Posted on 06/18/2007 11:04:05 AM PDT by asparagus
In chatting with Andrew Sullivan on Friday’s show, I had something of an epiphany regarding the Romney campaign, especially regarding Romney’s much-reported change of heart regarding abortion. According to the conventional media narrative, the story goes something like this: Mitt Romney was pro-choice and always had been pro-choice. Stunned by the creation of a Harvard program that planned on creating embryos, harvesting their stem cells, and then destroying the embryos, Romney suddenly had an awakening and became pro-life.
I don’t know where this narrative came from, but it’s wrong in a couple of critical aspects. Mitt Romney always thought abortion was wrong; he was never a pro-choice politician who thought abortion was a value-neutral exercise. The Road to Damascus experience that the Harvard program triggered concerned his support for Roe v. Wade and his sense that a woman’s right to choose trumped the state’s interest in protecting the fetus. I realize that some people may consider this a distinction without a difference; for others, it might mean something. It might even mean a lot.
YOU GOTTA REMEMBER, I was there in 1994 when Romney ran against Ted Kennedy in 1994. At the time, preserving a woman’s right to choose was a core part of his platform. I’m sure you’ve all seen the relevant You-Tube a few hundred times by now. In spite of his commitment to choice, Mitt Romney was still an unsatisfactory candidate for groups like Planned Parenthood and NARAL. Inquiring minds might want to know why.
In ’94, Romney ran afoul of the abortion rights lobby because the abortion rights lobby has always maintained that abortion is not a bad thing and Romney refused to agree with them on that key point. Groups like NARAL and Planned Parenthood bristle at the Clintonian line about abortion – “Safe, legal and rare” – because the “rare” part implies that there’s something wrong with abortion. In the eyes of NARAL, an abortion is no more a moral concern than a pedicure. And please note, I’m not even taking into account certain wackadoos (or perhaps I should say wackadettes) who think each abortion should trigger a celebration because it strikes a blow to a repressive patriarchy.
While Romney was pro-choice, he never told NARAL or Planned Parenthood what they wanted to hear regarding his views on the morality of abortion. His critics who think he’ll say anything to please might want to ponder this political moment. Romney paid a high price for this position which in terms of practical impact was purely symbolic and rhetorical. In the Fall of 1994, Ted Kennedy routinely derided Romney as “multiple choice Mitt” because Romney would not agree with the NARAL-mandated position on the morality of abortion.
When he ran for governor in 2002, Romney’s position infuriated the left even more. Unlike in 1994 when Romney ran a long shot campaign, in 2002 Romney had a really good chance. His position remained the same. His official stance was that he realized if elected, he would be representing a pro-choice state and thus would not limit a woman’s right to choose regardless of his personal feelings. That was pretty much his exact formulation. Once again, he refused to tell abortion proponents what they wanted to hear, and he again tasted their wrath.
SO WHAT HAPPENED AT HARVARD in 2005? The light bulb that went on for him in that Harvard lab had nothing to do with the morality of abortion. Romney always thought abortion was wrong, and was always clear enough on that point to earn the abortion lobby’s hostility. What changed was his attitude regarding public policy on abortion. When Romney entered that lab, he thought the Roe v. Wade-conferred woman’s right to choose was good policy. When he walked out of that lab, he felt differently. So, again, what exactly happened in that lab?
In that lab, Mitt Romney saw the results of 30+ years of ruinous social policy. The judicial legislating done by the Supreme Court in Roe v. Wade had run completely amuck. The “safe, legal and rare” formulation that the Democratic Party of the 1990’s had settled on had either been disingenuous or discarded. At America’s premiere academic institution, life would be created and then destroyed for the furtherance of science.
So Romney had a transformation on a matter of social policy. On the underlying issue regarding the morality of abortion, he didn’t move – he always believed abortion was wrong. What he saw was that the emphasis on a woman’s right to choose had driven our society in a horrifying direction. There had already been 30 million deaths. The future, given the further devaluation of life that the Harvard program represented, looked even worse.
I WOULDN’T LOOK FOR MITT to say the following on the campaign trail, but I would imagine he still sympathizes with a woman who wants her right to choose. But he has had an irrevocable and understandable change of heart – Society’s and the Supreme Court’s sympathy for that right has led us to a moral catastrophe.
He’s spoken about his transformation on the stump, and his campaign has dealt with the issue, but I think all their efforts in this regard have lacked sufficient clarity. The campaign’s goal has been to make sure voters realize that Mitt Romney is now pro-life and that he’s not at all squishy on the subject. From a campaigning perspective, this makes sense, but the narrative regarding what happened on his personal Road to Damascus got muddled somewhere along the way.
I also would be skeptical of a 50-something guy suddenly deciding that abortion was wrong. But that’s not at all what happened with Mitt Romney.
The article raises several good points, namely that Mitt has always been personally been opposed to abortion.
I was anti-abortion because of a strong sense that it was morally wrong but I made a shift in the 90s to understand that it was also a civil rights issue and ultimately, that it defined our times as being a prolife or a prodeath culture. I have oddly enough, Nat Hentoff and JPII respectively to thank for those positions.
"How is it better to argue, essentially, Romney has always thought abortion is murder, but only recently has he decided to rise above politics and stand on that principle? But he has always believed it was wrong? It seems that it would say more about his character if he legitimately believed abortion was morally neutral until very recently. To suggest that he only recently had the courage of his long-term convictions seems to say that he wanted to be governor of Massachussetts more than he cared about the lives he believed were being taken."
-manfred
How does a real conservative become governor of the most liberal state in the union?
Interesting article ,thanks for posting .
Governor Mitt Romney, who has said his abortion stance dates to his mother's 1970 run for US Senate, released a campaign document yesterday that an aide said showed his mother supported abortion rights.
Lenore Romney, an unsuccessful candidate for US Senate in Michigan, said in her platform, ''I support and recognize the need for more liberal abortion rights while reaffirming the legal and medical measures needed to protect the unborn and pregnant woman [sic]." She also endorsed ''greatly expanded programs of providing adequate family planning services to all those who want but can't afford them," adding that ''I would oppose any governmental coercion of parents."
In an October 1994 debate with US Senator Edward M. Kennedy, Democrat of Massachusetts, Romney said: ''I believe that abortion should be safe and legal in this country. I have since the time that my mom took that position when she ran in 1970 as a US Senate candidate. I believe that since Roe v. Wade has been the law for 20 years we should sustain and support it."
He also said during the 1994 campaign that his view was shaped by the abortion-related death of a relative in the 1960s.
This guy never hammers it home does he? He is not my pick for President. He is way too phony for me.
Boy, they just keep spinning this.
All I can say is that if he knew abortion was wrong, but promised he would do nothing to oppose it while he was governor, then he DELIBERATELY chose to condone this evil.
I don’t see why that makes him look better. That’s been my problem all along—that he seems capable of doing just about anything if it’s necessary to further his career.
In view of a recent decision of the United States Supreme Court, we feel it necessary to restate the position of the Church on abortion in order that there be no misunderstanding of our attitude.
The Church opposes abortion and counsels its members not to submit to or perform an abortion except in the rare cases where, in the opinion of competent medical counsel, the life or good health of the mother is seriously endangered or where the pregnancy was caused by rape and produces serious emotional trauma in the mother. Even then it should be done only after counseling with the local presiding priesthood authority and after receiving divine confirmation through prayer.
Abortion must be considered one of the most revolting and sinful practices in this day, when we are witnessing the frightening evidence of permissiveness leading to sexual immorality.
Members of the Church guilty of being parties to the sin of abortion must be subjected to the disciplinary action of the councils of the Church as circumstances warrant. In dealing with this serious matter, it would be well to keep in mind the word of the Lord stated in the 59th section of the Doctrine and Covenants, verse 6, “Thou shalt not steal; neither commit adultery, nor kill, nor do anything like unto it.” [D&C 59:6]
As to the amenability of the sin of abortion to the laws of repentance and forgiveness, we quote the following statement made by President David O. McKay and his counselors, Stephen L Richards and J. Reuben Clark, Jr., which continues to represent the attitude and position of the Church:
“As the matter stands today, no definite statement has been made by the Lord one way or another regarding the crime of abortion. So far as is known, he has not listed it alongside the crime of the unpardonable sin and shedding of innocent human blood. That he has not done so would suggest that it is not in that class of crime and therefore that it will be amenable to the laws of repentance and forgiveness.”
This quoted statement, however, should not, in any sense, be construed to minimize the seriousness of this revolting sin.
The First Presidency
Harold B. Lee
N. Eldon Tanner
Marion G. Romney
(Marion G. Romney is Mitt's father's cousin.)
The problem with this position is, it doesn't lend itself to the bumper sticker/sloganeering world of politics. Plus, it doesn't quite fit into either the pro-choice or pro-life camp's definitions of what it means to be "on their side." So are Mormon's pro-life or pro-choice? Abortion is a grievous, "revolting" sin and yet there are rare circumstances in which, after sincerely seeking for and obtaining divine guidance, it may be permissible. But, given the seriousness of this sin, in nearly all cases, abortion will not be the answer.
So, in that sense, Mormons are very much pro-life. But since there is that exception, choice enters into the equation but not in the way pro-choicers view it. All choices have consequence and when matters of such import are decided, it must be with the guidance of the Lord in accordance to his will and that's something that the left and many in the middle, just aren't going to understand. So, as you can see, this just doesn't lend itself to an easy sound-bite, lapel button or bumper sticker, but it is a principled position.
Hey, I may be biased, but it seems that nobody is picking up on the fact that though Mitt Romney campaigned as pro-choice, that he would keep abortion laws the way they were in Massachusetts, he kept his promise and prevented new, more liberal laws from being adopted. Perhaps some would have preferred that Mitt run as pro-life and lose the election to a more pro-choice candidate. Even though Mitt Romney moved to pro-life during his term, he did not attempt to roll back abortion laws (not that he could have anyway with a liberal legislature). He kept his promises. Given his commitment to pro-life causes now, I see no reason why Mitt won’t keep his promises as President. People complain that he changed positions, but noone is saying that Mitt doesn’t keep promises. If he says he will fight for pro-life issues, you can bet that he will do so. His record supports that.
Ironically, Mitt's refrain on abortion did not even include that "rare" caveat. He said over and over again: safe and legal, safe and legal, woman's right to choose must be protected.
Anyway, Mitt's supposed epiphany on abortion and the Harvard researcher/stem cell thing has been pretty well debunked as a cover story. Mitt was supporting embryonic stem cell research well AFTER such research supposedly turned him pro-life.
Emergency contraception, for example.
Mitt promised the pro-abortion lobby he supported expanding emergency contraception.
Then, as he prepared to run for president, he vetoed legislation to that effect (nice PR, but purely symbolic because his veto was overridden -- but the abortion folks were pissed that he broke his promise), and then promised Catholic hospitals they would be exempt from the requirement, as per his administration had determined.
After a few days of criticism from the Boston Globe and his Lt Gov, Mitt chickened out and broke his promise to Catholics and said he legally could not exempt them from the legislation, even though he'd previously determined that he could.
Just one issue where Mitt broke promises to people on both sides when caught in his pander dance.
You of course are referring to a sloppy MSM hit piece, which is clearly refuted in the piece by Romney spokesman. The link is here: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1850546/posts?q=1&;page=1
The article title uses the word “myth”, which instantly discredits the source. Myths develop over hundreds of years, not election cycles. You want to trust ABC News to be fair and accurate, go ahead. Just don’t complain when Fred is being unfairly attacked in ‘08.
Yes, a Romney spokesman tried to spin one of the three major pieces of evidence that Romney's supposed epiphany was a cover story.
The researcher in question said Romney's version of events was exaggerated and that Mitt didn't register those kind of objections at the time; Mitt was supporting embryonic stem cell research 6 months after it supposedly turned him pro-life; and Mitt kept up his consistent record of naming mostly liberal Democrats to judgeships.
Hey, I may be biased, but it seems that nobody is picking up on the fact that though Mitt Romney campaigned as pro-choice, that he would keep abortion laws the way they were in Massachusetts, he kept his promise and prevented new, more liberal laws from being adopted. Perhaps some would have preferred that Mitt run as pro-life and lose the election to a more pro-choice candidate. Even though Mitt Romney moved to pro-life during his term, he did not attempt to roll back abortion laws (not that he could have anyway with a liberal legislature). He kept his promises. Given his commitment to pro-life causes now, I see no reason why Mitt won’t keep his promises as President. People complain that he changed positions, but noone is saying that Mitt doesn’t keep promises. If he says he will fight for pro-life issues, you can bet that he will do so. His record supports that.I concluded the same a few months ago when I researched Mitt Romney's record. And now Dean Barnett has brought it all into sharp focus. Thanks for posting Dean's excellent analysis.
A good article and thanks for the ping. Dean Barnett is the gentleman I told you about (Mitt Romney’s driver in the 1994 campaign) who guest hosted for Hugh Hewitt last Friday, and who said he was struck by how personally conservative Romney was.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.