Romney does flip-flop and forces Catholic hospitals to distribute morning-after-pill [2005]

Lifesite News ^ | December 9, 2005 | Gudrun Schultz

[AFA-Michigan]

ME, you’re either incapable of simple reading comprehension, or you’re intentionally pretending you are.

The issue of the bill being law by his signature or over his veto is irrelevant.

After the law was in effect, the question was whether a previously existing conscientious objector law (still on the books) exempted from the new law anyone who objected on moral grounds.

Romney said anyone with moral objections, and Cat hosps in particular, were exempt from the new law because of the old law, consistent with the findings of his Dept of Health and the legal opinion of Mass Cat Conference, among others.

Then, only days later, after being publicly criticized for exempting Cat hosps, he flip-flopped. Listen to the radio report in post #1.

Unless you’re just PRETENDING not to understand in order to try to absolve Romney of responsibility for his obvious flip-flop.

Now, if you’re still too dense to understand what happened, just refer back to this post any time you have or pretend to have any further questions.

[Polybius]

So, Governor Romney's good-faith effort to comply with the law is somehow non-conservative??

I thought that the First Amendment guaranteeing Freedom of Religion WAS the law.

How can you force the Catholic Church to commit what, in their religious belief (your religion may say otherwise), is considered a mortal sin and still claim to have Freedom of Religion in the United States of America?

What next?

Force the Catholic Church to perform the Sacrament of Marriage for gay couples in order to comply with Massachusetts gay rights laws?

The Constitution trumps state law.

If Romney cannot get his head out of the lastest Gallup Poll results long enough to defend the First Amendment, what on Earth will that man ever take a stand on?

[MEGoody]

After the law was in effect, the question was whether a previously existing conscientious objector law (still on the books) exempted from the new law anyone who objected on moral grounds.

I would point you to this statement in the article: "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."

Perhaps you missed that part.

So again, what was the governor to do (that was within the law)?

[MEGoody]

Ah, more personal attacks.

LOL You're still the pot calling the kettle black.

[Brices Crossroads]

“If Romney cannot get his head out of the lastest Gallup Poll results long enough to defend the First Amendment, what on Earth will that man ever take a stand on?”

I will tell you what he will take a stand on. He is firmly in favor of....himself.

[AFA-Michigan]

“So again, what was the governor to do (that was within the law)?”

Perhaps explain why he had announced earlier in the week that Cat hosps WERE exempt. Which means that his legal counsel either changed his mind, or that Romney did not check with his legal counsel (unlikely) before making the previous announcement.

I think explaining that element of his flip-flop would be within the law.

[MEGoody]

Perhaps explain why he had announced earlier in the week that Cat hosps WERE exempt.

He'd already done that. It might have made you feel better, but it would have been useless repetition.

Which means that his legal counsel either changed his mind, or that Romney did not check with his legal counsel (unlikely) before making the previous announcement.

I think we can only speculate on that.