I just wish I could find Mitt Romney trustworthy. About the $50, I read that he wasn’t stating the truth and instead of taking orders from the courts, he gave up authority to a board onto which he appointed someone from Planned Parenthood.
I don’t see how someone can change on so many issues without being able to tell the moral story that has a ring of validity about it. He’s told the story about his change of heart on human life — but I read that the person he was in communication with has a different version.
About the whole set of changes, he seems to merely say, “The older I get the wiser Ronald Reagan becomes.” That just doesn’t provide a meaty enough explanation.
I've read the argument. Accepting the truth of the opposition, I will note that the person was not pro-life, and the objection was to Romney's characterization that the doctor said the embryos were "killed". But that is a semantic issue of the pro-life movement. A pro-abortion doctor would never use "kill" for an embryo. But Romney, having come to a pro-life position, would characterize the statement that the embryos are "destroyed" as saying the embryos were "killed". He would remember the conversation that way, because "destroy" for a human is kill. SO I don't buy that as an argument against Romney. As to the abortions, there is nothing in the record supporting ANY positive step by Romney to make that happen, and the medical plan that was being expanded already HAD the "$50 abortions", he didn't write it into the law. Since even the new pro-life Romney (and in fact most of the pro-life movement) supports abortion to save a mother's life, we would expect a medical insurance plan to offer medical coverage for the abortion procedure to save the mother's life. But the court would not allow abortion to be restricted to that, as the court already ruled that all medically necessary abortions had to be covered by medicare. And as I've noted, and nobody has shown differently, the entire medical insurance plan restricts treatment to "medically necessary" procedures. The abortion coverage does not have an "exception" from that restriction, and nobody has yet shown me anything in thet plan that says it covers therapeutic abortions. If you have a link to that specific statement, please provide it, but I've read most of the documents and don't think you will find it. I can't agree with the seating of planned parenthood, but realise that they are a major women's health provider, and abortion is legal and is only 3% of their work, so it is really hard to figure out how you ban them from the board, if the legislature wants them on. We hate them because of their politics, but abortion is unfortunately legal.