Was Romney pro-life before he was kinda sorta pro-choice before he was pro-life?

posted at 8:33 pm on February 13, 2012 by Allahpundit

Thanks to an NYT story this weekend, this bit of old news has been resurrected, showcased yesterday in a Peter Robinson post at Ricochet and then picked up by Rush Limbaugh this afternoon. The key quote is six years old and appeared in a story in National Review so it’s been on the right’s radar since well before Romney’s first presidential run. And yet, much like the mandate, somehow he didn’t get much grief over it last time when he was running as the conservative in the race.

Mr. Romney’s transformation on abortion is, in some respects, the story of a man who entered public life in a state whose politics did not match his own. [Story of his life. -- AP] People close to Mr. Romney say they have no doubt that he opposes terminating a pregnancy. Critics and even some supporters say there is also little question that he did what he had to do to get elected as governor.

“He was always uncomfortable on the issue, but he was penned in by having run as a pro-choice candidate in 1994 and by the political realities of Massachusetts in 2002,” said Rob Gray, a senior adviser to Mr. Romney’s campaign for governor. “It was made clear to him by advisers early on in his gubernatorial race that he had to be pro-choice, and he could not show any hesitation.”…

In 2002, as a candidate for governor, Mr. Romney filled out a questionnaire for Planned Parenthood declaring that he supported “the substance” of the Supreme Court’s 1973 landmark abortion rights decision, Roe v. Wade. Six weeks before he was elected, he sat for an hourlong interview with state officials of the advocacy group now known as Naral Pro-Choice America…

By 2005, with Mr. Romney eyeing a possible presidential bid, he began to distance himself from his abortion rights platform. “My political philosophy is pro-life,” he told National Review, a conservative magazine, in an article that June. That same article quoted his top strategist at the time, Mike Murphy, as saying Mr. Romney had been “a pro-life Mormon faking it as a pro-choice friendly.”

I get the sense sometimes from Romney’s critics that they think he was pro-choice his whole life and then cynically flipped to pro-life in 2005 once he had decided to run for president. Nuh uh. Revisit this Times piece from last October describing his days as a Mormon leader in Boston in the 1980s and 1990s. Allegedly he once advised a woman against having an abortion even though her doctors had recommended it after discovering a dangerous blood clot. Assuming that’s true, he obviously took life in the womb very, very seriously. But … that only makes his “pro-choice friendly” attitude as governor worse, doesn’t it? Conservatives can, I think, happily accept former pro-choicers who’ve had a moral awakening about abortion. People do change their minds. I think they’d also tolerate (but not embrace) someone whom they suspected of being secretly pro-choice so long as he/she is committed to governing as pro-life. Romney falls into that category for many of his critics, I suspect. Even if you think he’s telling you what you want to hear on this issue, it’s inconceivable to me that he’d flip on the issue once in office. The betrayal would be cataclysmic, and he knows it. He’d be true blue pro-life to preserve his political viability, if nothing else.

But what about someone who’s been secretly pro-life all along yet who … tolerated abortion in the name of getting elected? Where does that person fall on the moral spectrum? This isn’t any ordinary issue that can be triangulated as necessary. To devout pro-lifers like Huckabee, abortion is a moral evil on the order of slavery. You can’t be “slavery-friendly” or “personally anti-slavery but politically pro-choice.” If you believe the practice is irredeemably, grievously wrong, you’re obliged morally to try to change the policy that enables it. So I wonder: Would it be better if Mitt had briefly but sincerely become pro-choice — or “pro-choice friendly” — while running in Massachusetts and then flipped, or if he’d never been pro-choice but had been willing to look the other way at abortion in the interest of his own political viability? It’s the difference between losing your moral bearings and selling them out. Which is worse?


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2 3 4

didn’t Romney and his wife contribute to Planned Parenthood in 1994

So what if they did? PP has been demagogued to death by people who should know better. Yes, unfortunately they do perform some abortions. They are not an abortion factory, however much people like to paint them as that.

That said, no firm that performs abortions should get federal funding.

CorporatePiggy on February 13, 2012 at 9:04 PM

Romney was for it before he was against this then he was against it again before he was for it so that he can be against it and for it at the same time in case he wasn’t for it when he was against it. It could also mean he was for it before he was against it then was against it after it came out he was for it.

Got it?

liberal4life on February 13, 2012 at 9:01 PM

You’re describing Obama’s position on Super PACs. Try to focus, please.

Good Lt on February 13, 2012 at 9:05 PM

liberal4life on February 13, 2012 at 9:01 PM

No.

Bmore on February 13, 2012 at 9:05 PM

cynccook on February 13, 2012 at 8:51 PM

Yes and you never did reply when we talked about a REPUBLICAN legislature in OHIO and Democratic legislature in MASS.

and getting some abortion restrictions passed is NOT the same as eliminating abortions.

I intend to ask the same questions EVERY TIME some one mentions how some ones pro-life versus pro-choice. I myself am pro-life-but I am not going to crucify politicians when abortion is legal by supreme court.

gerrym51 on February 13, 2012 at 9:05 PM

A conservative, a moderate, & a liberal walk into a bar. The bartender looks up and says, “Hi, Mitt!”

HeckOnWheels on February 13, 2012 at 8:59 PM

+10000000000000000000000000000000000

Raquel Pinkbullet on February 13, 2012 at 9:06 PM

Bmore on February 13, 2012 at 8:58 PM

Yep, I thought I was having flashbacks…

d1carter on February 13, 2012 at 9:06 PM

OT
Any one else noticing a double, triple flicker kind of thing on the refresh?

Bmore on February 13, 2012 at 8:58 PM

Yes, I thought it was my computer. Been doing it for 3 or 4 days now.

JPeterman on February 13, 2012 at 9:06 PM

Thank you AP!! I missed part of what Rush was saying.

bluefox on February 13, 2012 at 9:07 PM

Romney was pro-life as a Mormon because it was the Mormon thing to do, and going against the grain would have jeopardized his position. Romney was pro-abortion because it was the Massachusetts thing to do, and going against the grain would have jeopardized his position.
Romney became Pro-life as a Republican because it is the Republican thing to do, and going against that would jeopardize his position.

I dunno, does not seem to be any rhyme or reason for Romney’s positions on abortion at all. No detectable pattern is emerging.

astonerii on February 13, 2012 at 9:07 PM

CorporatePiggy on February 13, 2012 at 9:04 PM

Plenty of information,investigative reports that show otherwise,
if your willing to see it that is.

MontanaMmmm on February 13, 2012 at 9:09 PM

If you believe the practice is irredeemably, grievously wrong, you’re obliged morally to try to change the policy that enables it.

What if you believe that it’s morally wrong in a covenant sense; as something to refrain from to preserve a special relationship with God? What if you believe it’s something that only does spiritual harm to the person who commits the sin, and not that it’s literal murder in every case? What if you examine the complexities of the issue, you find abortion distasteful or dehumanizing somehow, but moral clarity still eludes you? What if you’re the very first politician in the history of civilization who had a genuine change of heart, but the reevaluation was prompted by realpolitik?

RightOFLeft on February 13, 2012 at 9:09 PM

I dunno, does not seem to be any rhyme or reason for Romney’s positions on abortion at all. No detectable pattern is emerging.

astonerii on February 13, 2012 at 9:07 PM

We call it “flip-flop”

Roy Rogers on February 13, 2012 at 9:09 PM

why are we talking about abortions and contraceptives?

anyone notice the sh!tty economy and four dollar gas?

DHChron on February 13, 2012 at 8:53 PM

We are not liberals in Congress. We can walk and chew gum at the same time.

unclesmrgol on February 13, 2012 at 9:10 PM

So what if they did? PP has been demagogued to death by people who should know better. Yes, unfortunately they do perform some abortions. They are not an abortion factory, however much people like to paint them as that.

That said, no firm that performs abortions should get federal funding.

CorporatePiggy on February 13, 2012 at 9:04 PM

WHAT???? An abortion factory is exactly what PP is….

While Planned Parenthood officials claim that abortions constitute only 3% percent of their services, this figure is misleading. Out of the 10.5 million individual services they provided in 2006, 289,750 were abortions—roughly 3%. But this figure fails to account for the fact that a woman visiting Planned Parenthood for an abortion will receive several services—from a pregnancy test to some manner of counseling to the abortion itself—each of which is counted separately. A closer look at Planned Parenthood’s client and income numbers shows that the abortion figure is actually three times what they claim. Of 3.1 million Planned Parenthood clients in 2006, 9% got abortions. Moreover, abortion accounts for at least a third of Planned Parenthood’s total income from clinic services.

Planned Parenthood reported an income of $100 million for surgical abortions in 2006. Their total income for medical abortions is unknown.

Planned Parenthood lists adoption referrals as one of the services they provide, but evidence from their own internal reporting reveals that adoption is a very low priority to them. In their annual report for 2005, the number of adoption referrals was omitted. In 2006, Planned Parenthood reported only one adoption referral for every 180 abortions.

cynccook on February 13, 2012 at 9:10 PM

Romney was pro-life as a Mormon because it was the Mormon thing to do, and going against the grain would have jeopardized his position. Romney was pro-abortion because it was the Massachusetts thing to do, and going against the grain would have jeopardized his position.
Romney became Pro-life as a Republican because it is the Republican thing to do, and going against that would jeopardize his position.

I dunno, does not seem to be any rhyme or reason for Romney’s positions on abortion at all. No detectable pattern is emerging.

astonerii on February 13, 2012 at 9:07 PM

Um, is he not still a Mormon?

changer1701 on February 13, 2012 at 9:10 PM

Why is Dick Morris and Sean Hannity promoting Rommey? Why do they want Newt out? To repeat 2008 again? I see Newt being treated as Sarah Palin was and have to ask myself why.

Something is not making sense, or is it?

bluefox on February 13, 2012 at 9:11 PM

I have. So it’s not just my computer!

INC on February 13, 2012 at 9:04 PM

Yeah, its strange.

sharrukin on February 13, 2012 at 9:03 PM

You know I did get someone banned recently. Nah, it couldn’t be that, its name was nice-poltergeist. Whats the meaning of that moniker. Maybe its time for a software/hardware upgrade HA/ A lot of new commenter’s after all.

Bmore on February 13, 2012 at 9:11 PM

Romney was for it before he was against this then he was against it again before he was for it so that he can be against it and for it at the same time in case he wasn’t for it when he was against it. It could also mean he was for it before he was against it then was against it after it came out he was for it.

Got it?

liberal4life on February 13, 2012 at 9:01 PM

Do you even realize you’re parodying Kerry?

WryTrvllr on February 13, 2012 at 9:12 PM

But that’s not how Romney tells it. He claims that he had an epiphany some time after entering office (but then kept on acting pro-choice).

And what about his wife donating to Planned Parenthood? Was this good, devout, pro-life Mormon cool with his (presumably) equally devout Mormon wife giving to an organization that performs abortions?

29Victor on February 13, 2012 at 9:12 PM

cynccook on February 13, 2012 at 8:51 PM

and how many abortions where performed in ohio last year.

and how Many abortions did JOHN KASICH prevent(and I like Kasich)

gerrym51 on February 13, 2012 at 9:13 PM

What if…
What if…
What if…
What if…

RightOFLeft on February 13, 2012 at 9:09 PM

Romney: ‘I’m Running For Office for Pete’s Sake, I Can’t Have Illegals’

Isn’t the simplest explanation the most likely?

sharrukin on February 13, 2012 at 9:13 PM

Yes and you never did reply when we talked about a REPUBLICAN legislature in OHIO and Democratic legislature in MASS.

and getting some abortion restrictions passed is NOT the same as eliminating abortions.

I intend to ask the same questions EVERY TIME some one mentions how some ones pro-life versus pro-choice. I myself am pro-life-but I am not going to crucify politicians when abortion is legal by supreme court.

gerrym51 on February 13, 2012 at 9:05 PM

No amount of apologizing for his record done by you can negate the fact that when it came down to being staunchly pro-life or pandering to the voter to get elected, Romney chose the path that would get him what he wanted. He was adamant about his pro-abortion stance. Period. He could have chosen to run somewhere where conservative values were an asset, but he did not. He sold out and there’s no way to cancel out all the video of him proclaiming it. I get that you love the guy, but don’t expect the rest of us to blindly swallow the line of bull that he’s laying on to try to win the Republican vote today. Look at the latest polls, people DO NOT WANT HIM.

And you’re the one who makes sweeping statements about the ‘hypocritical’ governors of red states who ‘do nothing’ about abortion. Show me one case where that’s true or stop saying it.

cynccook on February 13, 2012 at 9:14 PM

So what if they did? PP has been demagogued to death by people who should know better. Yes, unfortunately they do perform some abortions

Demagogued to death…? They murder people at “Planned Parenthood”

Kjeil on February 13, 2012 at 9:14 PM

Yep, I thought I was having flashbacks…

d1carter on February 13, 2012 at 9:06 PM

Yes, I thought it was my computer. Been doing it for 3 or 4 days now.

JPeterman on February 13, 2012 at 9:06 PM

Weird, right? Glad its not just me. I feel better already.

Bmore on February 13, 2012 at 9:15 PM

It’s all about RomneyCare.

Period. The. End.

JPeterman on February 13, 2012 at 9:15 PM

and how many abortions where performed in ohio last year.

and how Many abortions did JOHN KASICH prevent(and I like Kasich)

gerrym51 on February 13, 2012 at 9:13 PM

Click on the 3 links I provided to you and read them. You can’t be so intellectually lazy that you’re not even willing to consider the facts behind what I am trying to show you, can you? Because if you are, then I’ll stop wasting my time and yours and you can continue to wallow in your fandom for a certain winsome Mormon.

cynccook on February 13, 2012 at 9:16 PM

‘I’m Running For Office for Pete’s Sake, I Can’t Have Illegals’

Certainly one of the best debate lines of the season. : )

Bmore on February 13, 2012 at 9:16 PM

I cannot vote for Romney. He will destroy both the GOP and open the door in 4 years for another Obama, if not Obama again himself.

All these people who are betting that this RINO is going to somehow magically transform and become what they hope and wish he would are deluding themselves. He will certainly improve the economy in the beginning. Anyone could. But it will be short lived. He will go far left.

I understand the argument. But I see it as a choice between being pushed over a cliff by a Marxist or being dragged down by a smiling RINO with a tan.

JellyToast on February 13, 2012 at 9:16 PM

this insanely old news. in fact, its not news at all. Romney has ALWAYS ALWAYS ALWAYS said he was personally pro-life but was uncomfortable about advocating that personal position as a public policy one until his term as governor when he was faced with making a pro-choice decision and instead he made the pro-life one.

from that moment on he stopped calling himself pro-choice and called himself instead what he had always personally believed.

Drunk Report on February 13, 2012 at 9:17 PM

cynccook on February 13, 2012 at 9:10 PM

91% of their clients didn’t get abortions.

We can bitch about the federal funding component for sure, but they’re doing a lot more than abortion and much of it is arguably good.

Still, I know…it is tempting to take up Manichean positions on a hot button operation like PP.

There are operations out there where the vast majority of people who walk in the door get abortions btw. I suggest you focus your rage on them first.

CorporatePiggy on February 13, 2012 at 9:17 PM

cynccook on February 13, 2012 at 8:51 PM

the hypocritiical governors of Red States can’t do anything about abortions because the Supreme court says its legal.

How many abortions performed in Ohio last year.

How many did JOHN KASICH stop

gerrym51 on February 13, 2012 at 9:18 PM

So what if they did? PP has been demagogued to death by people who should know better. Yes, unfortunately they do perform some abortions. They are not an abortion factory, however much people like to paint them as that.

That said, no firm that performs abortions should get federal funding.

CorporatePiggy on February 13, 2012 at 9:04 PM

Some? 330,000 abortions last year. That’s about 1 million abortions every three years.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/04/08/planned-parenthood-federal-budget_n_846933.html

Now, if the 3% number is right, then they handed out 97 condoms to high school kids for every three abortions. Sounds about right.

unclesmrgol on February 13, 2012 at 9:18 PM

I don’t care about abortions or contraceptives. They’re irrelevant.

Obama can’t WAIT to run against a socon campaign. He won’t have to answer for anything he’s done at all.

Good Lt on February 13, 2012 at 9:18 PM

mittens is the second worst Romney behind Sir Gilligan Romney II who was drunk and unforgivably rude during a dinner party, insulting my mother, sister and three small children before kicking my dog and slamming my door.

DHChron on February 13, 2012 at 9:19 PM

Plenty of information,investigative reports that show otherwise,
if your willing to see it that is.

MontanaMmmm on February 13, 2012 at 9:09 PM

I’ve read a lot of the information and seen-heard the sting operations.

Still, demagogue all you like. You should be focusing your rage at other service providers if you really care that much.

CorporatePiggy on February 13, 2012 at 9:19 PM

It’s all about RomneyCare.

Period. The. End.

JPeterman on February 13, 2012 at 9:15 PM

Actually, it’s about how terrible of a leader Obama is. Or did you forget?

Good Lt on February 13, 2012 at 9:20 PM

‘I’m Running For Office for Pete’s Sake, I Can’t Have Illegals’

Certainly one of the best debate lines of the season. : )

Bmore on February 13, 2012 at 9:16 PM

It also tells you what Romney believes in. Getting elected.

sharrukin on February 13, 2012 at 9:20 PM

I think this herky jerky flickering thing is getting worse. Wow that was a close call. I’ve been trying to improve my spelling, the phrase herky jerky is old right? If you ever use it make sure you don’t spell herky, hurky. Not good.

Bmore on February 13, 2012 at 9:20 PM

Except his record indicates otherwise:

Romney Health Care Plan Expanded Access To Abortion, Required Planned Parenthood Representative On State Policy Panel
“Commonwealth Care is run by the Commonwealth Health Insurance Connector Authority and funded by the state. … Commonwealth Care health plans include: outpatient medical care (doctor’s visits, surgery, radiology and lab, abortion, community health center visits) …” (www.massresources.org)

And let’s not forget this:

In October 2005, Romney Signed Bill Expanding Family Planning Services, Including Abortion Counseling And Morning-After Pill. “Governor Mitt Romney has signed a bill that could expand the number of people who get family-planning services, including the morning-after pill, confusing some abortion and contraception foes who had been heartened by his earlier veto of an emergency contraception bill. … The services include the distribution of condoms, abortion counseling, and the distribution of emergency contraception, or morning after pills, by
prescription …” (Stephanie Ebbert, “Romney Signs Bill On Family Planning,” The Boston Globe, 10/15/05)

And this assault on Religious Freedom:

In December 2005, Romney “Abruptly Ordered His Administration To Reverse Course … And Require Catholic Hospitals To Provide Emergency Contraception To Rape Victims.” “Gov. Mitt Romney abruptly ordered his administration to reverse course yesterday and require Catholic hospitals to provide emergency contraception medication to rape victims. In a turnaround that foes derided as politically motivated, Romney directed his Department of Public Health to scrap rules that exempted the Catholic institutions from a new law governing the medicine.” (Kimberly Atkins, “Romney Flip Nixes Hospital Exception On Post-Rape Drug,” Boston Herald, 12/9/05)

Romney Had Initially Supported State Ruling Allowing Hospitals To Opt Out On Moral Grounds. “The decision overturns a ruling made public this week by the state Department of Public Health that privately run hospitals could opt out of the requirement if they objected on moral or religious grounds.

So his record shows he governed as a pro-choice governor.

Raquel Pinkbullet

Actually, no. First off the “planning board” mandate for planned parenthood doesn’t exist. The payment board doesn’t implement policy. It sets rates for Medicaid in Massachusetts and how state facilities should be reimbursed.
The second part is well covered in the following article:
http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/290073/mitt-romney-defended-rights-conscience-massachusetts-david-french
This would also seem to cover the “expanded access” since the veto happens in September of 2005. Strangely your third point is also covered. Probably because they are all the same. He was a pro-life governor, even put an op-ed during his time to say as much, in a far left state. He wasn’t going to be able to outlaw abortion.
So again what you’ve shown us is that A) You can read the oppo book from the McCain campaign (word for word no less) and not put forth an original thought and B) have never bothered to actually research any of it since 3 points are really 1 point. Congrats.

Zaggs on February 13, 2012 at 9:20 PM

Newt is terrible. How can a guy who claims the best president of the 20th century was FDR be considered a Reagan conservative? He freely admits he is a progressive.

azstrat on February 13, 2012 at 9:20 PM

Social cons are really a small group of people. Conservatives have to recognize that there’s a whole world of people…and that the important thing is liberty.

Obama will be in the healthcare rationing business real soon, shutting down energy production, and increasing taxes to pay for his world view. And the price is high. Obama will continue to hyper-spend until taxes are increased by, at least 30 percent.

Social cons are playing a dangerous game. They can not win by themselves…but they could re-elect Obama. (honestly I’ve never thought that Romney could overcome the Mormon problem anyway…someone in the RNC should have taken him aside in 08 and told him that the country isn’t ready)

I’m really afraid that Jeb Bush is on the horizon…which is to say, the R party will no longer be seen as a viable party.

Imagine that…no credible opposition to the left….not good

r keller on February 13, 2012 at 9:20 PM

cynccook on February 13, 2012 at 9:16 PM

the only lazy one is you. your original post several weeks ago said how many babies did Romney murder when he was governor.

since abortion is legal the answer is zero.

I would also say you can say gthe exact ame thing about EVERY governor in america

gerrym51 on February 13, 2012 at 9:21 PM

sharrukin on February 13, 2012 at 9:20 PM

Yeah, It has always seemed to me he wanted it a bit to severely. I never have understood why.

Bmore on February 13, 2012 at 9:21 PM

<blockquoteI cannot vote for Romney. He will destroy both the GOP and open the door in 4 years for another Obama, if not Obama again himself.

All these people who are betting that this RINO is going to somehow magically transform and become what they hope and wish he would are deluding themselves. He will certainly improve the economy in the beginning. Anyone could. But it will be short lived. He will go far left.

I understand the argument. But I see it as a choice between being pushed over a cliff by a Marxist or being dragged down by a smiling RINO with a tan.

JellyToast on February 13, 2012 at 9:16 PM

No. He won’t. I don’t particularly like Romney, but Air Force One seems to grow on all of them……

>

WryTrvllr on February 13, 2012 at 9:21 PM

Romney in 2002: Liberals, You Want Me On That Wall. You Need Me On That Wall……to protect abortion rights.

Mitt Romney was firm and direct with the abortion rights advocates sitting in his office nine years ago, assuring the group that if elected Massachusetts governor, he would protect the state’s abortion laws.

Then, as the meeting drew to a close, the businessman offered an intriguing suggestion — that he would rise to national prominence in the Republican Party as a victor in a liberal state and could use his influence to soften the GOP’s hard-line opposition to abortion.
He would be a “good voice in the party” for their cause, and his moderation on the issue would be “widely written about,” he said, according to detailed notes taken by an officer of the group, NARAL Pro-Choice Massachusetts.

“You need someone like me in Washington,” several participants recalled Romney saying that day in September 2002, an apparent reference to his future ambitions.

But now he’s completely against abortion, or something.

Raquel Pinkbullet on February 13, 2012 at 9:23 PM

Um, is he not still a Mormon?

changer1701 on February 13, 2012 at 9:10 PM

I would imagine he is. And he is also the prior Governor of Massachusetts. And he is currently a Republican candidate for president. He no longer needs to hold the Mormon stance, as he is not in leadership there anymore, and does not risk his position as a leader there. He no longer needs to hold the Massachusetts stance, as he is no longer asking for votes to be the leader there. He hopefully can discard all of his stances soon as he fails to become the Republican nominee.

astonerii on February 13, 2012 at 9:23 PM

It’s the difference between losing your moral bearings and selling them out. Which is worse?

Pick a date on any core conservative issue…..then get a scorecard to review Romney’s multiple positions over the years.

Well-groomed-tree bending in the political wind….thy name is Mittens.

Tim_CA on February 13, 2012 at 9:23 PM

Actually, it’s about how terrible of a leader Obama is. Or did you forget?

Good Lt on February 13, 2012 at 9:20 PM

I haven’t forgotten but it appears many have. Romney’s biggest problem is Romneycare.

JPeterman on February 13, 2012 at 9:24 PM

Why is Dick Morris and Sean Hannity promoting Rommey? Why do they want Newt out? To repeat 2008 again? I see Newt being treated as Sarah Palin was and have to ask myself why.

Something is not making sense, or is it?

bluefox on February 13, 2012 at 9:11 PM

Newt had to go against the Rs in congress to get work done and they did not like it that’s why they are aginst him, Sarah Palin had to go against some R s in Alaska to get work done and she was hated also.
Many of the conservative big names (Rush, Levine, Hannity, Malkin and HA and many others) are for Santorum they are acting like the elite establishment.

evergreenland on February 13, 2012 at 9:25 PM

LMAO

Romney has no core principles. His entire political persona is a giant fraudulent lie.

Norwegian on February 13, 2012 at 9:26 PM

Now, if the 3% number is right, then they handed out 97 condoms to high school kids for every three abortions. Sounds about right.

unclesmrgol on February 13, 2012 at 9:18 PM

Mmm, excellent deduction.

So they don’t do pap smears, mammagrams, STD tests, birth control, sex ed, or anything else?

What about the less famous firms out there whose primary purpose is to perform abortions? Where’s the rage there?

CorporatePiggy on February 13, 2012 at 9:26 PM

But now he’s completely against abortion, or something.

Raquel Pinkbullet on February 13, 2012 at 9:23 PM

Who cares? There are more important problems that face the country than Romney’s position on abortion.

Good Lt on February 13, 2012 at 9:27 PM

Well-groomed-tree bending in the political wind….thy name is Mittens.

Tim_CA on February 13, 2012 at 9:23 PM

Mountains never bend to the wind (according to Disney, ask Zion Nat’l park!!). Trees bend, but don’t break. Death valley is a sink hole from which almost no life escapes.

Where is Obozo on the spectrum?

WryTrvllr on February 13, 2012 at 9:27 PM

If a man has core values, he will not violate those values for political advantage. Abition drives Romney, for whatever reason. He will abandon his true self to achieve his goal. Such a man, who will owe much to those who financially supported him, has no value to the conservative voter. He cannot be trusted to lead.

Zelsdorf Ragshaft on February 13, 2012 at 9:27 PM

Social cons are really a small group of people. Conservatives have to recognize that there’s a whole world of people…and that the important thing is liberty.

I am so incredibly sick of social cons being the boogie man. Gay marriage has not passed a majority of the state by the will of the people. It is not social cons who rely on judicial fiat to shove things down people’s throat. Abortion was also federally passed by judicial fiat. It is not social cons who did this. Most of us were fine fighting that issue on the state level until social progressives took it out of the

will of the people’s hands.”

Both positions federally passed/judicially passed gay marriage and support of Roe v. Wade are the epitome of anti-liberty. Marriage is regulated by the states, and liberty is lost if someone isn’t alive to enjoy it.

melle1228 on February 13, 2012 at 9:28 PM

Where is Obozo on the spectrum?

WryTrvllr on February 13, 2012 at 9:27 PM

lol…blown over into the lap of Karl Marx.

Tim_CA on February 13, 2012 at 9:29 PM

don’t spell herky, hurky.

Bmore on February 13, 2012 at 9:29 PM

Romney in 2002: Liberals, You Want Me On That Wall. You Need Me On That Wall……to protect abortion rights.

Mitt Romney was firm and direct with the abortion rights advocates sitting in his office nine years ago, assuring the group that if elected Massachusetts governor, he would protect the state’s abortion laws.

Then, as the meeting drew to a close, the businessman offered an intriguing suggestion — that he would rise to national prominence in the Republican Party as a victor in a liberal state and could use his influence to soften the GOP’s hard-line opposition to abortion.
He would be a “good voice in the party” for their cause, and his moderation on the issue would be “widely written about,” he said, according to detailed notes taken by an officer of the group, NARAL Pro-Choice Massachusetts.

“You need someone like me in Washington,” several participants recalled Romney saying that day in September 2002, an apparent reference to his future ambitions.

But now he’s completely against abortion, or something.

Raquel Pinkbullet

Then why did he veto the expanded access to abortion?

Zaggs on February 13, 2012 at 9:29 PM

thine name is mittens

thine sucketh much

DHChron on February 13, 2012 at 9:30 PM

I get the sense sometimes from Romney’s critics that they think he was pro-choice his whole life and then cynically flipped to pro-life in 2005 once he had decided to run for president.

Romney deliberately gave that impression, so it’s no surprise if people believed him. The truth appears to be that he didn’t change his mind about anything. He just pretended to be pro-abortion to win a couple of elections, then pretended to change his mind when being pro-abortion was no longer politically advantageous.

And whether or not you’re offended by his political flip-flop, there’s no denying the very clear message that no principle is important enough to him to risk losing an election over it.

Ironic that a man willing to throw over any principle to win an election has lost every election except one in his political career.

tom on February 13, 2012 at 9:30 PM

Then why did he veto the expanded access to abortion?

Zaggs on February 13, 2012 at 9:29 PM

Same reason he vetoed everything. He knew it would not stick and get overridden.

astonerii on February 13, 2012 at 9:31 PM

Un-freakin-believable!! 6 stories in one day about the same old rehashed bullsh!t about Romney. Santorum is the front runner now…how about a little scrutiny directed towards him? AP and Ed…you guys are displaying the integrity of a Kossack. Pathetic.

xxessw on February 13, 2012 at 9:31 PM

He no longer needs to hold the Mormon stance, as he is not in leadership there anymore, and does not risk his position as a leader there. He no longer needs to hold the Massachusetts stance, as he is no longer asking for votes to be the leader there. He hopefully can discard all of his stances soon as he fails to become the Republican nominee.

astonerii on February 13, 2012 at 9:23 PM

Are you insinuating he no longer holds his religious views, that it was only a matter of convenience due to a position in the church? It was clearly more than a stance, if he’s encouraging women not to have abortions. Or was he doing that just to burnish his pro life bona fides because he knew he’d be running for president 20 years later?

changer1701 on February 13, 2012 at 9:33 PM

Romney would do everything the right tells him to do if he gets elected. I think Norquist is right. He’d appoint justices to the right of Alito, bomb lots of Muslim countries, balance the budget on the backs of the working class, etc. This only reinforces that Romney should be the right’s ideal candidate.

cjw79 on February 13, 2012 at 9:33 PM

Un-freakin-believable!! 6 stories in one day about the same old rehashed bullsh!t about Romney. Santorum is the front runner now…how about a little scrutiny directed towards him? AP and Ed…you guys are displaying the integrity of a Kossack. Pathetic.

xxessw on February 13, 2012 at 9:31 PM

Wear a thong, much more comfortable than those panties of yours that keep getting in a wad.

JPeterman on February 13, 2012 at 9:34 PM

‘I’m Running For Office for Pete’s Sake, I Can’t Have Illegals’

Certainly one of the best debate lines of the season. : )

Bmore on February 13, 2012 at 9:16 PM

It also tells you what Romney believes in. Getting elected.

sharrukin on February 13, 2012 at 9:20 PM

Oh I don’t know, I am fond of this jewel “I’m not concerned about the very poor” And they accused Perry of having brain farts.

Dr Evil on February 13, 2012 at 9:34 PM

why ya always pickin’ on Romney? jerks

DHChron on February 13, 2012 at 9:34 PM

Same reason he vetoed everything. He knew it would not stick and get overridden.

astonerii on February 13, 2012 at 9:31 PM

So….he did stuff knowing he was a one termer?? And I thought I didn’t like him.

WryTrvllr on February 13, 2012 at 9:35 PM

Actually, no. First off the “planning board” mandate for planned parenthood doesn’t exist. The payment board doesn’t implement policy. It sets rates for Medicaid in Massachusetts and how state facilities should be reimbursed.
The second part is well covered in the following article:
http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/290073/mitt-romney-defended-rights-conscience-massachusetts-david-french
This would also seem to cover the “expanded access” since the veto happens in September of 2005. Strangely your third point is also covered. Probably because they are all the same. He was a pro-life governor, even put an op-ed during his time to say as much, in a far left state. He wasn’t going to be able to outlaw abortion.
So again what you’ve shown us is that A) You can read the oppo book from the McCain campaign (word for word no less) and not put forth an original thought and B) have never bothered to actually research any of it since 3 points are really 1 point. Congrats.

Zaggs on February 13, 2012 at 9:20 PM

Actually the Planned Parenthood board does exist, if you go to the MA gov website you will see it.

Section 3 Of The Health Care Reform Bill Romney Signed In To Law Requires That One Member Of MassHealth Payment Policy Board Must Be Appointed By Planned Parenthood Of Massachusetts. From Chapter 58 of the Acts of 2006: “SECTION 3. Chapter 6A of the General Laws is hereby amended by inserting after section 16I the following 6 sections: . . . Section 16M. (a) There shall be a MassHealth payment policy advisory board. The board shall consist of the secretary of health and human services or his designee, who shall
serve as chair, the commissioner of health care financing and policy, and 12 other members: … 1 member appointed by Planned Parenthood League of Massachusetts …” (Massachusetts General Court Website, http://www.mass.gov,)

Actually the National Review is a bunch of pro-Mitt hacks.
http://townhall.com/columnists/terryjeffrey/2012/02/02/creators_oped/page/full/

Also here is the reactions right when it happened:

“An Olympic-Caliber Double Flip-Flop.” “Flip, flop, flip. Yes, Gov. Mitt Romney has now executed an Olympic-caliber double flip-flop with a gold medal-performance twist-and-a-half on the issue of emergency contraception. … It’s no secret Mitt Romney would like to be president. But who would have thought he’d take John Kerry as his campaign role model?” (Editorial, “Politics On Display The Morning-After,” 12/9/05)

And my third point is NOT covered. You keep trying to spin for Mittens, making yourself look silly.

Raquel Pinkbullet on February 13, 2012 at 9:35 PM

Who cares? There are more important problems that face the country than Romney’s position on abortion.

Good Lt on February 13, 2012 at 9:27 PM

What? According to you moderates the paramount consideration is one’s position on abortion.

ddrintn on February 13, 2012 at 9:35 PM

Un-freakin-believable!! 6 stories in one day about the same old rehashed bullsh!t about Romney. Santorum is the front runner now…how about a little scrutiny directed towards him? AP and Ed…you guys are displaying the integrity of a Kossack. Pathetic.

xxessw on February 13, 2012 at 9:31 PM

Yeah, I’d like to see some analysis on how Santy’s social con views will play in a general.

changer1701 on February 13, 2012 at 9:36 PM

Are you insinuating he no longer holds his religious views, that it was only a matter of convenience due to a position in the church? It was clearly more than a stance, if he’s encouraging women not to have abortions. Or was he doing that just to burnish his pro life bona fides because he knew he’d be running for president 20 years later?

changer1701 on February 13, 2012 at 9:33 PM

I am insinuating that much like Muslim faith principles, they are totally negotiable in order to trick and con non believers of the faith into allowing you power over them.

astonerii on February 13, 2012 at 9:36 PM

Un-freakin-believable!! 6 stories in one day about the same old rehashed bullsh!t about Romney. Santorum is the front runner now…how about a little scrutiny directed towards him? AP and Ed…you guys are displaying the integrity of a Kossack. Pathetic.

xxessw on February 13, 2012 at 9:31 PM

Somebody call a waaaaaaaambulance…

ddrintn on February 13, 2012 at 9:37 PM

it’s inconceivable to me that he’d flip on the issue once in office.

Yup.

You got it there.

Never seen a Politician do that.

I mean Obama did cut the deficit. Right?

Seriously I really doubt this story it sounds like something a Mormon would say about Romney trying to justify his church attendance with his political positions.

Far more likely Romney is trying to fool us now than then. Too much consistency. His father was against the church fundamental teachings on blacks and the priesthood and Romney worked for his dad. Thus makes perfect sense that Romney would be progressive and feel the church had Abortion wrong especially because of the wide use of family planing by younger church officials. Romney most likely feels the church will eventually come around to abortion just like they did the priesthood.

Steveangell on February 13, 2012 at 9:37 PM

So….he did stuff knowing he was a one termer?? And I thought I didn’t like him.

WryTrvllr on February 13, 2012 at 9:35 PM

He was a one termer. He wanted to be a one termer. That is why he started running for president in his 3rd year of 4 in office. Abandoning for the most part his constituents for a bigger brass ring.

astonerii on February 13, 2012 at 9:38 PM

xxessw on February 13, 2012 at 9:31 PM

You’re busy commenting though. The site thanks you. $ If you don’t want to help the site make money don’t comment. Its a waste of your time.

Bmore on February 13, 2012 at 9:39 PM

So I wonder: Would it be better if Mitt had briefly but sincerely become pro-choice — or “pro-choice friendly” — while running in Massachusetts and then flipped, or if he’d never been pro-choice but had been willing to look the other way at abortion in the interest of his own political viability? It’s the difference between losing your moral bearings and selling them out. Which is worse?

Reading AP’s post and especially the above, I am dizzy. Here is my opinion on Romney: “A double minded man is unstable in all his ways” James 1:8

This is why he is known as a Flip Flopper, as he changes as much as the weather. Whatever is politically expedient for him is where he will be.

Ask yourself this: If he was not running for President, but instead for Governor of MA again; would he be trying to run as a Conservative or a Moderate/Liberal?

How could a Conservative win a Caucus in Maine?

bluefox on February 13, 2012 at 9:39 PM

Drunk Report on February 13, 2012 at 9:17 PM

That dodge about being personally pro-life is the oldest, most hackneyed excuse in the world used by those who want to get elected and who think this will mollify pro-lifers.

The pro-aborts know it’s a joke. Most pro-lifers, except for the most naive, also consider it to be a joke.

INC on February 13, 2012 at 9:39 PM

Yeah, I’d like to see some analysis on how Santy’s social con views will play in a general.

changer1701 on February 13, 2012 at 9:36 PM

When was the last GOP candidate to lose because of socially conservative views?

ddrintn on February 13, 2012 at 9:39 PM

Then why did he veto the expanded access to abortion?

Zaggs on February 13, 2012 at 9:29 PM

Good question. Why didn’t he VETO the planned parenthood provision in Romneycare?

Romney Failed To Veto Section Of Law Requiring Planned Parenthood Representation. Romney vetoed Sections 5, 27, 29, 47, 112, 113, 134 and 137. Romney did not veto Section 3, which contained the
mandated Planned Parenthood representative on the MassHealth payment policy advisory board.
(Massachusetts General Court Website, http://www.mass.gov)

Raquel Pinkbullet on February 13, 2012 at 9:40 PM

Yeah, I’d like to see some analysis on how Santy’s social con views will play in a general.

changer1701 on February 13, 2012 at 9:36 PM

And by the way, are you admitting that Romney’s a lib?

ddrintn on February 13, 2012 at 9:40 PM

So….he did stuff knowing he was a one termer?? And I thought I didn’t like him.

WryTrvllr on February 13, 2012 at 9:35 PM
He was a one termer. He wanted to be a one termer. That is why he started running for president in his 3rd year of 4 in office. Abandoning for the most part his constituents for a bigger brass ring.

astonerii on February 13, 2012 at 9:38 PM

Wow. He must have some brass stones to be so assured that he’d win. You are making me like him more all the time. And, having been a masshole, that takes some doing.

WryTrvllr on February 13, 2012 at 9:42 PM

Romney has always been pro-life. He said as much during the debate with Kennedy in ’94. He said then that he would not impose his personal beliefs into the political. For this, he got branded as being pro-choice. There is no way he could be anything but pro-life or get excommunicated from the LDS Church, and we know that at that same time he was serving first as a Bishop and then as Stake President in Boston.

When elected, he found there was no way he could keep his personal feelings and position on life out of the political and he did his best through his veto power to bring his pro-life positions to whatever he could as governor. People really need to understand what is Romney’s doing and what he was helpless, with an 85% dem majority, from doing in MA. When he says he was on the front lines, you should take him at his word because the research backs it up.

What really bothers me is how much I’m reading rationalizations on Santorum’s positions (flip flops) using his being a blue PA Senator as his excuse and at the same time, holding Romney to the fire for actually trying to be as conservative a governor as possible in blue blue blue state MA. Double standards alive and well.

Do you think, BTW, that it is accidental that Romney was the first out of the box to pounce on the Obama Admin’s contraception/sterilization mandate? If you do, then you are unfamiliar with the fact that the LDS Church has been self-insuring thru DMBA (Deseret Mutual Benefit Administration) for the last 30 years and they do not cover contraception, abortion, sterilization, etc. and see the federal mandate as anathema. The DMBA insures anyone who works for any entity owned by the LDS church, Mormon or not, including since 1994, dependents of employees up to age 26.

Anyone who thinks the MA Affordable Care Act, snarily dubbed Romneycare, is what Romney wanted, is either a Mormon bigot, or sadly, yes sadly, underinformed on the subject.

Keep your eye on the ball people. This election is about FISCAL matters and fixing our country.

Pal2Pal on February 13, 2012 at 9:42 PM

why ya always pickin’ on Romney? jerks

DHChron on February 13, 2012 at 9:34 PM

Think of it as acknowledging all his unforced errors.

Bmore on February 13, 2012 at 9:44 PM

You don’t become a LDS Bishop if you are pro choice. He never actually was pro choice. He just said he wouldn’t do anything to change the law as governor.

BobScuba on February 13, 2012 at 8:41 PM

It’s not relevant what position he has/had in his Mormon Church.
It is important what policies he held and signed into law while an elected official, i.e. Gov of MA. He’s running for President of the United States and his past record and positions are relevant.

bluefox on February 13, 2012 at 9:44 PM

We call it “flip-flop”

Roy Rogers on February 13, 2012 at 9:09 PM

I call it “moral cowardice.”

ShainS on February 13, 2012 at 9:45 PM

Who cares? There are more important problems that face the country than Romney’s position on abortion.

Good Lt on February 13, 2012 at 9:27 PM

This isn’t about abortion, this is about Mittens continuing flip-flops and lack of actual personal convictions other than getting elected.

There is no issue Mittens hasn’t been on both sides of.

Raquel Pinkbullet on February 13, 2012 at 9:45 PM

Can’t wait to start a national conversation on the eeeeevils of contraception with Father Santorum.

http://drewmusings.wordpress.com/2012/02/13/sorry-social-conservatives-america-isnt-going-to-elect-someone-president-who-wants-to-talk-about-how-sex-out-of-wedlock-is-bad/

Woohoo!

Good Lt on February 13, 2012 at 8:56 PM

Hahaha, Good Lt. It doesn’t surprise me that this Santorum attack comes from you. Did you actually read the quote that the article has embedded? He wants to talk about the dangers of contraception and the “whole sexual libertine idea.” Heaven forbid a president encourage people to practice modesty and the dangers of promiscuity. Why, we wouldn’t want the president to stand up for traditional morals. Heaven forbid he speak!

Pattosensei on February 13, 2012 at 9:46 PM

Romney has always been pro-life. He said as much during the debate with Kennedy in ’94. He said then that he would not impose his personal beliefs into the political. For this, he got branded as being pro-choice.

So he is wishy washy to get elected.. Got it.

Sorry but I think being “personally” pro-life is a cop out. If you really think that you are destroying an innocent life then you as a policy maker stand up for that innocent life. If not, than at best it makes you an enabler of abortion. At worse, pro-choice.

melle1228 on February 13, 2012 at 9:47 PM

In the 2002 clip, Romney tells a reporter:

“I think people recognize that I’m not a partisan Republican, that I’m someone who is moderate, and my views are progressive.”

With Romney, you don’t know what you’re getting. You can’t trust him… David Frum

I am almost starting to feel sorry for The Amazing Flip-Flop.

sharrukin on February 13, 2012 at 9:47 PM

So what if they did? PP has been demagogued to death by people who should know better. Yes, unfortunately they do perform some abortions. They are not an abortion factory, however much people like to paint them as that.

That said, no firm that performs abortions should get federal funding.

CorporatePiggy on February 13, 2012 at 9:04 PM

They perform between 300,000 and 350,000 murders per year. That’s a mid-sized city wiped out every year. By comparison, approximately 850,000 people were killed by the Nazis at Treblinka, but that took 1.5 years. I’d say that qualifies Planned Parenthood as an abortion factory.

Look, Romney may be the nominee, and I’m perfectly fine with people making the case for him on the basis of electability. What turns my stomach is when ostensibly conservative people try to pretend that Romney is a conservative as we in the grassroots conservative movement have generally defined that term.

He is not. Particularly on this issue.

Nom de Boom on February 13, 2012 at 9:48 PM

go newt!

DHChron on February 13, 2012 at 9:49 PM

Where are all the Romney supporters?

Bmore on February 13, 2012 at 9:50 PM

Anyone who thinks the MA Affordable Care Act, snarily dubbed Romneycare, is what Romney wanted, is either a Mormon bigot, or sadly, yes sadly, underinformed on the subject.

Pal2Pal on February 13, 2012 at 9:42 PM

Romney said he got 95% of what he wanted in the law. So which category does he fall into? Is he a Mormon bigot, or sadly underinformed?

tom on February 13, 2012 at 9:50 PM

Actually, I think Mittens is John McCain, without the mentally challenged daughter.

Raquel Pinkbullet on February 13, 2012 at 9:51 PM

go newt!

DHChron on February 13, 2012 at 9:49 PM

I concur!

astonerii on February 13, 2012 at 9:51 PM

Where are all the Romney supporters?

Bmore on February 13, 2012 at 9:50 PM

Outside of the Church, he only really has paid hacks in my view. Not so much supporters of Romney as they are attack bots on anyone other than Romney.

astonerii on February 13, 2012 at 9:53 PM

bluefox on February 13, 2012 at 9:11 PM

Newt had to go against the Rs in congress to get work done and they did not like it that’s why they are aginst him, Sarah Palin had to go against some R s in Alaska to get work done and she was hated also.
Many of the conservative big names (Rush, Levine, Hannity, Malkin and HA and many others) are for Santorum they are acting like the elite establishment.

evergreenland on February 13, 2012 at 9:25 PM

I understand the Establishment don’t want a Conservative of any kind. Levin and Malkin are supporting Santorum, but I don’t get that from Rush. Hannity and all of Fox are supporting Romney. I think Rush would vote for Newt; just my opinion. He won’t say, but that’s what I think.

bluefox on February 13, 2012 at 9:53 PM

A lot of us who are pro-life are not 100% against abortion. I think women can “choose” to have an abortion but it should not be on a tax payers dime.

dmnari on February 13, 2012 at 8:38 PM

Would someone explain this to me? Please.

Bmore on February 13, 2012 at 9:53 PM

Comment pages: 1 2 3 4