Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: CharlesWayneCT; rhinohunter

Would it be more accurate then to say that Romney doesn’t take a stand against the Culture of Death... that he surrenders... he allows it to happen?

Like Pontius Pilate...


44 posted on 12/30/2007 7:27:26 AM PST by Saint Athanasius ("I've noticed that everyone who is for abortion has already been born." - Ronald Reagan)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies ]


To: Saint Athanasius

There are levels of “stands” to take. Most of us have decided to stay with the legal responses, rather than illegal responses.

I would expect an elected official not to engage in civil disobedience. That’s for regular folks who have not sworn an oath to uphold the law.

But yes, the argument that people are making about Romney is that he did not take a sufficient stand against the morning-after pill in this case. Which itself is on the fringe of the fight for life, and something I don’t think many people would go to jail over.

I think vetoing the legislation and then trying to maintain the previous law’s restrictions when the new law specifically excluded that restriction was taking a stand.

If it hadn’t been so clear that the law required ruling against the hospitals, I’m certain the legislature would have simply passed a new law making it clear.

In fact, the fight in the courts probably not that the law has been interepreted incorrectly, but more likely a claim that the law itself is unconstitutional, violating the religious conscious of the hospital.

In this instance, I would have lobbied my representatives to allow the exception. But in general there is a valid point to be made for government requiring standard treatment. Imagine a hospital run by Jehovah’s Witnesses that refuses to provide blood transfusions for example. You wouldn’t want to be transported to that hospital.

In this case, if you were a woman who didn’t believe the morning-after pill was really an abortion pill, or a woman who believed in abortion, you would be upset if you were taken to a hospital that refused to give you the legal treatment you wanted, especially if it meant you had to go get a more serious abortion operation later.

So from the pro-life perspective, I think hospitals should be given an exception, but I understand why the legislature ruled as it did.

In fact, I imagine that even in states that eventually ban abortion, even if they ban abortion for rape, they will probably NOT ban the morning-after pill. In fact, it may be the pill that makes it possible to ban abortion for rape, something that right now is so politically hard that our best pro-life candidate (well, at least the man the National Right To Life has given their endorsement to) supports legal abortion for rape victims (which means he probably supports the morning-after pill for those cases as well, although he hasn’t written about it).


47 posted on 12/30/2007 1:53:35 PM PST by CharlesWayneCT
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson