Posted on 02/01/2008 9:14:05 AM PST by Ol' Sparky
Romney has gotten a pass from some. His actions after declaring himself pro-life in no way showed a conversion. Why should anyone believe he has changed? After all, we don’t believe McCain when he says he changed, and rightly so, as his actions do not meet his rhetoric.
I imagine someone has posted it. It’s a very old ruling, from I think 1981, requiring that medical care include “medically necessary” abortions, based on abortion being some constitutional right of the woman. Of course, “medically necessary” means any abortion you want.
The problem with “medically necessary” is that it traditionally dealt with things that changed a health outcome, as opposed to cosmetic changes like plastic surgery. It wasn’t cut-and-dried — laser eye surgery is often not considered “necessary” since you can wear glasses, even though it does change your medical situation.
But with abortion, an abortion is a profound change in the medical condition of the woman. And pregnancy does have many medical side effects, some of them unpleasant, and a few life-threatening and unpredictable.
SO pretty much ANY doctor who WANTED to do an abortion could say that it was medically necessary to prevent the POSSIBILITY of one of the bad outcomes of pregnancy.
This is why “health of the mother” exceptions are known to be meaningless — the “health” of the mother is always at play with pregnancy.
Anyway, I don’t have a link to the case, I don’t even know what the case is, but I am certain it exists if for no other reason than it was cited in other news stories and nobody who opposed Romney has claimed it was false.
I have noticed that numerous posters have pointed out to you the salient fact that the Court specified "medically necessary" abortion-killings, not unconditional, universal abortions. Why do you keep omitting this crucial fact?
Cordially,
Did you convert at a time when it was *extremely* politically convenient?
WOuldn’t McCain have to say he changed, before we could decide if he changed?
He started talking like his position was different, but claimed his position was the same and we were wrong. Then he talked about knowing the amnesty had to be approached differently, but NOT because he changed his mind, but because he needed to build a fence to placate us before he could pass amnesty.
If he HAD said he changed his mind, like Huckabee claims, people would at least listen to him.
must have been :^
Because it is a moot point. The health care plan he “expanded” in the referenced article, and the new health plan the state put together last year, both cover “medically necessary” services.
But as I explained above, all abortions are “medically necessary”. There really is no such thing as a purely “therepeutic” abortion in the mind of the abortion doctor, because pregnancy CAN be health-threatening.
Since the health plans we are talking about are written specifically with the court case in mind, and are standard health plans with blanket “medically necessary” clauses, the fact that that’s what the court order required is not really germaine.
I know some people claim all abortions are covered, but that’s because every abortion can be justified by a doctor as “medically necessary”. That’s why we object to “health of the mother” exceptions, they make a law meaningless.
Those of us in the abortion battle know this. Thos who are spinning for political gain sometimes don’t.
Romney: I’m not sure who that young guy was at the beginning of that film, but I can tell you this, which is, I don’t know how many times I can tell it. I was wrong. All right. I was effectively pro- choice when I ran for office.
If people in this country are looking for someone who’s never made a mistake on a policy issue and is not willing to admit they’re ever wrong, why then they’re going to have to find somebody else, because on abortion I was wrong.
And I changed my mind as the governor. This didn’t just happen the last couple of weeks or the last year. This happened when I was governor the first time a bill came to my desk that related to life. I could not sign a bill that would take away human life. I came down on the side of life every single instance as governor of Massachusetts. I was awarded by the Massachusetts Citizens for Life with their leadership award for my record.
I’m proud to be pro-life, and I’m not going to be apologizing for people for becoming pro-life.
I heard him say this during the debate and I'll take him at his word.
With an attitude like Deroy Murdock, the ProLife movement will NEVER gain another convert.... because they would all be chastized as flip-flop liar degenerates, or whatever.
People can and do change. Saul of Tarsus, in the New Testament, had previously sought out new Christians and Jews to persecute and kill.
He had a God-inspired conversion on the Road to Damascus, and went on to write some of the most inspiring books in the New Testament.
Who is to say Mitt Romney is not just as sincere.
At one time, I accepted abortion as something that women just "did."
It is dispicable that people would now accuse me, an avid pro-lifer, of being a flip-flopping liar because of my previous ideas.
So you are not supporting Romney because he has been converted and is now Prolife. (Good thing St. Paul isn’t trying to run for office) Romney wasn’t originally pro-life so his conversion doesn’t matter - is that what you are saying?
So what is your altrnative ? Hillary and Obama are both pro-choice. I guess you are voting for McCain and just holding your nose about all the other issues where he is basically a Democrat. I hope you are not voting for HUckabee because that is a wasted vote. Huck just doesn’t have enough support to get the nomination. A vote for Huckabee is a vote for McCain.
Who I wanted to vote for is out. Now I am down to voting against. McCain has all the wrong friends.
Cuthulu for president, why settle for the lesser evil.
Mitt has admitted: My greatest mistake was when I first ran for office being deeply opposed to abortion but saying I’d support the current law, which was pro-choice and effectively a pro-choice position. That was just wrong.”
So Romney too has made a mistake and has admitted it. To add to that, Romney's record is that of a pro-lifer and even if it wasn't I would welcome his change of heart on this issue. We will need many more such changes of hearts in order to abolish abortion.
An article by James Bopp Jr.:
Romney’s conversion was less abrupt than is often portrayed. In his 1994 Senate run, Romney was endorsed by Massachusetts Citizens for Life and kept their endorsement, even though he declared himself to be pro-choice, because he supported parental-consent laws, opposed taxpayer-funded abortion and mandatory abortion coverage under a national health insurance plan, and was against the Freedom of Choice Act, which would have codified Roe v. Wade by federal statute. In 1994, NARAL’s Kate Michelman pronounced him a phony pro-choicer. “Mitt Romney, stop pretending,” she demanded. “We need honesty in our public life, not your campaign of deception to conceal your anti-choice views,” she said. Some conservative Boston newspaper columnists view it similarly. As Jeff Jacoby of the Boston Globe put it: “Romney’s very public migration rightward over the last few years is . . . intended not to hide his real views but to liberate them. In 1994, Romney struck me as an extraordinarily bright, talented, and decent man — and a political neophyte who fell for the canard that the only way a conservative could win in Massachusetts was by passing for liberal.”
In 2001, Romney said, in a letter to the Salt Lake Tribute, that he believes that “abortion is the wrong choice, but under the law it is a choice people have.” And in the 2002 governor’s race, Romney made clear that “on a personal basis, I don’t favor abortion,” that he opposed lowering the age at which minors could obtain abortions without parental consent to 16, and that he supported a ban on partial-birth abortions, but that, as governor, he would “protect the right of a woman to choose under the law of the country and the laws of the commonwealth.” As one Boston commentator observed, Romney’s “abortion statements sound as much like someone trying to wrestle with the issue as someone trying to weasel his way out of it.”
The evaluation of Romney’s conversion needs to be considered in light of the pro-life movement’s consistent effort over the years to educate, and thereby convert, people to the cause. The pro-life movement has aggressively promoted conversion and has achieved great success in doing so.
And Romney, as governor, acted on these convictions. He vetoed an embryonic cloning bill; he vetoed a bill that would allow the “morning after pill” to be acquired without a prescription on the grounds that it is an abortifacient; he vetoed legislation which would have redefined Massachusetts longstanding definition of the beginning of human life from fertilization to implantation; and he fought to promote abstinence education in the classroom. One should not underestimate the tremendous political price that Governor Romney paid in Massachusetts for these acts. Both conviction and courage are necessary for effective pro-life leadership, and Romney, in office, displayed both.
Romney came under criticism for apparently flip-flopping and saying he backs a human life amendment at the same time he says the best approach is to overturn Roe v. Wade and let states make the law on abortion.
Romney advisor Jim Bopp, a leading pro-life lawyer who serves as the top attorney for National Right to Life and other pro-life groups, tells LifeNews.com Romney's two positions go hand in hand.
Bopp, who wrote the amendment that appears in the Republican Party platform, said Romney "views the Human Life Amendment as an aspirational goal, which we hope and pray we eventually can achieve."
"In the meantime, the first important step toward that goal is reversal of Roe v. Wade, and thereby returning the matter to the states, through appointment of strict constructionist judges," Bopp added.
Bopp said Romney's approach is not an "either/or" but rather a "two-step process" of toppling Roe followed by a full move to amend the Constitution. "The reversal of Roe be an important step in that direction," Bopp explained. He told LifeNews.com the two-pronged strategy is necessary because there aren't enough votes for an amendment in Congress while overturning Roe could be one vote away on the Supreme Court. It would allow for the protection of as many unborn children as possible in the short term while a human life amendment is pursued.
That squares with the pro-life movement's long-stated goals of protecting as many unborn children as possible as soon as possible -- first through getting judges on the Supreme Court to overturn Roe and also through a federal amendment for long-term legal protection.
The doctor known as the founder of the pro-life movement has endorsed former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney in his bid for the Republican presidential nomination.
Dr. John Wilke, an original member of Senator Sam Brownback's Exploratory Committee, has thrown his support to Romney in the wake of Senator Brownback's withdrawal from the race.
"Unlike other candidates who only speak to the importance of confronting the major social issues of the day, Governor Romney has a record of action in defending life," Dr. Willke said. "Every decision he made as governor was on the side of life. I know he will be the strong pro-life president we need in the White House, Governor Romney is the only candidate who can lead our pro-life and pro-family conservative movement to victory in 2008."
http://www.lwvma.org/repro.shtml
The section on Public Funding here has what you are looking for. It covers Medicaid and State employees. According to LWV, there has not been a court challenge to the ruling (not an order).In part:
The Massachusetts General Laws were amended in 1979 to prohibit the expenditure of any state funds to pay for abortions that were not necessary to prevent the death of the mother. Suit was brought to challenge the various restrictions to Medicaid funding. LWVM supported that suit. The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court ruled (Moe v. Secretary of Administration and Finance, 1981) that the state constitution protects the right to choose whether or not to have a child and that “coercive funding restrictions” are unconstitutional. Thus, the state constitution has been judged to have stronger protections than the federal constitution. Although the same funding restrictions apply to all state employees and retirees and appear to fall under the rationale of the Moe decision, no test case has been brought. Employees have the option to add, at their own expense, a rider for coverage of “medically necessary” abortions. The League has opposed the prohibition of health insurance coverage of elective abortions except by special rider. League opposition to state anti-choice amendments is also based on protecting the right, in the state constitution, for public funding for abortion for poor women and for state employee health insurance.
Anyone who believes he's sincere about any of it is a fool. Behind closed doors, Romney's laughing at the simpletons he's tricked.
Could you provide me with a few names of those Romney abortions?
I don’t ancient Political rhetoric!
I want proof!
In his campaign for the U.S. Senate in 1994, Romney pledged to keep abortion “safe and legal.” Pro-life advocates cringe when they hear this and for good reason. Thousands of women throughout the country are enrolled in post-abortion programs that help them overcome physical and mental complications following their abortion. Abortion is not always “safe. And because an innocent life is taken in the procedure, it should not be “legal.”
Although he made this comment during the campaign, Romney never promoted himself as a pro-abortion advocate. Even in 1994, he was not embraced by Planned Parenthood or NARAL, the leading pro-abortion organizations in America, and he did not seek their endorsements. It is very apparent that Romney was not comfortable with abortion even early in his political career. This is an important point for pro-lifers to consider.
The 2002 Gubernatorial Campaign: Abortion Law Moratorium
As a candidate for governor of Massachusetts, Romney began to describe himself as “personally pro-life” and offered a moratorium on changes in abortion law in Massachusetts. Some pro-lifers have ridiculed this stance and claimed that it proved Romney’s weakness on life issues.
What many fail to realize is that Romney’s opponent was scoring points with the liberal residents of Massachusetts by vowing to further liberalize the abortion laws. Specifically, she pledged to lower the age of parental consent for minors seeking to have an abortion.
Romney’s pledge not to change abortion law was absolutely brilliant. The political realities of Massachusetts make pro-life policy victories virtually impossible in the heavily Democratic legislature. By refusing to change abortion laws, Romney launched a strategic effort to keep the commonwealth from further liberalizing abortion policy, including the age of parental consent proposal.
Massachusetts might be the most pro-abortion state in the country. By fighting continued liberalization of abortion laws, Governor Romney boldly stood up to a legislature and an abortion lobby eager to advance the culture of death.
A Pro-Life Governor:
“…Romney has done his best to defend the culture of life on what is probably the most inhospitable terrain in the country.–John J. Miller (National Review)
Governor Romney has explained that his thinking on abortion dramatically changed as a result of studying the issues surrounding embryonic stem cell research. This issue highlighted just how much the gift of life has been cheapened in a Roe v. Wade, abortion-on-demand society.
Governor Romney studied the issue and determined that life does indeed begin at conception. And if that is the case, abortion is impossible to defend. Governor Romney offered a detailed description of this pro-life epiphany in a recent interview.
For the pro-life community, words are not enough. We expect action from pro-life leaders and Governor Romney has taken the pro-life position on every abortion-related issue he’s faced since being elected:
He vetoed an emergency contraception bill and offered a compelling case for life in the process.He fought efforts to advance embryonic stem cell research in Massachusetts, despite overwhelming opposition.
He pledged to veto any effort to expand access to RU-486, the abortion pill.
He has faced constant ridicule from pro-abortion organizations for refusing to give in to their demands.
He actively promotes abstinence education programs in Massachusetts’ schools. The abstinence movement and the pro-life movement work hand-in-hand to reduce the number of teen pregnancies and to promote true sexual health to America’s youth.
Changing Hearts & Minds: The Goal of the Pro-Life Movement
Skeptics will undoubtedly accuse Governor Romney of flip-flopping on the issue of abortion in order to connect with all-important values voters. It is true that his position has changed since he ran for Senate in 1994, but we welcome converts to our cause. To hear him explain the reasons behind his conversion and to study what he has done as governor leaves little doubt that Mitt Romney is a real-deal pro-lifer.
About Nathan:
In 2004, Nathan joined the staff of Heartbeat International as the Director of International Program and Public Policy. In this role, Nathan is able to advocate on behalf of pro-family and pro-life principles. In the fall of 2004, Nathan implemented and directed a “get-out-the-vote” campaign to register new “values voters” all around the country. He has also become an internationally known pro-life advocate through his work with life-affirming pregnancy resource centers overseas.
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.