You didn’t pay attention to the video.
Romney has been back and forth on this for years. And just last year, he affirms he doesn’t see babies covered under the 14th amendment. He’s lying, sitetest.
What don’t you see about that?
The video was cute, but quite unpersuasive.
Here's a long article from Slate that does a much, much better job of making the case that the video lamely tries to make:
It's a long read, but well worth it.
It is, in many ways, quite damning generally of Gov. Romney. But while it hardly sugar-coats things for the governor, it offers a fuller picture than one sometimes gets from sound-bites and bumper stickers. And silly videos.
“And just last year, he affirms he doesn’t see babies covered under the 14th amendment.”
So what? Many pro-lifers don't view that as a good path, either, for exactly the same reason as the governor gives: it would provoke a constitutional crisis.
Is he lying? I think the article provides a reasonable facsimile of the truth: in many of the particulars of how he's gotten to where he's gotten on the issue of abortion, Gov. Romney has lied. Or at least, twisted and bent the truth often beyond recognition. In terms of whether or not he's actually, currently pro-life, in some important ways, he's telling the truth.
But that wasn't the point of your original post, which was to emphasize, it seems, that his current position isn't “pure.” That he accepts abortion in cases of rape, incest, and the life of the mother. You further stated that your purpose was to let folks know this, as you believed that Gov. Romney hadn't spoken to the particulars of his views.
But I've shown you that: being in favor of those exceptions is hardly to place oneself outside the mainstream of the pro-life movement; even Rep. Ryan compromises a little bit from the “purist” position; and Gov. Romney's position on these exceptions have been out there since at least 2007, and easy to find.
sitetest