Posted on 04/12/2012 9:01:29 PM PDT by STARWISE
National Right to Life and two other major pro-family groups have endorsed Mitt Romney for president, saying that on the issues of abortion and marriage, he stands with them.
National Right to Life's endorsement Thursday (April 12) came two days after Romney's leading challenger for the Republican nomination -- Rick Santorum -- dropped out, making Romney the presumptive nominee. Also endorsing Romney were the Susan B. Anthony List, a group that supports pro-life women for political office, and the National Organization for Marriage, which has led the charge nationwide in protecting the traditional definition of marriage.
In its endorsement, National Right to Life said Romney "has taken a strong pro-life position and is committed to implementing policies to protect the unborn." The organization said Romney:
-- opposes Roe v. Wade, having called the 1973 decision a "big mistake."
-- supports the Hyde Amendment, which prohibits the use of federal funds to pay for abortions.
-- backs the Mexico City Policy, which bans federal funds for organizations that perform or promote abortions in foreign countries.
"On pro-life issues, Mitt Romney and Barack Obama provide a stark contrast," said Carol Tobias, president of National Right to Life. "As the country's most pro-abortion president, Barack Obama has pursued a radical pro-abortion agenda. It is now time for pro-life Americans to unite behind Mitt Romney. For the sake of unborn children, the disabled, and the elderly, we must win."
The Susan B. Anthony List made similar points and added that Romney has pledged to "appoint only constitutionalist judges to the federal bench" and also to defund Planned Parenthood.
"Women deserve a president who truly respects our views on an issue so central to womanhood," said Susan B. Anthony List President Marjorie Dannenfelser. "A President Romney will be that man. If there was murkiness during the last election over Barack Obama's extreme abortion position, absolute clarity exists now -- and his abortion position is rejected by women young and old."
The National Organization for Marriage, which played key roles in preventing gay "marriage" from being legalized in California and Maine, said Romney was an early signer of the organization's pledge, which meant he was committing to:
-- support an amendment to the U.S. Constitution defining marriage as the union of one man and one woman.
-- appoint Supreme Court justices and an attorney general "who will apply the original meaning of the Constitution."
-- "vigorously" defend the federal Defense of Marriage Act in court.
-- establish a presidential commission on religious liberty.
-- advance legislation to allow District of Columbia citizens to vote on the definition of marriage. Gay "marriage" currently is legal in D.C.
Brian Brown, president of the National Organization for Marriage, said the group was "proud" to endorse Romney.
"President Obama," Brown said, "has declared our nation's marriage laws to be unconstitutional and not only has refused to defend them, his administration is actively working to repeal them in the courts. He's come out against state constitutional amendments defining marriage as the union of one man and one woman. And he has appointed leaders of the same-sex 'marriage' movement as national co-chairs of his reelection campaign.
Incredibly, Obama still apparently claims to personally support traditional marriage. With friends like President Obama, the institution of marriage doesn't need enemies."
Compiled by Michael Foust, associate editor of Baptist Press.
You have an opinion of yourself that’s in excess of what your sorry self deserves.
A self love that’s truly disgusting and without a scant of humilty.
A man of your importance, shouldn’t be wasting his time here with us lesser informed, TEA Party Conservatives.
You belong with your RINOS uniting YOUR Party.
I don’t think I can call Mittens an economic conservative, he’s not a conservative at all
Perfectly stated.
God bless you.
Thank you very much.
God bless you.
See, if you want to learn to play the game like a pro, then you’re going to have drop all this junk about “principles” and stuff. You’re going to have to learn to scratch backs and trade favours and smoke cigars in the back room with the other politicos. If that means going along with smokescreens like “Romney is pro-life,” then so be it. If you want to get anywhere in politics and be a big-shot player, then you’re going to have to start learning to do what’s best for the country Republican Party leadership caste.
~~~~~~
Boy .. is that ever the truth! And it’s not R or D .. it’s the Beltway Insider syndrome .. where empires and fortunes are built and defended, dealing and groveling for sequential election wins for the power to appropriate trillions, endless terms, huge pensions and proper societal homage. Without term limits, this onslaught continues. We’re forever being ‘marketed.’
Kansas: Do you align with and respect Karl Rove?
Once Santorum decided to suspend his campaign, the race for the nomination was effectively won by Romney.
You can choose to pretend that since more states will be voting, it’s still a primary, but Romney will win them handily and gear up for november.
for most politically attuned people, they are looking ahead to the inevitable Romney vs Obama matchup in november. NRL is doing that, and they strongly want Obama defeated.
Here here! it’s time for the non-politicians to take a turn.
They’ve got all the time in the world to endorse Romney AFTER the primary is done. As long as there is a genuine pro-life candidate still running, why jump now? Maybe because they’ve been bought off?
I will do everything in my power to make sure that I have a candidate to vote for who has NOT used government power to force Catholics into abortions. To force someone to have an abortion against their will would be unconscionable. To force somebody to PERFORM an abortion against their will is just as unconscionable.
And if Republicans are willing to choose somebody whose crowning glory is precisely that, then they are just as dead in their souls as the Germans who watched Hitler kill millions - BECAUSE THEY REFUSED TO RECOGNIZE THAT THE ENABLING ACT OF 1933 WAS THE VOTE FOR THE WHOLE ENCHILADA, AFTER WHICH THERE WAS NO LEGAL OPTION TO RESIST WHAT WAS COMING.
If we want to not have tyranny, the time to resist is now, because if Romney is our candidate then we only have the option between Tyranny A and Tyranny B. Romney’s is a little bit slower than Obama’s, that’s all. That’s what even Soros says.
The time to fight is right now. It’s 1933 in Germany. The point of no return.
I changed my voter registration from independent to republican yesterday, so I can vote for Newt Gingrich. You may as well tell me to go to hell and forget about voting because I don’t count. Never. As long as there is breath in me and there is a candidate who truly values the US Constitution, I will never accept a tyrant instead - even if he’s a little bit weaker tyrant than Obama. I will drink pure water over water that’s only slightly poisoned, every time.
Yup...you are...
(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.
If you are so anti-bashing, then why are you bashing???
Too often typical of too much of the pro-life movement...measuring how it impacts the "movement"...vs. babies themselves...
Why don't you go out on a lecture tour as to how RomneyCare's $50 abortion -- and often in many cases - $0 abortions (100% taxpayer funded) "benefit" both those babies? (along w/the taxpayers who have to answer to God as to why they didn't object to how their taxes were used?)
All that you purists are doing is further isolating yourselves from mainstream conservatives. You will not enjoy the spoils of victory if you do.
Good. Because right now I'm only looking for true leaders who won't compromise the core principles of the republic for anyone, or for any party.
You will not enjoy the spoils of victory if you do.
I'm betting that you and I define "victory" quite a bit differently.
If we’re “purists,” what does that make you, an “impurist”?
Pretty good label for Romney Republicans, frankly.
I could say the same about you.
I have actually been PERSONNALLY involved in the defeat of over 30 different “RINO” Republicans in the Primary.
I've been involved in at least ten times as many. Does that necessarily make my opinion superior to yours?
I actually recruited many of those conservative candidates myself.
"Conservative" like Mitt Romney, or actually conservative?
You are very, very immature, as is evidenced by your posts. Everyone who disagrees with YOU is branded a “liberal” or a “Rino” or part of the “GOP-E” -—
Actions speak louder than words. And supporting the most liberal governor in the history of the republic is an action.
If is very easy for me to make negative statements about you, as it is very clear to anyone with any real experience that you do not know what you are talking about, and that you do not know how to strategize or WIN!
I'll restrain myself.
Let us continue these arguments on another thread, I am sure an opportunity will arise.
I was not being rude or ignoring anyone, on purpose.
Glad you’re okay. Praise the LORD.
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.