Hi Sitetest,
I’ve been on FR a long time, and I’ve followed this election closely. In that time, I’ve seen no place where Romney’s current abortion views are spelled out. Romney has maintained a type of silence on the subject with the exceptions of refusing to sign a pro-life pledge and also that of simple statements that he is pro-life.
This article is the first — and it’s due to a faux pas by a senate candidate — in which the Romney camp has be obliged (perhaps against its will) to make a statement on Romney’s actual abortion stance.
We now know he is not a pure pro-lifer, but that he accepts exceptions.
This is quite newsworthy since:
1. It’s the first expression of details about his views, and every pro-lifer can now weigh this in light of recent revelations about his support of the gay agenda and of bi-partisan gun control.
2. If there are pure pro-lifers who were supporting him, due to his silence on the issue, they now have information with which to make a better informed decision.
“In that time, I’ve seen no place where Romney’s current abortion views are spelled out. Romney has maintained a type of silence on the subject with the exceptions of refusing to sign a pro-life pledge and also that of simple statements that he is pro-life.”
And yet, somehow, I've managed to glean that he is for overturning Roe, believes abortion should be illegal generally, and am unsurprised at the specific exceptions he endorses. I wonder how I got all that information, and got it all right!
I could spend some time googling around to try to find specifics. But I'm too lazy. I vaguely recall something about stem cell research that pointed out some internal consistencies in his publicly-announced beliefs, but again, I'm just too lazy to look it up.
I AM an abortion “extremist” or “purist” or what have. What abortions may be performed legitimately (that is, within the bounds of a truly just legal regime)?
NONE.
Nonetheless, I was never under the impression that Gov. Romney had joined me over in the “extremists” camp.
* pause *
You know, I tell myself how lazy I am, but I'm often more curious than I am lazy. So, while typing this reply, I did about five minutes’ worth of googling to try to figure out where I got the knowledge I somehow had.
Here's a little bit of what I found:
Here's something from Wiki:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_positions_of_Mitt_Romney#Abortion_and_related_issues
“The Boston Globe on July 26, 2005 quoted Romney saying, ‘I am pro-life. I believe that abortion is the wrong choice except in cases of incest, rape, and to save the life of the mother. I wish the people of America agreed, and that the laws of our nation could reflect that view. But while the nation remains so divided over abortion, I believe that the states, through the democratic process, should determine their own abortion laws and not have them dictated by judicial mandate.’[186]
“At the May 2007 Republican Presidential debate in South Carolina, Romney stated that ‘Roe v. Wade has gone to such an extent that we've cheapened the value of human life.’ He followed by saying ‘the people should make [the abortion] decision, not the court.’[170] Romney's spokesperson has indicated that had Romney been the governor of South Dakota, he would have signed into law the controversial law banning abortion, but he would include exceptions for cases of incest or rape, which the South Dakota law excludes.[187]’”
It seems that his view that abortion should generally be illegal except in cases of rape, incest and the life of the mother have been out there pretty much since 2005. No wonder I knew that was his position!
Thus, I think that there are likely very few of us "purists" who actually thought that the governor was also a "purist." At least, not anyone who has REALLY been paying attention.
This is from NARAL - so they're not going to paint Gov. Romney in a particularly good light. Here are a couple of their footnoted points:
“When asked if the repeal of Roe v. Wade would be a good day for America, former Gov. Romney responded, ‘Absolutely.’ 5
“Former Gov. Romney also said ‘absolutely’ when asked, ‘Would you have supported a constitutional amendment that would have established the definition of life at conception?’” 6
Interestingly, xzins, the ultimate logical conclusion of such an amendment would be that in order to permit even abortions for the life of the mother, states and other jurisdictional bodies would have to pass positive laws giving rationales why the lives of living human beings could be taken in such circumstances. It'd be tough, with such an amendment in place, to permit abortions in cases of rape or incest.
But I'm happy to have a mostly pro-life politician have to ultimately deal with such a quandary.
sitetest