The problem, as I see it, is that every act pointed to as evidence of his 2004 pro-life conversion is followed by an act that puts a smile on Cecile Richard’s face. Chronological order will help to put the whole mess in perspective, so let’s start at the only fair place to begin--2004.
As the story goes, after talking to an expert in the field, Romney discovers that life begins at conception, and proceeds to promptly veto a bill that would give embryonic stem cell researchers the go-ahead to kill and harvest baby body parts for experimentation.
I’m not going to use this whole space to pick him apart. I’ll give him his props. It couldn’t have been an easy decision in Massachusetts, politically.
I get that he was likely “personally pro-life” throughout his life, teaching his kids not to murder their kids, or one another. There’s no way a guy suddenly wakes up during a non-abortion debate after witnessing decades of shredded baby pictures. So his conscience prevailed, and he couldn’t bring himself to think about explaining that signature on judgment day.
Ok, so it gets shady here. In the lead up, he tells reporters: "All of the rhetoric has been, 'We are throwing away embryos--surplus embryos--that could be used for stem-cell research and that makes no sense. ...And now, now that I've said, 'Ok, I support that,' now [the other side says], 'No, that's insufficient. How could you possibly limit it to that?' Well, that's what they've been asking for."[1]
The position that the IVF clinics should be allowed to funnel human beings to the mad scientists is not pro-life. Translation: it is not illegal, or even limited, because apparently there’s a never-ending supply of “yesterday’s leftovers” babies.
Later that year, in July, the crazies send a no age restrictions morning after pill bill to his desk.
LifeNews writes: “Continuing to try to raise up his pro-life credentials in advance of the 2008 presidential primaries, Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney will veto a bill that would have made the state the latest to allow women to get the morning after pill over the counter.”[2]
Still, facing a veto-proof leftist legislature, and with the movement continuing to question his motives, he does the right thing.
Cecile is probably pissed at this point. But he wins her back in December with an executive order forcing Catholic hospitals to dispense the baby-flushing drug. From LifeSiteNews:
In a shocking turn-around, Massachusetts’s governor Mitt Romney announced yesterday that Roman Catholic and other private hospitals in the state will be forced to offer emergency contraception to sexual assault victims under new state legislation, regardless of the hospitals’ moral position on the issue.
The Department of Public Health issued a statement earlier in the week allowing hospitals to dissent from the new law, under a previous statute that protects private hospitals from being forced to provide abortion services or contraceptives.
Daniel Avila, associate director for policy and research for the Massachusetts Catholic Conference, said yesterday in an interview with the Boston Globe that Catholic hospitals still have legal grounds to avoid providing the pill, despite the new legislation. The new bill did not expressly repeal the original law protecting the rights of Catholic facilities.
The governor’s turnaround is especially unexpected since Romney has been presenting himself as a conservative on social issues in anticipation of a possible run for the presidency in 2008. This decision will certainly undermine the credibility of his conservatism with Republican Party members that may have been inclined to support him up to now.[3]
Since Governor Romney is so fond of allowing the courts to rule on all things abortion, why didn’t he just let them sort it out? He could have taken the position of the Health Department and let a red-faced Cecile sue.
Honestly, I don’t even want to get started on Romneycare. I think enough people understand that the national debate about taxpayer-funded abortion and violations of religious liberty happened on a smaller scale in Massachusetts in 2006. Sign away Governor.
Fast-forward to 2011.
Any respectable pro-life political candidate could sign the Susan B. Anthony List’s pro-life pledge. In fact, they all did—everyone--even Red Eye regular Thad McCotter--even Pawlenty.
But not Mitt Romney. The man zipping his pen around anti-life executive orders and government run healthcare laws can’t bring himself to sign it?
Last June, he published his own version which begins by listing the babies who do not have a right to live: “I am pro-life and believe that abortion should be limited to only instances of rape, incest, or to save the life of the mother.”[4]
The SBA List asked the presidential candidates to commit “to select only pro-life appointees for relevant Cabinet and Executive Branch positions.” Romney objected to the appointment provision: “The pledge also unduly burdens a president’s ability to appoint the most qualified individuals to a broad array of key positions in the federal government.”
The pro-life movement was up in arms when the Romney camp floated Condi Rice’s name around for VP last week, but can we be shocked? A pro-abortion VP would actually align with his official pro-life pledge.
Romney then forgoes the Personhood USA pledge, not a shocker following the SBA fiasco.
So far in the last year, Romney has skipped a Fox News televised pro-life forum with Huckabee and two national pro-life forums with Personhood USA--all perfect opportunities to prove his pro-lifeness.
In May, he finds time to drop by for a fundraiser at the home of morning after pill king and Teva Pharmaceuticals President Phil Frost.
MSNBC and the leftist blogosphere is trying to gin up controversy surrounding a 1999 investment by Bain Capital in Stericycle, the company that hauls away and burns to ashes most of the nation’s bloody abortion evidence. But I want to reiterate, we’re not interested because Romney wasn’t claiming to be pro-life yet.
Planned Parenthood, NARAL, and NOW have all published their obligatory endorsements for the President, lying, and claiming that Romney supports “radical personhood laws.”
Personhood would respect, recognize, and restore the right to life of every unborn human being, a.k.a. the goal of the entire pro-life movement. If Cecile, Obama, and their friends are attempting to deflate us, all they have to do is highlight the fact that Romney hasn’t signed the personhood pledge, and would never support personhood, even if we got the green light from the Supreme Court.
Great post.
ReplyDelete