“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
Please go to the following video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eBRjSe8WvfQ&feature=player_embedded
Look at this UPI article from just this PAST September 2011.:
Asked if he would support using a 14th Amendment interpretation to ban abortion, Romney stressed his support for overturning Roe vs. Wade, which recognized a woman's right to an abortion, but said using the 14th Amendment was not a good idea."Could that happen in this country? Could there be circumstances? I think it's reasonable that something of that nature might happen someday, but that's not something I would precipitate," he said. "I believe that we must be a nation of laws, and I believe in supporting the Constitution as I understand it, but I'm not looking to create a constitutional crisis."
See the 14th amendment below. In other words, Romney does NOT consider an unborn child to be a person. Nor would he support a personhood law. Nor would he support justices who would use personhood in the 14th amendment to save babies.
The 14th Amendment:
Section. 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.