Posted on 01/31/2008 11:37:43 AM PST by AFA-Michigan
BOSTON -– In a shocking turn-around, Massachusetts’s governor Mitt Romney announced yesterday that Roman Catholic and other private hospitals in the state will be forced to offer emergency contraception to sexual assault victims under new state legislation, regardless of the hospitals’ moral position on the issue.
The Republican governor had earlier defended the right of hospitals to avoid dispensing the “morning-after pill” on the grounds of moral dissent. The Boston Globe reported that Romney’s flip on the issue came after his legal counsel, Mark D. Nielsen, concluded Wednesday that the new law supersedes a preexisting statute related to the abortifacient pill.
The pill, a high dose of hormones, acts as an abortifacient by preventing a fertilized egg from implanting in the uterine wall, thereby causing the death of the child.
The Department of Public Health issued a statement earlier in the week allowing hospitals to dissent from the new law, under a previous statute that protects private hospitals from being forced to provide abortion services or contraceptives.
Daniel Avila, associate director for policy and research for the Massachusetts Catholic Conference, said yesterday in an interview with the Boston Globe that Catholic hospitals still have legal grounds to avoid providing the pill, despite the new legislation. The new bill did not expressly repeal the original law protecting the rights of Catholic facilities.
“As long as that statute was left standing, I think those who want to rely on that statute for protection for what they’re doing have legal grounds.” (Boston Globe)
The Conference has been fighting this new legislation for several years. In 2003, in a statement to the Joint Committee on Health Care, they outlined their concern over the proposed Emergency Contraception Access Act (ECAA), stating: “It will force Catholic medical personnel to distribute contraceptives even in cases involving the risk of early abortion. It also furthers a national strategy ultimately directed towards coercing Catholic facilities to provide insurance coverage for, and to perform, abortions.”
The governor’s turnaround is especially unexpected since Romney has been presenting himself as a conservative on social issues in anticipation of a possible run for the presidency in 2008. This decision will certainly undermine the credibility of his conservatism with Republican Party members that may have been inclined to support him up to now.
“He has clearly stated, over and over again, he IS prolife, but respects the law.”
Which as a chickes&^% position...
Postings like this make me question the pro-life movement. They are as ruthless and unprincipled as the NOW crowd. Any means huh???
AFA-Michigan (On a mission from god)
This guy should be doing tricks in a high-wire circus act or making mega bucks as high paid attorney for criminal celebrities, not running for President of the United States.
Was he supposed to flaunt the law and impose his own beliefs on the state? I thought that we conservatives look down on such behavior, at least when a liberal does it.
It seems that many of the pro-life "conservatives" want presidents and governors to ignore the law and rule by decree. Did they like it when Bill Clinton did that? Mitt governed as conservatively as possible given that he was Governor of Massachusetts, the only state to vote for McGovern in 1972. People get all bent out of shape that he appointed some Democrat liberal judges to some of the courts in Massachusetts. Well he had to get his appointees approved by the state legislature. There's no way the state senate would approve a strict constructionist.
Romney did not raise any legal objection to exempting Catholic hospitals until after he was criticized by his liberal Lt Gov and the Boston Globe.
But I'm sure it's just a coincidence of timing that right after Kerry Healey & Ellen Macnamara went ballistic on him, his lawyer just happened to decide that what was legal yesterday was illegal today.
You really leave out a lot of imformation to make your sick case!
“Why I vetoed contraception bill,” The Boston Globe, 7/26/2005)
http://www.boston.com/yourlife/health/women/articles/2005/07/26/why_i_vetoed_contraception_bill/
So, the Church should just shut up? Give me a break!
You really ought to capitalize the name of the deity.
as he needs it to be revised /sarc
There are many Conservatives that don’t agree with the Catholic rather extreme position on birth control. To offer the morning after pill is good prevention. I have no problem with PREVENTING a pregnancy.
Why didn't he do this BEFORE he signed the law?
He would probably be more liberal than McCain in a general election. At least McCain hasn’t proposed state run health care.
disclosure: I am voting for that Huckleberry guy (in protest of the two leading RINOs)
I read all the posts here. Based on the article, Romney got legal advice from his attorney. He did not get a court mandate. I think if he was as passionate as he claims, he would have told his attorney to take it to court. I want to see a court in the United States tell a private Catholic Hospital that they are forced to provide abortions or the morning after pill and settle it with the Supreme court once and for all. I know the article states that the Catholic Church remains exempt, but as much as I am happy to know that, why should a Baptist or any other Church NOT be exempt. He should have fought it.
You didn’t read the article did you?
Even Ronald Reagan changed positions during his lifetime. He wasn’t always a Republican.
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.