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

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!

Why?

What business of his are the sexual behaviors of hundreds of millions of people?

What is his fascination with the sexual activities of others?

Good Lt on February 13, 2012 at 9:54 PM

What is his fascination with the sexual activities of others?

Good Lt on February 13, 2012 at 9:54 PM

You are the one constantly posting about it.

sharrukin on February 13, 2012 at 9:56 PM

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

Who is this demagogue this commenter keeps talking about? Should every comment on Planned Parenthood be prefaced by some sort of disclaimer that local clinic X actually performs a higher percentage of abortions than Planned Parenthood? A complaint about demagoguery is tautological in this context.

Nom de Boom on February 13, 2012 at 9:56 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

Good for Santorum. Maybe he can bring back that big letter “A” for women to.
If he wanted to talk about pre-marital sex from a health prospective, bring it on. But from a religious aspect? All that will happen is that he’ll be the king uber square and kids will do the exact opposite of what he says.

Zaggs on February 13, 2012 at 9:56 PM

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

Then introduce Mitt Romney to Jack Kemp and get back to us when he develops some conservative fiscal policy.

Mitt Romney, meet Jack Kemp

Message to Mitt: A rising tide lifts all boats.

INC on February 13, 2012 at 9:56 PM

What business of his are the sexual behaviors of hundreds of millions of people?

What is his fascination with the sexual activities of others?

Good Lt on February 13, 2012 at 9:54 PM

Why does O’bozo want my kids to pay for them??

WryTrvllr on February 13, 2012 at 9:57 PM

You are the one constantly posting about it.

sharrukin

Santorum is the one who said states would be able to pass anti-sodomy laws (no word on anti-oral sex laws for lesbians). So it seems to occupy a good portion of Santorum’s time as well.

Zaggs on February 13, 2012 at 9:57 PM

astonerii on February 13, 2012 at 9:53 PM

Oh…I did not know that was how it worked. So Palin thread, they come out in droves, Romney thread no participating. That right there is interesting. Thanks. Gives me a whole new perspective on them. See I thought you supported your candidate by, well supporting them. Didn’t know you support someone by tearing down others. Its why I don’t get 0 isn’t it? Its why I don’t get the haters. Thank you very much for clearing this up. I owe ya!

Bmore on February 13, 2012 at 9:59 PM

Why does O’bozo want my kids to pay for them??

WryTrvllr on February 13, 2012 at 9:57 PM

+1000 Individual irresponsible sexual behavior has consequences for us all.

melle1228 on February 13, 2012 at 9:59 PM

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

ddrintn on February 13, 2012 at 9:39 PM

Plenty have lost because their views were seen as outside the mainstream for their district or the public in general. Santy isn’t appealing to anyone other than a part of the base.

changer1701 on February 13, 2012 at 9:59 PM

Why does O’bozo want my kids to pay for them??

WryTrvllr

I think I’d rather pay for the contraception than the child.

Zaggs on February 13, 2012 at 9:59 PM

Why?

What business of his are the sexual behaviors of hundreds of millions of people?

What is his fascination with the sexual activities of others?

Good Lt on February 13, 2012 at 9:54 PM

Why not? Don’t you have convictions of what you think is right? Would you not want to share those convictions with others? I think it is amazing your hypocrisy in wanting to shut him up. He’s not talking about legislation, he’s talking about dialogue. Are you so afraid of someone making a case for Christian sexual morals?

Besides that (and this is the part I doubt you’ll reply to), the government is already in the business of regulating the sexual activities of others. In case you didn’t know, there are several sexual acts that are illegal nationwide. Unless you support the repeal of those acts, then you can’t honestly criticize Santorum for correctly pointing out that government (and he prefers the state or local, not the Fed) does have a reason to be involved in sexual activities. Good luck arguing this point.

Pattosensei on February 13, 2012 at 10:00 PM

Santorum is the one who said states would be able to pass anti-sodomy laws (no word on anti-oral sex laws for lesbians). So it seems to occupy a good portion of Santorum’s time as well.

Zaggs on February 13, 2012 at 9:57 PM

I have no problem with this. It should be a states issue. Keep the fed out of it.

Pattosensei on February 13, 2012 at 10:01 PM

Oh…I did not know that was how it worked. So Palin thread, they come out in droves, Romney thread no participating. That right there is interesting. Thanks. Gives me a whole new perspective on them. See I thought you supported your candidate by, well supporting them. Didn’t know you support someone by tearing down others. Its why I don’t get 0 isn’t it? Its why I don’t get the haters. Thank you very much for clearing this up. I owe ya!

Bmore on February 13, 2012 at 9:59 PM

That is a pretty pointless argument you just made. If it is sarcasm, well, it fails. If it is honesty, well, it does not sound much like you really are thankful. Maybe it was all you had to repudiate my argument? If so, I think another fail.

astonerii on February 13, 2012 at 10:01 PM

See I thought you supported your candidate by, well supporting them. Didn’t know you support someone by tearing down others. Bmore on February 13, 2012 at 9:59 PM

I don’t think you are being fair here. What are they suppossed to support with Romney? Is he for or against abortion? Is he going to keep Obamacare or get rid of it? Tell them what day it is and maybe they could tell you. The only constant they can rely on is the ‘Not-Romney’ so that’s what they go after.

sharrukin on February 13, 2012 at 10:03 PM

Bmore
I think the Mitidiots are on the phone with their local suicide hotline, since the new polls came out they can’t be very happy.

angrymike on February 13, 2012 at 10:04 PM

Santorum is the one who said states would be able to pass anti-sodomy laws (no word on anti-oral sex laws for lesbians). So it seems to occupy a good portion of Santorum’s time as well.

Zaggs on February 13, 2012 at 9:57 PM

Yeah so? Individual states should be able to regulate their policies-moral and otherwise. That is his position. It is a state’s rights position and also one that says social issues should be dealt with on a local level. I happen to agree with him. Given the choice I wouldn’t actually vote for an local anti-sodomy law, but I understand the position that the state has the right to regulate certain things.

States are never going to repass anti-sodomy laws. You anti-social cons really remind me of chicken little.

melle1228 on February 13, 2012 at 10:04 PM

I trust that regardless of the primary passions expressed here, we will all support the Republican nominee. I hope we all share a common objective in defeating Obama and his vision of America. I believe Romney can do that, others do not, so be it; as long as we do not allow spite and pettiness to impinge our ability to affect change and send nObama packing!

dmann on February 13, 2012 at 10:05 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

I have. So it’s not just my computer!

INC on February 13, 2012 at 9:04 PM

I haven’t noticed anything; running Win7/IE9.

bluefox on February 13, 2012 at 10:07 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

I have. So it’s not just my computer!

INC on February 13, 2012 at 9:04 PM

Yes, but I need to update my Firefox, so I figured that was the problem.

Pattosensei on February 13, 2012 at 10:08 PM

I believe Romney can do that, others do not, so be it; as long as we do not allow spite and pettiness to impinge our ability to affect change and send nObama packing!

dmann on February 13, 2012 at 10:05 PM

Too late, Romney crossed about 50 more bridges beyond what I am willing to cross on his way to being to the left of Obama in the General. No chance at all I will ever vote for the man, even if he has Sarah Palin as his VP pick.

astonerii on February 13, 2012 at 10:08 PM

I trust that regardless of the primary passions expressed here, we will all support the Republican nominee. I hope we all share a common objective in defeating Obama and his vision of America. I believe Romney can do that, others do not, so be it; as long as we do not allow spite and pettiness to impinge our ability to affect change and send nObama packing!

dmann on February 13, 2012 at 10:05 PM

As I said on the other board, given the chance of the whole GOP- Santorum is almost down as far as Romney on my list. That being said, Obama is even lower. I think most will even out once the primary is decided. I just think most of us don’t think it is a done deal that Romney is the nominee, nor are we completely convinced to vote for Romney on the basis that he is the most electable. Don’t worry though, I will hope that whomever wins picks a stellar running mate. Then I can atleast hold my nose and vote for the person without having to get smashingly drunk that day on top of it.

melle1228 on February 13, 2012 at 10:09 PM

I think I’d rather pay for the contraception than the child.

Zaggs on February 13, 2012 at 9:59 PM

So I guess that goes for the antibiotic resistant Gonnorhea (sp?) too? Too bad they can’t grow up to pay your social security.

WryTrvllr on February 13, 2012 at 10:10 PM

dmann
Yes I think most of us here will support the Republican candidate, the thing I worry about is the mitt worshippers who have stated here they would only support Mittens.

angrymike on February 13, 2012 at 10:11 PM

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’ll only know for sure if he ever runs for Gov of a blue State again:-)

bluefox on February 13, 2012 at 10:11 PM

Yeah so? Individual states should be able to regulate their policies-moral and otherwise. That is his position. It is a state’s rights position and also one that says social issues should be dealt with on a local level. I happen to agree with him. Given the choice I wouldn’t actually vote for an local anti-sodomy law, but I understand the position that the state has the right to regulate certain things.

States are never going to repass anti-sodomy laws. You anti-social cons really remind me of chicken little.

melle1228

So then States should be able to pass anti-masturbation laws, anti-swearing laws, anti mixed racial couples laws, or anti bondage laws. When a state can regulate morals to that degree its called a theocracy. What 2 consenting people do in their own home is their own business. Anyone who believes otherwise may as well support Obama because you are in fact for a huge overreaching government.

Zaggs on February 13, 2012 at 10:12 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

Mom cleaning your brains off the wall again?

KOOLAID2 on February 13, 2012 at 10:13 PM

What 2 consenting people do in their own home is their own business

Until I have to pay for it. Isn’t that what you just said about the child????

WryTrvllr on February 13, 2012 at 10:13 PM

cynccook on February 13, 2012 at 9:10 PM

I heard it was around 1,000 per day. I think it was Hannity’s radio show, but not 100% sure of that. But it was on Talk radio.

bluefox on February 13, 2012 at 10:15 PM

Too bad they can’t grow up to pay your social security.

WryTrvllr on February 13, 2012 at 10:10 PM

Those who are most for abortion are also the most in favor of Social Security.

It is funny how many conservatives are so totally hooked on social security and keeping it around. I personally say, if you are not willing to create the children who will pay for your social security, you should receive at most 1/5th the payment of someone with 4 children in your retirement years.

astonerii on February 13, 2012 at 10:16 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. Nuh uh.

I’ve always maintained it was absurd to imagine Romney was ever really “pro-choice”. You don’t get people more conservative in how they lead their lives than the Romneys. At the same time no compassionate human being could fail to see how tragic back alley abortions can be, so he was probably touched by those concerns. IIRC, he never liked that term and didn’t want to be labeled that way (he think he also rejected “pro-life” – a term I’ve never liked either, but it is what it is).

But what about someone who’s been secretly pro-life all along yet who … tolerated abortion in the name of getting elected?

If “tolerate” means giving lip service to something but not doing anything to actively promote an agenda, that’s a fair description. He promised not to change abortion existing laws and he didn’t. He was mostly a passive observer (until the ancillary stem cell issue came up). But there wasn’t much he could do about it anyway because of Roe v. Wade. All states can do is nibble around the edges (and hope judges don’t overturn their reforms). So yeah, it was words, just words.

This is one of the problems I’ve always had when Presidential candidates make abortion a flagship issue of their campaign (and/or when single issue voters make abortion the deciding issue). Other than providing moral leadership and appointing conservative judges, they have very little power.

And yes, there’s no way he’d flip on this issue if elected. Dittos for what he says about reversing ObamaCare (something Mitt’s Georgia co-chair, Atty General Sam Olens is arguing to the Supremes).

Buy Danish on February 13, 2012 at 10:17 PM

astonerii on February 13, 2012 at 10:08 PM

That’s too bad, thanks for your candor.

dmann on February 13, 2012 at 10:18 PM

So then States should be able to pass anti-masturbation laws, anti-swearing laws, anti mixed racial couples laws, or anti bondage laws. When a state can regulate morals to that degree its called a theocracy. What 2 consenting people do in their own home is their own business. Anyone who believes otherwise may as well support Obama because you are in fact for a huge overreaching government.

Zaggs on February 13, 2012 at 10:12 PM

Yeah Zaggs they should. When Loving v. Virginia was decided, it was only one of four states still not allowing mixed racial couples. Most states had voted to allow racially mixed marriage. The states take care of themselves. There are tons of laws that reach into your home. And no, Obama is regulating on a FEDERAL level. Things that work in Massachusetts don’ work in Tennessee and vice versa. I lived in Alabama which has anti-sex toy legislation on the book. I never got a knock on the door for anyone confiscating my vibrator.

melle1228 on February 13, 2012 at 10:19 PM

Yes, but I need to update my Firefox, so I figured that was the problem.

Pattosensei on February 13, 2012 at 10:08 PM

I just updated my Firefox about the same time the problem started.

JPeterman on February 13, 2012 at 10:19 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. CorporatePiggy on February 13, 2012 at 9:17 PM

This is the very kind of idiotic moral equivalence that is plunging this nation into a decadent spiral. So 91% of their clients did not murder their babies, only 9% did. Whoopdeefreakingdo!!!

We are supposed to think of all the good Planned Parenthood is doing when they’re not murdering babies. Didn’t I hear the same excuse about Hamas and Hesbollah, that they did a lot of good in the community by setting up clinics and food distribution centers, hence we should excuse their murderous behavior. So what if they kill a few Jews? So what if Planned Parenthood murders a few (million) babies, See all the good they do? Aren’t they swell?

Romney’s overt and candid support for abortion during his tenure as Governor of Massachusettes, whether he was lying about his position or not, has cast a pall of death over his candidacy. I wonder how many children died from abortive procedures during that period of time in the state he governed. And he never once spoke out in their behalf. How ironic. The most powerful man in the state couldn’t be bothered to help the most helpless. I wonder, how does he sleep at night?

ariel on February 13, 2012 at 10:19 PM

So then States should be able to pass anti-masturbation laws, anti-swearing laws, anti mixed racial couples laws, or anti bondage laws. When a state can regulate morals to that degree its called a theocracy.

The individual states can. Sorry, that’s how federalism works.

What 2 consenting people do in their own home is their own business. Anyone who believes otherwise may as well support Obama because you are in fact for a huge overreaching government.

Zaggs on February 13, 2012 at 10:12 PM

Even if they are related. Shelly, 26, wants to have sex with her father David, 58? That’s cool. They are two consenting adults. The government shouldn’t have laws against that. What they do in their home is their own business. They want to have a goat and a dog, join? No problem. Laws shouldn’t restrict their bedroom freedom!

Pattosensei on February 13, 2012 at 10:20 PM

Until I have to pay for it. Isn’t that what you just said about the child????

WryTrvllr

You have to pay for 2 guys having sex? Don’t know if I’d go admitting that in public.

Zaggs on February 13, 2012 at 10:20 PM

angrymike on February 13, 2012 at 10:11 PM

They are fools………..and Obama supports.

dmann on February 13, 2012 at 10:20 PM

I just updated my Firefox about the same time the problem started.

JPeterman on February 13, 2012 at 10:19 PM

No clue what the problem is, but it’s a small annoyance. I figure it will go away soon enough.

Pattosensei on February 13, 2012 at 10:21 PM

That’s too bad, thanks for your candor.

dmann on February 13, 2012 at 10:18 PM

Always try to be honest with all of you. I fail sometimes. John McCain pushing for and signing the TARP was the last straw for me. I will never again trust someone that is that moderate again. I think that if we would have stopped TARP or debt today would be about $3T less than it currently is. TARP set a new standard for size of government action that will never be decreased. It was the basis for Stimuless (sic) and Obamacare. Neither of which would have ever passed if it were not for TARP setting the standard. Obamacare needed a Trillion dollars for even the democrats to swallow!

astonerii on February 13, 2012 at 10:22 PM

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

Our Country is on the edge and we need a FIGHTER!! There are too many that are promoting Romney and they are not the Conservatives and that speaks volumns to me.

bluefox on February 13, 2012 at 10:23 PM

You have to pay for 2 guys having sex? Don’t know if I’d go admitting that in public.

Zaggs on February 13, 2012 at 10:20 PM

No I pay for the lifetime supply of AZT

WryTrvllr on February 13, 2012 at 10:23 PM

Yeah Zaggs they should. When Loving v. Virginia was decided, it was only one of four states still not allowing mixed racial couples. Most states had voted to allow racially mixed marriage. The states take care of themselves. There are tons of laws that reach into your home. And no, Obama is regulating on a FEDERAL level. Things that work in Massachusetts don’ work in Tennessee and vice versa. I lived in Alabama which has anti-sex toy legislation on the book. I never got a knock on the door for anyone confiscating my vibrator.

melle1228

So as long as they don’t come for you, your good. Isn’t that how most Nazi’s acted? Fact of the matter is trying to outlaw sex between gay people is just flat out wrong. It doesn’t affect you. I don’t care if it offends your morals. Its not the states job to tell you what is moral or not so long as no one else is effected.

Zaggs on February 13, 2012 at 10:23 PM

But you can regulate my trans fats if you like…/s

WryTrvllr on February 13, 2012 at 10:24 PM

Who cares, Mitt is irrelevant at this point.

tom daschle concerned on February 13, 2012 at 10:25 PM

I don’t care if it offends your morals. Its not the states job to tell you what is moral or not so long as no one else is effected.

Zaggs on February 13, 2012 at 10:23 PM

I am all for your version of it. Keep it in the bedroom and shut up about it in public. Thanks!

astonerii on February 13, 2012 at 10:25 PM

And the results of the antibiotic resistant TB

WryTrvllr on February 13, 2012 at 10:25 PM

You have to pay for 2 guys having sex? Don’t know if I’d go admitting that in public.

Zaggs on February 13, 2012 at 10:20 PM

If they are sexually irresponsible-yeah. Who do you supposes pays for AIDS treatment on some patients when someone gets AIDS from unprotective sex if they don’t have insurance? Yes, irresponsible sexual relations of hetero and homo have unintended consequence that involve us all. If we lived in a society where the government didn’t take my money to pay for those programs- the Meh. We don’t, and it does.

melle1228 on February 13, 2012 at 10:26 PM

Even if they are related. Shelly, 26, wants to have sex with her father David, 58? That’s cool. They are two consenting adults. The government shouldn’t have laws against that. What they do in their home is their own business. They want to have a goat and a dog, join? No problem. Laws shouldn’t restrict their bedroom freedom!

Pattosensei

If they want to, let them knock themselves out. Because odds are someone will find out and then they’ll face ridicule because of it. But why stop at anti-sodomy laws? Why not anti-porn laws as well? Why don’t you stand up and be counted for outlawing not just M rated games but T rated games as well?

Zaggs on February 13, 2012 at 10:26 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

Thank you!! Then what I heard on the radio last week of 1,000 abortions a day was correct, more or less. Sickening.

bluefox on February 13, 2012 at 10:27 PM

So as long as they don’t come for you, your good. Isn’t that how most Nazi’s acted? Fact of the matter is trying to outlaw sex between gay people is just flat out wrong. It doesn’t affect you. I don’t care if it offends your morals. Its not the states job to tell you what is moral or not so long as no one else is effected.

Zaggs on February 13, 2012 at 10:23 PM

Zaggs you are being overwrought. I specifically said in my previous post that I wouldn’t vote for anti-sodomy laws. I am about as socially conservative as they come, but I would vote against any state legislature who wanted to “outlaw” gay sex.

And yeah morality laws are a local issue. That is how the founders intended it to be.

melle1228 on February 13, 2012 at 10:30 PM

melle1228 on February 13, 2012 at 10:26 PM

Even with insurance, we ALL pay for risky behavior. Just ask the smokers. Or the Bungee jumpers. Sky divers. Pilots. Scuba Divers. Owners of Red sports cars. Volts. (Ha, got you on the last one!! They just fry early)

WryTrvllr on February 13, 2012 at 10:30 PM

Romney’s Planned Parenthood Questionnaire is here….

http://whynotromney.blogspot.com/2011/03/mitt-romneys-planned-parenthood.html

takeamericabackin10 on February 13, 2012 at 10:30 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

You might want to delete the cookies and temporary files if you are still having that problem. Is your Flash Player up to date?

bluefox on February 13, 2012 at 10:32 PM

Which is PRECISELY why federal health care coverage is an O’bomination.

WryTrvllr on February 13, 2012 at 10:32 PM

But why stop at anti-sodomy laws? Why not anti-porn laws as well? Why don’t you stand up and be counted for outlawing not just M rated games but T rated games as well?

Zaggs on February 13, 2012 at 10:26 PM

Yeah I think states can pass those laws too. I even think states can pass anti-oral sex between my husband. Good luck trying to get those law passed though. The wonderful thing about states having those powers-is that there is always another state to move to.

melle1228 on February 13, 2012 at 10:32 PM

I don’t care if it offends your morals. Its not the states job to tell you what is moral or not so long as no one else is eaffected.

Zaggs on February 13, 2012 at 10:23 PM

At least you’re consistent. As long as you are good with repealing all ethical laws, then I can’t fault you for having different beliefs. Just so you understand what it is you are saying. Incest, polygamy, bestiality, necrophilia, animal abuse, drug use, name the vice…so long as nobody is directly affected you’re cool.

I’ll hold you to that standard in from now on.

f they want to, let them knock themselves out. Because odds are someone will find out and then they’ll face ridicule because of it. But why stop at anti-sodomy laws? Why not anti-porn laws as well? Why don’t you stand up and be counted for outlawing not just M rated games but T rated games as well?

Zaggs on February 13, 2012 at 10:26 PM

You do understand what a state is, right? I just want to make sure before you continue down this “slippery-slope” argument any further.

In the extremely unlikely even that a state began to do those things, I’d probably just move to another one. There’s fifty to choose from.

Pattosensei on February 13, 2012 at 10:38 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.
r keller on February 13, 2012 at 9:20 PM

I agree, it’s our Liberty. People need to focus! They need to see the big picture.

I heard Jeff Sessions on Levin tonight. This Budget is a disaster.
The tax increases are massive and there are NO cuts. All of the tax increases are for spending!! Levin asked him if even a dime was cut and he said no.

bluefox on February 13, 2012 at 10:41 PM

Zaggs you are being overwrought. I specifically said in my previous post that I wouldn’t vote for anti-sodomy laws. I am about as socially conservative as they come, but I would vote against any state legislature who wanted to “outlaw” gay sex.

And yeah morality laws are a local issue. That is how the founders intended it to be.

melle1228 on February 13, 2012 at 10:30 PM

This too. You’ll find few self-proclaimed so-cons that want to make anti-sodomy laws. They simply just want you to keep private things private.

Pattosensei on February 13, 2012 at 10:41 PM

Gotta hand it to Mitt. Like Barry, he’ll be what ever you want.

All chameleons aren’t leftist.

GarandFan on February 13, 2012 at 10:42 PM

They simply just want you to keep private things private.

Pattosensei on February 13, 2012 at 10:41 PM

Exactly. What you do in the bedroom is your concern. Broadcast it to the world, it is no longer your concern alone.

astonerii on February 13, 2012 at 10:44 PM

Didn’t I hear the same excuse about Hamas and Hesbollah,
ariel on February 13, 2012 at 10:19 PM

Hamas and Hezbollah are analogous to Planned Parenthood?

You jumped so far over the shark there that you must be posting from Newt’s moon-base.

CorporatePiggy on February 13, 2012 at 10:50 PM

Exactly. What you do in the bedroom is your concern. Broadcast it to the world, it is no longer your concern alone.

astonerii on February 13, 2012 at 10:44 PM

I’ve always had the opinion that when you make your private life public then you have given up your privacy rights.

Why this Country is so obsessed with sex, I have no idea. No life=no sex; No Food=no sex; No water=no sex; no health=no sex etc.

bluefox on February 13, 2012 at 10:52 PM

Romney is pro-Romney. The rest of his positions are immaterial.

Archivarix on February 13, 2012 at 10:52 PM

You are the one constantly posting about it.

sharrukin on February 13, 2012 at 9:56 PM

Wouldn’t need to talk about it if Father Santorum would just let it go. But he can’t.

And such will be his campaign.

Good Lt on February 13, 2012 at 10:53 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

I don’t know why, but when I read that I thot of this:
“Poor Romney, he was born with a silver spoon in his mouth”, LOL

bluefox on February 13, 2012 at 10:56 PM

Why this Country is so obsessed with sex, I have no idea. No life=no sex; No Food=no sex; No water=no sex; no health=no sex etc.

bluefox on February 13, 2012 at 10:52 PM

Sex is so important to some people; it really should have its own step on Maslow’s hierarchy of needs..

melle1228 on February 13, 2012 at 10:56 PM

Good Lt on February 13, 2012 at 10:53 PM

and exactly why he is unelectable in the general

dmann on February 13, 2012 at 10:57 PM

Why not? Don’t you have convictions of what you think is right? Would you not want to share those convictions with others? I think it is amazing your hypocrisy in wanting to shut him up. He’s not talking about legislation, he’s talking about dialogue. Are you so afraid of someone making a case for Christian sexual morals?

Besides that (and this is the part I doubt you’ll reply to), the government is already in the business of regulating the sexual activities of others. In case you didn’t know, there are several sexual acts that are illegal nationwide. Unless you support the repeal of those acts, then you can’t honestly criticize Santorum for correctly pointing out that government (and he prefers the state or local, not the Fed) does have a reason to be involved in sexual activities. Good luck arguing this point.

Pattosensei on February 13, 2012 at 10:00 PM

Sex between consenting adults isn’t a crime and the world doesn’t live by ‘Christian sexual morality.’

Stop pretending you’re for limiting the size and scope of the government. You’re clearly not.

Good Lt on February 13, 2012 at 10:58 PM

If you really think that you are destroying an innocent life then you as a policy maker stand up for that innocent life

Can you point to a time as a “policy maker” that he did not stand up for innocent life?

You are confusing “policy maker” with activism against life.

As a policy maker Mitt has always stood for protecting life.

Pal2Pal on February 13, 2012 at 10:59 PM

and exactly why he is unelectable in the general

dmann on February 13, 2012 at 10:57 PM

Just you wait and see.

Good Lt on February 13, 2012 at 11:00 PM

Sex between consenting adults isn’t a crime and the world doesn’t live by ‘Christian sexual morality.’

Stop pretending you’re for limiting the size and scope of the government. You’re clearly not.

Good Lt on February 13, 2012 at 10:58 PM

That’s all you got is it? I noted that you wouldn’t be able to intelligently argue the point and would throw out unsubstantiated claims that are easily proven false simply by reading what I’ve posted in the time it took you to come up with this non-answer.

Pattosensei on February 13, 2012 at 11:02 PM

Sex between consenting adults isn’t a crime and the world doesn’t live by ‘Christian sexual morality.’

Stop pretending you’re for limiting the size and scope of the government. You’re clearly not.

Good Lt on February 13, 2012 at 10:58 PM

1.6 billion and growing do (actually even more strictly). Pretty much the rest are wasting away, albeit slowly.

WryTrvllr on February 13, 2012 at 11:02 PM

Sex is so important to some people; it really should have its own step on Maslow’s hierarchy of needs..

melle1228 on February 13, 2012 at 10:56 PM

LOL. I have an accounting background so I favor balance:-) And I like things in proper perspective.

bluefox on February 13, 2012 at 11:03 PM

Even if they are related. Shelly, 26, wants to have sex with her father David, 58? That’s cool. They are two consenting adults. The government shouldn’t have laws against that. What they do in their home is their own business. They want to have a goat and a dog, join? No problem. Laws shouldn’t restrict their bedroom freedom!

Pattosensei

If they’re of age and both consent, what business is it of yours what they do?

None, that’s what. Does that bother you?

Good Lt on February 13, 2012 at 11:03 PM

Stop pretending you’re for limiting the size and scope of the government. You’re clearly not.

Good Lt on February 13, 2012 at 10:58 PM

We are for small government–small federal government. We think government is a great thing when it is applied locally. People tend to have more power locally and know what their community needs best.

melle1228 on February 13, 2012 at 11:05 PM

1.6 billion and growing do (actually even more strictly). Pretty much the rest are wasting away, albeit slowly.

WryTrvllr on February 13, 2012 at 11:02 PM

Did you ask all of them? The answers you will get may shock you.

And what about the other 2/3 of the world’s population!

Good Lt on February 13, 2012 at 11:06 PM

“Poor Romney, he was born with a silver spoon in his mouth”, LOL

As I am very sure you are aware, that quote was not about Romney. You do know, BTW, that Romney’s grandfather and father had to dig potatoes in a field in order to eat, during the Depression. No silver spoons there. Just good ol’ fashioned hard work.

Pal2Pal on February 13, 2012 at 11:07 PM

We are for small government–small federal government. We think government is a great thing when it is applied locally. People tend to have more power locally and know what their community needs best.

melle1228 on February 13, 2012 at 11:05 PM

I’m for limiting ALL levels of government.

Good Lt on February 13, 2012 at 11:08 PM

bluefox on February 13, 2012 at 10:32 PM

Oddly enough that was exactly the first thing I did. Then I tried running a couple of different browsers chrome safari, firefox. Same thing. I think the site may be having an issue. Thanks.

Bmore on February 13, 2012 at 11:08 PM

Did you ask all of them? The answers you will get may shock you.

And what about the other 2/3 of the world’s population!

Good Lt on February 13, 2012 at 11:06 PM

Dunno. Let’s ask the Chinese, Japanese, Russians, English, Italians, Portugese,Irish, Scotts, Canadians, Hindus……

WryTrvllr on February 13, 2012 at 11:10 PM

If they’re of age and both consent, what business is it of yours what they do?

None, that’s what. Does that bother you?

Good Lt on February 13, 2012 at 11:03 PM

So long as you understand that you support legalizing incest, I’ve no problem with your argument. At least it’s consistent.

Also, you’ll have to note that my original argument is simply that Santorum supports the laws already in place regulating sexual behavior. I didn’t see you coming out in support of legalizing incest or complaining that it was illegal. I assumed you were fine with states making those laws.

As for my personal feelings. If they don’t tell me about it, then it isn’t my business. As soon as they make it public, then it is no longer private, now is it? I am not going to vote for legalizing incest, but I would vote against a federal law banning it. It should be a states issue (as Santorum also suggested).

BTW, thanks for actually deciding to debate. I honestly didn’t think you would.

Pattosensei on February 13, 2012 at 11:10 PM

Dunno. Let’s ask the Chinese, Japanese, Russians, English, Italians, Portugese,Irish, Scotts, Canadians, Hindus……

WryTrvllr on February 13, 2012 at 11:10 PM

Have fun.

The rest of will get on with our lives without caring whether or not they’re adhering to sexual morays from bronze-age Mesopotamia.

Good Lt on February 13, 2012 at 11:12 PM

You do know, BTW, that Romney’s grandfather and father had to dig potatoes in a field in order to eat, during the Depression. No silver spoons there. Just good ol’ fashioned hard work.

Pal2Pal on February 13, 2012 at 11:07 PM

And what does that have to do with Romney?

Did you know that Jimmy Carter was a self-made millionaire?

sharrukin on February 13, 2012 at 11:13 PM

If they’re of age and both consent, what business is it of yours what they do?

None, that’s what. Does that bother you?

Good Lt on February 13, 2012 at 11:03 PM

So long as you understand that you support legalizing incest, I’ve no problem with your argument. At least it’s consistent.

Also, you’ll have to note that my original argument is simply that Santorum supports the laws already in place regulating sexual behavior. I didn’t see you coming out in support of legalizing incest or complaining that it was illegal. I assumed you were fine with states making those laws.

As for my personal feelings. If they don’t tell me about it, then it isn’t my business. As soon as they make it public, then it is no longer private, now is it? I am not going to vote for legalizing incest, but I would vote against a federal law banning it. It should be a states issue (as Santorum also suggested).

BTW, thanks for actually deciding to debate. I honestly didn’t think you would.

Pattosensei on February 13, 2012 at 11:10 PM

Limiting government means limiting it. Not just for those things that liberals like.

Good Lt on February 13, 2012 at 11:14 PM

Have fun.

The rest of will get on with our lives without caring whether or not they’re adhering to sexual morays from bronze-age Mesopotamia.

Good Lt on February 13, 2012 at 11:12 PM

Hey. That’s funny!!! They can chuck a mean rock.

WryTrvllr on February 13, 2012 at 11:15 PM

Due to a tubal pregnancy at 28, I lost my ability to have children. Does that mean that I am damned for enjoying sex past that time? According to the puritanical supporting Santorum, I am doomed for having any sex that is not for procreation purposes.

Pal2Pal on February 13, 2012 at 11:17 PM

Due to a tubal pregnancy at 28, I lost my ability to have children. Does that mean that I am damned for enjoying sex past that time? According to the puritanical supporting Santorum, I am doomed for having any sex that is not for procreation purposes.

Pal2Pal on February 13, 2012 at 11:17 PM

Oh Puhlease.

WryTrvllr on February 13, 2012 at 11:19 PM

Limiting government means limiting it. Not just for those things that liberals like.

Good Lt on February 13, 2012 at 11:14 PM

That’s fine. I don’t think your opinions are mainstream, nor were they shared by the founders. I think you’d be surprised by how many people actually do agree with Santorum’s interpretation about the proper role of government.

Pattosensei on February 13, 2012 at 11:19 PM

Due to a tubal pregnancy at 28, I lost my ability to have children. Does that mean that I am damned for enjoying sex past that time? According to the puritanical supporting Santorum, I am doomed for having any sex that is not for procreation purposes.

Pal2Pal on February 13, 2012 at 11:17 PM

If you believe that you were either lied to or can’t read. This is far from Santorum’s position.

Pattosensei on February 13, 2012 at 11:20 PM

And what does that have to do with Romney?

More than an Ann Richards misquote does, for sure.

Pal2Pal on February 13, 2012 at 11:24 PM

If you believe that you were either lied to or can’t read. This is far from Santorum’s position.

Okay, then let’s let Ricky speak for himself:

It’s not okay because it’s a license to do things in the sexual realm that is counter to how things are supposed to be. They’re supposed to be within marriage, for purposes that are, yes, conjugal … but also procreative. That’s the perfect way that a sexual union should happen. We take any part of that out, we diminish the act. And if you can take one part out that’s not for purposes of procreation, that’s not one of the reasons, then you diminish this very special bond between men and women

Pal2Pal on February 13, 2012 at 11:31 PM

Jackasses,

Lincoln promised he wasnt an abolitionist so he could get elected and then he became the great emancipator.

The idea that a person will become governor of Massachussetts and run on changing the law to pro-life is an absurdity. It just means no republicans would be in office in the state. You do the best you can with the cards you are dealt.

Grown up understand this. Allah and the rest of you aholes dont.

Jailbreak on February 13, 2012 at 11:37 PM

Okay, then let’s let Ricky speak for himself:

It’s not okay because it’s a license to do things in the sexual realm that is counter to how things are supposed to be. They’re supposed to be within marriage, for purposes that are, yes, conjugal … but also procreative. That’s the perfect way that a sexual union should happen. We take any part of that out, we diminish the act. And if you can take one part out that’s not for purposes of procreation, that’s not one of the reasons, then you diminish this very special bond between men and women
Pal2Pal on February 13, 2012 at 11:31 PM

I’d rather deal with that then someone who votes “present” on sticking scissors in the head of a term baby.

Can’t wait for the next installment of the never ending New Yorker magazine series on how there are no marriagable men left anymore.

WryTrvllr on February 13, 2012 at 11:39 PM

Mitt Romney like Ronald Reagan on Abortion switch

Ronald Reagan had a similar shift in views on the abortion issue, according to a Los Angeles Times article headlined “Romney isn’t the first to flip on abortion.”

In 1967, then-California Gov. Reagan signed a liberal abortion law legalizing the procedure in cases where a woman’s mental as well as physical health was at risk.

The number of abortions in California soared after the bill was passed, and Reagan came to regret singing it, the Times reported. By the time he ran for president in 1980, Reagan had declared his support for a constitutional amendment prohibiting all abortions except to save the life of a woman.

Well so Reagan was a RINO with no core, who saw that coming?! Allah, in the name of integrity, would you care to add this to your piece as an addendum?

xxessw on February 13, 2012 at 11:42 PM

I literally guffawed at my radio this morning; local talkshow guy Mark Davis (subs for Rush fairly frequently) actually said he believes Romney when Romney says that he’s now pro-life. And that even though Romney was pro-mandate at the state level, he’s not pro-mandate at the federal level.

I laughed out loud and shouted, “all evidence to the contrary, of course.”

Seriously, it’s amazing the level to which my fellow ‘conservatives’ will twist themselves into pretzels in a desperate attempt to believe any old damn thing Romney tells them he’s really serious about – you know, this time. I mean, we all know he said the precise and exact opposite multiple times before, but *this* time it’s true. No really.

/s

Midas on February 13, 2012 at 11:47 PM

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?

Abortion is, for lack of a better phrase, the “law of the land.”

And that’s how it’s going to stay.

Despite what so-cons really believe or want, abortion rights are not going to be going away…..ever. Best you can hope for is to defund groups like Planned Parenthood.

Vyce on February 13, 2012 at 11:50 PM

I think I’d rather pay for the contraception than the child.

Zaggs on February 13, 2012 at 9:59 PM

False choices. If we’re going to preach personal responsibility, the answer is neither. You’re on your own along with your family. So it behooves you to have good relations with them so they’ll have your back if you screw up.

AH_C on February 13, 2012 at 11:50 PM

Jailbreak on February 13, 2012 at 11:37 PM

You’ll have to forgive us aholes who aren’t in a hurry to support an overtly manipulative lying sack of excrement politician who will say anything to get elected. You may like that kind of thing, which might cause one to wonder why you don’t like Obama, but many of the rest of us would actually prefer someone who has some principles and *isn’t* willing to sell them all and openly proclaim to be something he isn’t for the sake of getting elected.

In the end the question is this: was Romney lying *then* just to get elected in Mass, or is he lying *now*? And how the f@#$ do you know which is the case? At least one of those scenarios is unquestionably true – and you can’t honestly know which one – so… who’s the dumbass here; the ones that would prefer some honesty from their candidates, or the ones who know they are lying sacks of crap, don’t know whether they’re being lied to now or not, but choose to support the lying sack of crap anyway… ?

That’s a rhetorical question, you don’t need to answer.

Midas on February 13, 2012 at 11:52 PM

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?

Right alongside someone who’s been secretly anti-racism all along, yet who… tolerates lynching in order to become a Klan Grand Kleagle.

Kent18 on February 13, 2012 at 11:53 PM

Comment pages: 1 2 3 4