"A new law to make emergency contraception more available in Massachusetts continues to be a political rollercoaster for Governor Mitt Romney. He supported expanded access when campaigning for governor, but vetoed a bill expanding access, earlier this year. The bill then passed over his veto. Earlier this week, the governor sought to exempt Catholic and other private hospitals from having to offer 'morning after pills' to rape victims. Then yesterday, he reversed his position." - WBUR Radio, Boston, 12/9/2005
Here’s an audio link to the WBUR Radio report cited in Post 102:
http://realserver.bu.edu:8080/ramgen/w/b/wbur/wburnews/2005/me_1209_2.rm
Listen to Romney, in his own voice, explain that he believes in his “heart of hearts” that hospitals should be required to make the morning-after pill available. (Romney sycophants, of course, will object to the “distortion” of judging the governor based on his own words.)
Notably, this “heart of hearts” moment for Romney came thirteen months AFTER the meeting with Harvard researchers in which he allegedly abandoned his previous support for abortion on demand and Roe.
Listen as well for the critical comment by a representative from Massachusetts Citizens for Life — notable because MCFL is one of the groups which signed that letter posted above about what a great conservative Mitt was.
Amazing the impact a $10,000 contribution from Romney had on that group’s assessment of his record.
With no apologies for that paper’s obviously left-wing views, as the New York Times nonetheless accurately reported:
“Conservative critics of Mr. Romney have already seized on a $15,000 donation to Massachusetts Citizens for Life...to argue that he is trying to buy the group’s support, or at least silence its criticism. ...Massachusetts Citizens for Life was critical of Mr. Romney, who was then a supporter of abortion rights, during most of his tenure as governor. But over the past few months, its officials have issued favorable statements about his record on abortion issues.”
What the NY Times reported above is factually true, the paper’s left-wing slant notwithstanding. The truth of their report will of course be irrelevant to both (1) Romney sycophants and (2) those who would say it’s questionable that George Washington really was the first President of the United States, if the NY Times or the Boston Globe reported that he was.