Mitt Romney may want to go back to a strategy of staying out of sight, raising lots of money and basically waiting for the competition to shoot themselves in the foot. Every time he opens his mouth lately it seems he draws fire, particularly when he passed on signing an anti-abortion pledge put forward by the Susan B. Anthony list. Well, Mitt wants you to know that the whiners and complainers have got it all wrong, and he took to the pages of National Review Online to apply some certitude to the matter.

I am pro-life and believe that abortion should be limited to only instances of rape, incest, or to save the life of the mother.

I support the reversal of Roe v. Wade, because it is bad law and bad medicine. Roe was a misguided ruling that was a result of a small group of activist federal judges legislating from the bench.

I support the Hyde Amendment, which broadly bars the use of federal funds for abortions. And as president, I will support efforts to prohibit federal funding for any organization like Planned Parenthood, which primarily performs abortions or offers abortion-related services.

I will reinstate the Mexico City Policy to ensure that nongovernmental organizations that receive funding from America refrain from performing or promoting abortion services, as a method of family planning, in other countries.

It goes on from there with a rather comprehensive laundry list of pro life talking points. So if he’s on the same page with everyone else who did sign the pledge, why did he take a pass on it?

As much as I share the goals of the Susan B. Anthony List, its well-meaning pledge is overly broad and would have unintended consequences. That is why I could not sign it. It is one thing to end federal funding for an organization like Planned Parenthood; it is entirely another to end all federal funding for thousands of hospitals across America. That is precisely what the pledge would demand and require of a president who signed it.

The pledge also unduly burdens a president’s ability to appoint the most qualified individuals to a broad array of key positions in the federal government. I would expect every one of my appointees to carry out my policies on abortion and every other issue, irrespective of their personal views.

These pledges are mostly window dressing anyway, much like the no new taxes pledges that make the rounds every two years. And the wording in this one, particularly in determining who would meet the bar before a nomination or appointment was made, is so vague that the candidate could dance around it in a lot of cases anyway. That’s why it’s rather puzzling that Mitt would open himself up to this sort of broadside. After all, it’s not like he really needs any headlines at the moment.

In any event, read the explanation and judge for yourself. But expect this to come up the next time all these folks meet for a debate.