Posted on 05/02/2012 7:40:14 AM PDT by xzins
A recently released book on Mitt Romney clearly supports the importance of voting pro life. And how especially important it will be to elect real pro-life heroes in the U.S House and Senate.
Unfortunately, the case of Mitt Romney is typical of too many politicians.
It shows that you and I must never stop putting heat on all the politicians to support sweeping pro-life protections, because all too often their positions seem to change when, either as a candidate, or as an office holder, he or she believes that the prevailing wind has shifted.
Now I believe wholeheartedly in St. Paul’s “Road to Damascus” conversion, but I am not so sure we can really put much stock into “Road to the Presidency” conversions.
Just how many times should a candidate be allowed to change his position — and which conversion is real?
Especially on something so black and white as abortion.
Now, true pro-lifers like you and me can understand the conversion from pro-abortion to pro-life, but how do we explain the reverse? Yet that recent Mitt Romney book claims he decided to do just that during his ’94 bid to win the Massachusetts Senate.
After one pollster opined that a pro-life position would be a political liability for a statewide race in Massachusetts, Mitt decided to cast off his Church’s “burdensome pro-life position” and embrace wholeheartedly the Roe v. Wade position that legalized abortion-on-demand for the full nine months of pregnancy.
To seal the deal with the abortion lobby of Massachusetts he even sent Planned Parenthood a donation!
Then, during a debate with Ted Kennedy for Senate, Mitt Romney actually looked right into the camera and said, with full conviction, “I believe that 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.”
Well . . . apparently Mitt had a pro-life change for the better 10 years later.
He credits a November 2004 meeting with a Harvard stem-cell researcher, while he was still Governor, as the moment that the scales fell from his eyes and he “realized” that the unborn needed his protection.
Yet, just how deep the change he had is still questionable.
Just months after his 2004 change of heart, he appointed a lifetime pro-abortion advocate to the Massachusetts bench.
Then, in 2005, after flopping around for a while on the issue of the so called “abortion pill” he flipped again, and finally came down on the wrong side — not only legalizing but expanding state subsidies to pay for even more abortions pills.
But I suppose the most worrisome insight into his true pro-life convictions occurred in 2006.
Mitt Romney, following his success in forcing RomneyCare on all Bay Staters, expanded abortion services in his bill, and required that the MassHealth Payment Policy Board always have one member appointed by Planned Parenthood of Massachusetts.
He shrugs off that part when questioned about the plan he set in motion.
God bless him if he really has converted. Every pro-lifer will have to decide that for themselves.
But it seems that for many politicians the timing always coincides with their run for political office.
That’s why it’s so vital we keep the pressure on Mr. Romney to support a full pro-life agenda, including the Life at Conception Act, all the way until November 6 and beyond.
Since so many candidates blow back and forth with the wind — right now — while the candidates are looking for votes — is the best time to make sure that the wind is blowing in our direction.
And given Mr. Romney’s tendency to sway with the political winds, it’s even more important that you, and other National Pro-Life Alliance members, insist that candidates you support for the U.S. House and Senate pledge to support and cosponsor the Life at Conception Act.
By supporting the Life at Conception Act as a candidate litmus test, we can improve the positions and the pro-life resolve of all the candidates.
Sincerely,
Martin E. Fox, President National Pro-Life Alliance.
ABORTION STOPS A BEATING HEART!
I'm sure it was from someone else who has left the GOP..it's just too much of a coincident to see something that unusual just laying there on the street all of a sudden.
I'm thinking about sending a picture of it to the RNC...in an otherwise empty donation envelope.
“The GOP with its Ann Coulter compromise — the so-called 3rd way, focus on riches and not on morality — is actually the way to destruction. It is a broad way that leads to destruction.”
Couldn’t have said it better myself.
Well it seems to me that Gingrich,waiting on Romney/GOP money to sellout and endorse Romney should be breaking news to the Gingrich only or be banned and go to hell- crowd. It should be posted as breaking news that Gingrich is a badly reformed RINO.Newt’s ego and fake moves to the right should be breaking news as well.
It is politics.Gingrich has a huge ego.It is all about money for all of them including Palin et al.When are people going to wake up and realize they need to gut the house and the senate if we want real change?Gingrich is as much of a reformed RINO as Romney.
So someone needs to post a thread in breaking news that Gingrich is a badly reformed RINO that all know darn well he will flinch regarding pro life if it suites his political needs and ego.I see Gingrich as no different than Romney.Yet Newt was crowned here just because he mentioned Palin as VP.He fooled all of you.That and that Palin is not running and will not magically be POTUS in a brokered convention should be breaking news.
But it won’t be.Just more bigotry of mormon hate under the guise of ‘we hate Romney’ (who is identical to Gingrich politically if not worse.)
http://www.usatoday.com/news/politics/story/2012-05-01/gingrich-supports-romney/54664162/1
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=hCTM2hzMvrY
Obama is inciting our country to be at war with each other.He is dangerous and if he wins re election you won’t be able to post on the internet about FALSE reformed RINOS like Gingrich.
ABO
So, I assume that those who oppose Obama are all racists???
Is a freeper really buying into that logic?
From what I know of Mormons they are truly anti-abortion.
Just an aside. When I was being born in the 40’s for some reason my mother was having problems, it was only 5 months. My dad took her to the hospital, a Catholic hospital. The situation was grave.
The priest explained to my father that their policy was that if only one life could be saved it would be the baby. The mother had already had her chance at life and Baptism.
My father acknowledged the priest, picked my mother up in his arms and took her to the car in the parking lot and went to another, Non-Catholic hospital.
As it turns out we both survived although I had to live in an incubator for several weeks. My mother was probably already pregnant with my sister who was born 11 months after me when I came home from the hospital.
I’m not sure they had those 6 week waiting periods back then.
Newt should stay in and use pay-go for appearances.
His lousy numbers, however, tell us there are countless numbers of useful idiots out there, to whom a stellar conservative record of historic proportion— the only man known for eating democrats for breakfast when it was they who controlled both houses and the White House, meant nothing to them. So, now they have given us a socialist.
These yocals preferred the inept word wrangler, Santorum, who delivered nothing, ever, to advance conservatives, but for words, without accomplishments.
From what I know of Mormons they are truly anti-abortion.
___________________________________________
Oh yes I sure they are in some cases...
They are just not PRO-LIFE..
They say its OK to have an abortion for rape, incest, health-of-mom, and if the bishop says that the Mormon gods say so..
IOW, compromise not only your principles but your morals and values as well.
I wonder how God would look upon that? Christians throwing their lot in with someone like MR. I imagine it won’t be favorable.
Mutt’s stance on abortion has always been directly over the murdered fetus.
A liberal like Mittens cannot unite Conservatives. Backstabbers like Romney are the reason 3rd parties come into existence and eventually replace the morally decrepit and ethically compromised ones.
After the awful nose holding for Dole and McCain, Mitt was the one who broke the elephant's back.
The fact of a Romney candidacy is still a fresh wound for many conservatives. Hopefully they'll come to their senses by election day.
Very good reply xzins. We need to stand our ground at some point. This seems like a good time to me.
No matter who wins the election, one thing is certain.
A liberal will be the president.
The point at which life begins is defined by the State government in law in theses united States, NOT Washington.
Where Mitt stands on the issue is and should be irrelevant.
"Where Mitt stands on the issue is and should be irrelevant."
yet it's not, as he will pick how many new justices?
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.