2001: "I do not wish to be labeled pro-choice." (Mitt Romney, Letter to the Editor, The Salt Lake Tribune, 7/12/01) = So he doesn't want to be known as a "flop" (so what is he?)|
|2002-2004||I will preserve and protect a womans 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) = Ah, back securely in the "flop" saddle again?||Nov. '04: Romney & his wife had simultaneous pro-life "conversions" linked to stem cell research: Romney met w/Dr. Douglas Melton from Harvard Stem Cell Institute: He recalls that it happened in a single revelatory moment, during a Nov. 9, 2004, meeting with an embryonic-stem-cell researcher who said he didn't believe therapeutic cloning presented a moral issue because the embryos were destroyed at 14 days. "It hit me very hard that we had so cheapened the value of human life in a Roe v. Wade environment that it was important to stand for the dignity of human life," Romney says. Source: Time Mag, March 9, 2007 = (So the pro-abortion-but-no-pro-choice-label-please-is-now-a-pro-life-convert?)|
|2005||May 27 2005: Romney 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.") = OK, this is at least a flop from November '04!||What about his gubernatorial record '03-'06? Mitt later says his actions were ALL pro-life. I assume somewhere in '05 some 'pro-life' decisions. "As governor, Ive had several pieces of legislation reach my desk, which would have expanded abortion rights in Massachusetts. Each of those I vetoed. Every action Ive taken as the governor that relates to the sanctity of human life, I have stood on the side of life." = So, THESE ACTIONS were not only an '02 commitment reversal, but his May 27, '05 press conference commitment as well. So "flipping" is beginning to be routine|
|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, Ive had several pieces of legislation reach my desk, which would have expanded abortion rights in Massachusetts. Each of those I vetoed. Every action Ive taken as the governor that relates to the sanctity of human life, I have stood on the side of life." = So, then THESE ACTIONS were not only a reversal of his 2002 commitment, but his May 27, 2005 press conference commitment. So "flipping" is still routine|
|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 (Anything 'different' from embryos' perspective than June 2002?)||5.5 years before June 13, 2002: Romney: ...spoke at a bioethics forum at Brandeis University. In a Boston Globe story filed the next day, he was quoted as saying that he endorsed embryonic stem cell research, hoping it would one day cure his wife's multiple sclerosis. And he went on to say: "I am in favor of stem cell research. I will work and fight for stem cell research," before adding, "I'd be happy to talk to [President Bush] about this, though I don't know if I could budge him an inch." When pressed, however, Romney and his aides declined to offer an opinion on "therapeutic" or embryonic cloning. Source: Weekly Standard||December 5, 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." 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 schizophrenic "candidate!"|
From the article: Of Romney's troubling (social) views to about one in six Evangelicals has been his waffling on protecting his pre-born neighbors. In August 2007 interview with Chris Wallace on Fox News Sunday, Mitt Romney responded: "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..."
Yes, quite correct. Romney's political problem is not Mormonism, it is liberalism. The contrast between his alleged religion and his actual behavior is huge.
Excellent and helpful chart! Wow... talk about damning evidence...! Does anyone seriously take him seriously (forgive the redundancy) on pro-life issues, anymore?
What the hell is an abortion waffle?
And, somebody PLEASE reassure me that they will NOT soon be available at IHOP!
This is who is about to get the nomination. Someone who as waffled on pretty much every major issue for Republicans — abortion, gay rights, Obamacare, entitlement reform. Its a nightmare.
I was feeling a little discouraged this morning but your post made my day!
Doesn’t trouble me. I refuse to vote for him.
Even if he is our only choice.
Thank you. I’m glad you took it in the spirit it was intended.
Abortion is a very sensitive subject and I know from experience that it can be ‘dangerous’ to make jokes about it.
So you are ok with Mitt then...
With him being a Mormon: Yes
With him being President: No
So you're not OK with him as a Mormon president, then?
Sounds like your standard of "faith weakening" to me if you're saying a Mormon boy can't look up to Mitt as a potential POTUS so that, he, too, can vie for the White House
This is religion
(note 'Religion' forum)
As a Mormon: O.K.
As a President: Not O.K.
if you're saying a Mormon boy can't look up to Mitt
So since it is in religion we ignore Mitts political record and blame it all on Mormonism...
So then is pro-choice or pro-life the right “religious” stance...
Or it can be either if you are Mormon...
Which evidence shows is the case at least in most LDS politicians we see nationally...
Why would you do that?
If you really must consider religion, then just recognize one simple fact. Anyone, candidate or not, who has gone along with mass murder in order to further their own personal goals, whether or not their religion "has an official position" on the subject, does not worship Jesus Christ and isn't a Christian no matter what they may call them self.
I think that is a question for you Lao...
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.