I'm curious - do you consider it an "attack" on Romney when Fred supporters point out Mitt's longstanding pro-abortion record on a thread where a Mitt supporter has (falsely) claimed that Mitt is "100% pro-life"?
Well, in this context “attack” meant posting a news article that provide a factual statement about Fred’s bus.
So I think that for this thread the term “attack” was meant to apply to facts.
But in fact, Romney doesn’t have a longstanding pro-abortion record. He has a long-standing pro-abortion stance, but he until he was Governor he never had a “record” on the subject, other than his wife giving $150 at a planned parenthood fundraiser in 1994.
Once he became Governor, he had a chance to build an actual record. And while for the first two years, his rhetoric was still pro-abortion, it turns out his actions were pro-life. In fact, Mass. pro-life groups thanked him at the end of his term for his hard work on valuable pro-life legislation.
And most of what is cited as “pro-abortion” actions are actually not actions he took, or were actually not as they are portrayed.
For example, he is attacked for “forcing catholic hospitals to administer the morning-after pill”, and that is used to claim that he supports abortion.
But in fact, he vetoed the legislation making the morning-after pill available. And when the legislature overrode the veto, he still tried to exempt the hospitals by claiming that under a previous law, they were exempt, and hte new law didn’t specifically say it was revoking that exemption.
Unfortunately, the new law HAD contained the exemption, and the legislature had removed it, and the legal advisors researched the issue and told Romney that the law clearly had removed the hospital exemption. So Romney implemented the law as it was written over his veto.
He was opposed to forcing the hospitals to give out the pills, and because he fought hard to protect them before having to give in to the law, some people falsely claim he “flipped” on the issue (counting his enforcement of the law as a change in HIS position).
The story on abortions in the medical plan is similar, although he never vetoed it because not only would it be fruitless given the overwhelming vote, but he wasn’t opposed to the medical insurance including coverage for medically necessary abortions. Romney still supports abortion for rape and incest, if I read him correctly (as does Fred Thompson). If you believe abortion should be legal for rape and incest, you certainly would want medical insurance to cover the procedure.
He opposed the embryonic stem cell research measures, opposed cloning.