Supporting the HLA??? That’s not what Romney said yesterday:
ROMNEY: “And ultimately, as, as an aspirational goal, I would love it if America came to a point where we’re not today, where the people of America would, would welcome a society that did not have abortion. But that’s not where we are, and so I’m not promoting or fighting for a constitutional amendment to ban abortion in all 50 states.”
Here’s the full context so folks can parse it for themselves:
MR. RUSSERT: But when you say you support a human life amendment to ban all abortions across the country, what would—form would that take? If a woman had an abortion, would she be perceived a criminal? Would a doctor who performed it be perceived a criminal? You talked about your family relative who died from an illegal abortion, and yet President Romney is saying ban all abortion. And what would be the legal consequences to people who participated in that procedure?
GOV. ROMNEY: Well, let’s do two parts to that. First of all, my view is that the right next step in the, in the fight to preserve the sanctity of life is to see Roe v. Wade overturned and then return to the states and to the elected representatives of the people the ability to deal with, with life and abortion on their own. And so...
MR. RUSSERT: But, Governor... allow abortion, others wouldn’t.
GOV. ROMNEY: So that...
MR. RUSSERT: But, Governor, play that out. Some states would allow abortion, others wouldn’t.
GOV. ROMNEY: Right. Yes.
MR. RUSSERT: So back to your relative.
GOV. ROMNEY: Mm-hmm.
MR. RUSSERT: They cross the border into another state...
GOV. ROMNEY: Mm-hmm.
MR. RUSSERT: ...or they stay in their own state and have an illegal abortion. What would be the consequences? Would they be...
GOV. ROMNEY: Let me get, let me get that. I’ll get to the consequences.
MR. RUSSERT: Please.
GOV. ROMNEY: But I want to point out that the first step, in my view, is that Roe v. Wade be overturned. And ultimately, as, as an aspirational goal, I would love it if America came to a point where we’re not today, where the people of America would, would welcome a society that did not have abortion. But that’s not where we are, and so I’m not promoting or fighting for a constitutional amendment to ban abortion in all 50 states. I am fighting for an overturning of Roe v. Wade.
And the consequences? They would be like the consequences associated with the bill relating to partial birth abortion, which, of course, does not punish the woman. You, you wouldn’t—I don’t think anyone is calling for—maybe some of them, but no one I know of is calling for punishing the, the mother, punishing the woman.
In a related matter, Romney also said this in his interview yesterday:
MR. RUSSERT: Do you believe life begins at conception?
GOV. ROMNEY: I do. I believe, I believe from a, from a, a political perspective that life begins at conception. I, I don’t, I don’t pretend to know, if you will, from a theological standpoint when life begins. But...
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22273924/page/3/
The difference is that for Mitt it is an aspirational goal of is. He will support it. He does endorse it as part of the GOP platform. And he would sign it.
Additionally, Mitt supports a state ban on abortion in his state should it come to that if Roe v Wade is overturned. Your candidate does not say he would support these things --- see post #234 for links.
Romney advisor Jim Bopp, a leading pro-life lawyer who serves as the top attorney for National Right to Life and other pro-life groups, tells LifeNews.com Romney's two positions go hand in hand:
Bopp, who wrote the amendment that appears in the Republican Party platform, said Romney "views the Human Life Amendment as an aspirational goal, which we hope and pray we eventually can achieve."
"In the meantime, the first important step toward that goal is reversal of Roe v. Wade, and thereby returning the matter to the states, through appointment of strict constructionist judges," Bopp added.
Bopp said Romney's approach is not an "either/or" but rather a "two-step process" of toppling Roe followed by a full move to amend the Constitution.
"The reversal of Roe be an important step in that direction," Bopp explained.
He told LifeNews.com the two-pronged strategy is necessary because there aren't enough votes for an amendment in Congress while overturning Roe could be one vote away on the Supreme Court.
It would allow for the protection of as many unborn children as possible in the short term while a human life amendment is pursued.
That squares with the pro-life movement's long-stated goals of protecting as many unborn children as possible as soon as possible -- first through getting judges on the Supreme Court to overturn Roe and also through a federal amendment for long-term legal protection.