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.
WBUR Radio, December 9, 2005:
http://realserver.bu.edu:8080/ramgen/w/b/wbur/wburnews/2005/me_1209_2.rm
Two things to listen for:
1. Romney explaining what he believes “in my heart of hearts.”
2. The Massachusetts Citizens for Life spokesman publicly criticizing Romney, notable since only a year later — after receiving a $15,000 contribution from Romney — it was Mass Cits for Life who “saw the light” and thereafter signed a letter saying how “pro-life” Romney is.
“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.”
Self bumping will put hair on your palms and make you go blind. (At least that is what I’ve heard.)
LMAO!
Gee, I thought that Mr. Romney was a convinced pro-LIFER by the end of 2005.
Guess he’s just a convinced pro-ROMNEYER.
And folks want me to vote for this fraud?
So, Governor Romney's good-faith effort to comply with the law is somehow non-conservative??
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.
Mitt consulted with his attorney and tried his best to follow the law. That's a trait I want in the President of the US.
A long list of Mitt flip flops was posted on MSDNC this am.
It’s here:
http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2008/01/30/624574.aspx
Scroll down to the words: “No matter how much he spends Mitt can’t fun from his record. He is not honest and he is a conservative only in presidenbtial elections.”
He approved it for sexual assault victims, good for him.
Anyone knows how long it took for Reagan to change some of his democratic views to republican views?
No problem..........close down the hospitals. When the government tries to tell a business what they have to do, shut it down.
It would see that some would equate his position to forcing abortion pills down the throats of expectant mothers. People get emotional and quit thinking sometimes.
He has clearly stated, over and over again, he IS prolife, but respects the law.
He has no backbone and won't keep a promise if the media puts pressure on him.
Get educated. The “morning after pill” is not an abortion. It prevents pregnancy.
Sorry I can’t vote for someone that follows the law. (/sarcasm)
Good catch.
It is also used in rape cases to protect the victims. Again, the “morning after pill” is not an abortion. This is sad.
“Was he supposed to flaunt the law and impose his own beliefs on the state?”
This proves mitt will do nothing to work on abortion he will always use existing law as an excuse and does not care enough to spend any political capital on the issue..
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.