During the debates I heard with my own ears Romney say, repeatedly, that he wants to appoint justices like Roberts, Scalia, Thomas, and Alito and that he wants Roe v. Wade to be overturned.
And that is what Romney is still saying is his position:
the Court created entirely new constitutional rights out of “penumbras” and “emanations” of the Constitution, abandoning serious analysis of the Constitution’s text, structure, and history. . . . Mitt believes in the rule of law, and he understands that the next president will make nominations that will shape the Supreme Court and the whole of the judiciary for decades to come. He will therefore appoint wise, experienced, and restrained judges who will take seriously their oath to discharge their duties impartially in accordance with the Constitution and laws. . . . As president, Mitt will nominate judges in the mold of Chief Justice Roberts and Justices Scalia, Thomas, and Alito.
. . . he believes that the right next step is for the Supreme Court to overturn Roe v. Wade – a case of blatant judicial activism that took a decision that should be left to the people and placed it in the hands of unelected judges. With Roe overturned, states will be empowered through the democratic process to determine their own abortion laws and not have them dictated by judicial mandate. . . . And he will nominate judges who know the difference between personal opinion and the law.
I'd say that's a whole lot better than anything you'll ever hear from Obama. What Romney is stating is a pro-life position. (Whether he'll follow through or not, no one knows.)
I am especially interested in where he stands on the abortion question, since that has been a personal "litmus test" for me all my voting life (since 1972). I will not vote for any candidate who is avowedly pro-abort and supports Roe v. Wade. So, e.g., I would not vote for Giuliani or, of course, for most any Democrat.
In early 2008, I went to hear Romney speak at an appearance in St. Louis. Rick Santorum was there, traveling with Romney and campaigning for him. I knew Santorum was "Mr. Pro-Life," so I took him aside and had a five-minute conservation with him as to Romney on the pro-life issue. He assured me Romney was genuine on this. Notice also, that now, in 2012, a lot of prominent, reliable, pro-life people are endorsing Romney. That is an indicator to me.
I still don't trust Romney. He could disappoint us. He could betray us. But I think there's at least a chance he will govern acceptably for the pro-life cause. And that's a thousand times better than Obama.
Charles, then you need to explain these two Romney statements -- one made by Mitt Romney Dec of 2008; the other by Ann Romney -- as published Nov. of 2011:
Remember, Romney said he "converted" to a pro-life position November of 2004...and when you look @ Ann's comments from Nov. 2011, remember that Romney has at times conceded his supposedly "previous" pro-abortion position:
Mitt Romney: 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)
[Charles...got any kids or grandkids you're willing to "donate" to "research"...and then care to tell us how "pro-life" that is...if ya wanna be consistent with defending Mitt's comments from 4.5 years ago, that is]
Ann Romney: 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)
So Mitt's "always been pro-life," eh????
Hence, the need to constantly monitor the Romneys....'cause they're all over the map on NOT defending the pre-born...and then attempting to cover that up...like when Mitt wrote a letter to the editor of a Utah newspaper in July 2001 -- claiming he wasn't "pro-choice."
| YEAR | Obvious Pro-Abortion Romney | Romney Feigning 'Pro-Life' |
| Bottom-Line Summary: ANN Romney Lies Thru Her Teeth | Ann Romney, 1994: Romney's wife gives donation to Planned Parenthood (Ann Romney’s Planned Parenthood Donation | Ann Romney, 2011: 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) |
| Bottom-Line Summary: Mitt Romney Lies Thru His Teeth | “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) + ...”my position was effectively pro-choice." (Source: 2007 GOP Iowa Straw Poll debate 8/5/2007) | So, not only does Ann Romney tell Parade Magazine November 2011 that they've “never changed” re: abortion and that they've “always been pro-life,” but Mitt Romney told Chris Wallace part-way through their 2007 campaign that: “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”...This was seven months after he said in January 2007 that he was “always for life.” |
| 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, 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 |
| 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 vs. November 2011 (Pro-treating offspring as research refuse late in previous POTUS campaign vs. now claiming 'never changed...always pro-life' | 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!" | 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) |