New Mitt Romney ad emphasizes “shared values”

posted at 6:30 pm on January 14, 2012 by Tina Korbe

As a pro-lifer, watching this short video initially made me feel better about a Mitt Romney nomination and a potential Romney presidency:

The most important part of the ad comes at 0:51 when Ms. Mary Ann Glendon recalls three of Romney’s pro-life accomplishments. According to Glendon, when Romney was governor of Massachusetts, he vetoed a bill that would have enabled embryonic-destructive research, vetoed legislation that would have permitted the over-the-counter sale of the morning-after pill and supported abstinence education in schools.

“Governor Romney was a great friend to the pro-life movement in Massachusetts,” she says.

It’s a nice, feel-good sentiment, and I really want to fall for it. But, somehow, I still can’t get past Romneycare, which allows for taxpayer-funded, elective, surgical abortions. Then, too, Romney granted pro-choice judge Matthew Nestor a lifetime appointment in a Massachusetts court (albeit a court that deals with civil and criminal issues, not constitutional issues like abortion rights). He also paved the way for the approval of a Planned Parenthood clinic in Worcester, Mass., that would provide abortions. All of that was after his 2004 pro-life “conversion.”

In that context, the pro-life accomplishments cited by Glendon seem less the work of one who is committed to eradicate abortion than one who wants to make abortion “safe, legal and rare.” That doesn’t mean I think Romney is pro-abortion. According to his wife, she and he have always been privately pro-life. His rhetoric and his record just suggest that he is conflicted as to how best to put that private conviction into practice as a public official. As the group American Right to Life puts it, when it comes to politicians like Mitt Romney, to be personally pro-life is all-too-often to be officially pro-choice. Sadly, that does seem to sum up Romney’s position(s) on abortion. (For proof, see the clip below of him in 2007. He admits that he all too often keeps his personal, philosophical views on abortion out of his official decision-making process on issues related to it.)

Romney would do better to stick to his defense of capitalism; in the end, all this ad does is remind me why he worries me.

Update: Steven Ertelt of informs me that Mitt Romney couldn’t do anything to forestall the use of taxpayer dollars to fund abortions under Romneycare (other than not pass the bill in the first place). He also reminds me to take the group American Right to Life with a grain of salt.

Meanwhile, David French, an attorney with the Alliance Defense Fund, warns not to believe “misleading attacks” on Mitt Romney’s abortion record:

So, where does this leave us? Mitt’s actions as governor were worthy of his pro-life award. Even the worst action (allowing Planned Parenthood access to a payment advisory board — something I definitely don’t agree with) had zero impact on abortions in Massachusetts. When he could have an impact, he vetoed expanded access to the morning-after pill and vetoed expanded stem cell research. Crucially, he also became an advocate for life in a state that badly needs such advocates. Writing in the Boston Globe on July 26, 2005, Mitt said this:

“You can’t be a prolife governor in a prochoice state without understanding that there are heartfelt and thoughtful arguments on both sides of the question. Many women considering abortions face terrible pressures, hurts, and fears; we should come to their aid with all the resourcefulness and empathy we can offer. At the same time, the starting point should be the innocence and vulnerability of the child waiting to be born.

In some respects, these convictions have evolved and deepened during my time as governor. In considering the issue of embryo cloning and embryo farming, I saw where the harsh logic of abortion can lead — to the view of innocent new life as nothing more than research material or a commodity to be exploited.”

If we’re going to win the battle for life, we need converts — like Ronald Reagan and like Mitt Romney. If I had the slightest doubt that Mitt Romney would govern as a pro-life president, I wouldn’t be an “evangelical for Mitt.”

Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air



Trackback URL


Comment pages: 1 2

Romneycare, which allows for taxpayer-funded, elective, surgical abortions.

How could he, in Massachusetts, stop a tax-supported procedure when it was legal & all other procedures are tax-supported?

MA’s pro-life activists support Mitt. That’s good enough for all but the most radical anyone-but-Mitt folks.

itsnotaboutme on January 14, 2012 at 8:17 PM

To: Basilbeast

Mitt Romney is a lousy choice. . .capish? #1 reason: he’s a phony and a fraud. He should be running as the Democrat he truly is. capish?

Pragmatic on January 14, 2012 at 8:18 PM

A thought on abortion issue. Early, Mitt’s position switched from that of his Dad to his Mother’s. Now he’s gone back to his Dad’s position. Believe him, or give him a mulligan, somehow. He says he will nominate Alito type judges. So that is what counts. Let’s not throw out the baby with the bathwater, or whatever.

anotherJoe on January 14, 2012 at 8:25 PM


second-person singular future active imperative of capiō
“thou shalt capture, thou shalt seize, thou shalt take”
“thou shalt take on”
“thou shalt take in, thou shalt understand”
third-person singular future active imperative of capiō
“he (she, it) shall capture, he (she, it) shall seize, he (she, it) shall take”
“he (she, it) shall take on”
“he (she, it) shall take in, he (she, it) shall understand”

What does CAPISH mean?
This could be the only web page dedicated to explaining the meaning of CAPISH (CAPISH acronym/abbreviation/slang word).

Ever wondered what CAPISH means? Or any of the other 7659 slang words, abbreviations and acronyms listed here at Internet Slang? Your resource for web acronyms, web abbreviations and netspeak.

All A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W X Y Z 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Other
What is CAPISH?

CAPISH is “Do you understand?”

CAPISH Definition / CAPISH Means
The definition of CAPISH is “Do you understand?”

Basilsbest on January 14, 2012 at 8:25 PM

Every time he makes promises to these nieve voters
I can not help my self but hear him saying :

” I will preserve and protect a woman’s right to choose”
How convincing he was then.

evergreenland on January 14, 2012 at 8:25 PM

Do mothers have a right to end a human life? You are aware that unborn children have a heart beat after a number of weeks, yes? Their own DNA? Those are not religous beliefs. They are biological facts. An unborn human life is just as important as the mothers is.

You’ve bought into the whole pro-choice BS.

dforston on January 14, 2012 at 7:22 PM

I have not bought into the whole pro-choice BS. Does the law say mothers have a right to end a human life or not? I didn’t write that law and I sure as heck wish it could be overturned. It’s not now overturned nor was it then when I worked as a counselor/therapist.

I had no legal authority to prevent a woman from having an abortion.

I made sure she understood the implications of her decision in the near long-term. I absolutely could not act as an advocate, it would have violated the boundaries of the relationship. I can’t possibly expect anyone who would make an argument like yours to understand this conflict. I can well imagine that Romney came out of his term as governor with deepened convictions, however. It certainly deepened mine.

msmveritas on January 14, 2012 at 8:31 PM

The information included in your update was available to you before you posted your article. So you owe us an explanation as to why you chose to join the ranks of those on this site who smear the nominee. You need to stifle your bias.
Basilsbest on January 14, 2012 at 7:58 PM

Dude, don’t be a jackass. Tina acknowledged the error – accept it graciously. FTR, I’ve been trying to correct the record on this (and oh so much more misinformation) since 2007 with nothing but crickets chirping, so if anyone should be pissed off about it it’s… me.

Buy Danish on January 14, 2012 at 8:45 PM

Buy Danish on January 14, 2012 at 8:45 PM

With respect, your sucking up friendly fire misses the mark. I provoked an update. I shouldn’t have had to.

The limitations on what Romney could do were known. Korbe chose to ignore those limitations. I called her on it. She should have called herself.

FYI, I’m not pissed. I’ve drawn attention to the anti-Romney bias which is prevalent on this site not just among the hoi polloi but among the Hosts. I will continue to do so so long as I am allowed to post on this site.

Basilsbest on January 14, 2012 at 8:59 PM

I love the Mitt-Wishcaster on Mitt-Wishcaster fratricide.

besser tot als rot on January 14, 2012 at 9:44 PM

The limitations on what Romney could do were known. Korbe chose to ignore those limitations. I called her on it. She should have called herself.
Basilsbest on January 14, 2012 at 8:59 PM

That’s not true. Very few people know the truth/facts about these particulars. While it’s frustrating that she (and so many others!) are was unaware of preexisting law, to say she “ignored those limitations” is ludicrous. Clearly if she had known the truth she wouldn’t have made the error in the first place, and thus would have saved herself the embarrassment of having to update the post based on info provided by commenters.

The alternative scenario is to believe she was intentionally spreading misinformation on behalf of some other candidate, and thought she could get away with it because Hot Air commenters are such ignorant sheeple.

Surely you see how ridiculous that alternative is. We should consider ourselves fortunate that Tina pays attention and corrected the record…

Buy Danish on January 14, 2012 at 9:48 PM

So Korbe knows less than me about this issue even though I’m busy running a business and come here in my leisure time. It’s too bad she doesn’t have access to Google. As you said: I’ve been trying to correct the record on this (and oh so much more misinformation) since 2007 with nothing but crickets chirping, so if anyone should be pissed off about it it’s… me.

Perhaps if we focus on why a false narrative is put out rather than attacking each other there won’t be this continual need to correct the record.

Basilsbest on January 14, 2012 at 10:08 PM

I believe all three of these Vetoes were overridden. If so they are meaningless.

I am sorry but when you change all of your ultra liberal positions at the same time you decide in 2005 to run for President as a Republican your new positions do not deserve to be believed in by anyone. Unless you have a very well documented conversion story. None here just hey got to change positions to win. Then the lie that he could not sign the first Abortion bill when in fact he had already signed some and he knew the veto was meaningless as it would be overridden.

Mitt is ultra liberal just as much now as in the 80’s and early 90’s then he hated Regan and lover Spiro Agnew.

Steveangell on January 14, 2012 at 10:58 PM

Perhaps if we focus on why a false narrative is put out rather than attacking each other there won’t be this continual need to correct the record.
Basilsbest on January 14, 2012 at 10:08 PM

Heh. First, Tina is a recent addition to Hot Air so I can’t take her to task for not noticing what I’ve been saying for a very long time now. Ironically, Tina has been one of the most, shall we say “fair and balanced” about Romney so imho your unforgiving response was particularly inappropriate. Do I wish there was more skepticism about these stories at the outset? You betcha. I myself have expressed my irritation many times here when ‘narratives’ are accepted without scrutiny.

As to why a “false narrative” is put out, I can only guess what their motives are, but “Mass Resistance” (for example) has been doing it for years and many commenters rely on this group as a source. I don’t mean to say that Tina, Ed, or Allah rely on them (not at all) just that this very vocal group has been very successful in directing the “narrative’ so that myth became reality.

Buy Danish on January 14, 2012 at 10:59 PM

I wonder if people bashing Romney right now would also have been hissing at Ronald Reagan for his conversion.

I think Michael Reagan was right, that his dad wouldn’t have been accepted among conservatives today.

scotash on January 14, 2012 at 11:35 PM

Romney Central, aka The GOP establishment & Fox News and naive bloggers or supporters of other candidates jumped on what Gingrich’s SuperPac did and spun it as an attack on capitalism. It was not. It was a political attack on Romney’s ethics. Period. Gingrich is not to the left of Romney. They have beat the Bain drum steadily, using it to keep Romney’s record as MA gov out of the discussion. When all is said and done, Romney’s record in MA is so similar to Obama’s in the WH that all O has to do is point it out and say how they were both for the same things, so Romney is “unnecessary change.” Besides, he got bin Laden, dontcha know.

Connie on January 15, 2012 at 12:49 AM

besser tot als rot on January 14, 2012 at 9:44 PM

It doesn’t work that way. You can’t use the word, “wishcaster” twice in one post to make up for its lack others.

MJBrutus on January 15, 2012 at 5:49 AM

ROMNEY HAS IT *all*!!! (/s)

VOTE GINGRICH in 2012!!!

Czar of Defenestration on January 15, 2012 at 7:43 AM

Comment pages: 1 2