Delegate tally approximately
Romney 51 Newt 45
when FL vote divided per RNC rules!
CLICK TO DONATE TO NEWT
website@nrcc.org
Washington DC 20003
FAX:202-863-8820
Play by RULE 15:B:2
Posted on 02/07/2012 4:35:25 PM PST by aimhigh
C.J. Doyle, executive director of the Catholic Action League of Massachusetts, told the Boston Globe that Romney’s criticism of President Obama is hypocritical because as governor he did not lift the state-level requirement of contraception coverage.
“The initial injury to Catholic religious freedom came not from the Obama administration, but from the Romney administration,” Doyle said.
(Excerpt) Read more at newsmax.com ...
Exactly. No difference whatsoever.
Yet, the Republican Party along with the media will force Romney on us.
We need another party, a real conservative party, with real conservative candidates. Time to put the Republican Parry out of its misery.
It was my understanding that Romney vetoed the provision but the 85% controlled legislature over road it.
Perhaps I am thinking of another issue where this occured with contraception legislation, but my understanding was Romney was against it and tried to stop it, but could not do so.
He was a very moderate Republican governor in a very liberal state where the legislature was in absolute control and could over-ride anything he did that they did not agree with.
Romney has far too much moderate baggage to be a first line choice for any conservative.
I will however vote for him against Obama if we cannot stop him from being nominated. Hopefully tonight Santorum will win two of these races and show that he is capable, having at that point won 3 of 8 to Romney’s four of eight. If Newt and Santorum can simply come together and one back the other, Romney would not be able to get the nomination.
Hopefully tonight can start that process.
We may end up with a candidate that has actually set motions into policy to where innocent babies were killed while some stubborn people ( Ann Coulter and company) compare Newt as unfit due to 2 former marriages. This primary has gone to stupid-ville.
You have to wonder why BO is doing this NOW. Is it to weaken Romney by contrasting him with Santorum?
Jim,
Another Obama=Romney issue for your top banner.
I will never support that POS. Romney is the definition of an empty suit.
Freep-mail me to get on or off my pro-life and Catholic List:
Please ping me to note-worthy Pro-Life or Catholic threads, or other threads of general interest.
Terry Jeffrey TownHall
Feb 02, 2012
A defining moment in Mitt Romney's post-pro-life-conversion political career came in his third year as governor of Massachusetts, when he decided Catholic hospitals would be required under his interpretation of a new state law to give rape victims a drug that can induce abortions.
Romney announced this decision -- saying it was the "right thing for hospitals" to do -- just two days after he had taken the opposite position.
The story begins in 1975, when Massachusetts enacted a law that said, "No privately controlled hospital .. shall be required to permit any patient to have an abortion ... or to furnish contraceptive devices or information to such patient ... when said services or referrals are contrary to the religious or moral principles of said hospital ... ."
Twenty-seven years later, when Romney was running for governor, he filled out a questionnaire for NARAL Pro-Choice Massachusetts. It said: "Emergency contraception does not cause abortion. Rather, it prevents pregnancy from occurring. Will you support efforts to increase access to emergency contraception?"
Romney said: "Yes."
The next year, the Massachusetts legislature considered an "emergency contraception" mandate. It would have allowed pharmacists to sell Plan B -- an abortifacient -- without a prescription and without parental consent. It also would have required all hospitals to inform rape victims of the availability of such "emergency contraceptives" and provide them to the rape victim if she wanted them even when they would cause an abortion.
Maria Parker of the Massachusetts Catholic Conference, the public policy organization of the state's Catholic bishops, explained in testimony to the state legislature why Catholic hospitals could not do this.
The normal Catholic ban on artificial contraception did not apply in a rape case, Parker said. But while contraception was acceptable in such a situation, killing an unborn child was not.
In keeping with this moral understanding, one Massachusetts Catholic hospital chain would later explain to the Boston Globe that its practice was to test a rape victim to make certain she was not pregnant and only then give her emergency contraceptives. If the test proved the woman was pregnant, the hospital would not give the woman the drugs because they could not prevent conception but they could kill her child.
Parker concluded her testimony by quoting what Cardinal Frances George of Chicago had told the Illinois legislature when it proposed a similar law: "Our hospitals cannot and will not comply with this law."
In that session, the Massachusetts Senate passed the "emergency contraception" bill, but it was blocked in the House.
As Planned Parenthood and NARAL demanded action on the bill, and the Massachusetts Catholic Conference continued to speak out against it, Gov. Mitt Romney remained mum.
"Shawn Feddeman, spokeswoman for Gov. Mitt Romney, declined to comment on the governor's position on the bill," the Boston Globe reported on July 1, 2004. "'We'll review it when it reaches the governor's desk.'"
The bill was reintroduced in the next session -- and Romney remained mum.
Romney had "no opinion on the bill," his spokesman, Eric Fehrnstorm, told The Associated Press in April 2005. "We'll take a look at the bill should it reach the governor's desk."
But the bill had veto-proof support in both chambers of the Democrat-controlled legislature in 2005. In July, the House and Senate reached a compromise on it that would protect Catholic hospitals from being forced to act against their faith.
At that time, the Massachusetts Catholic Conference published a bulletin explaining what happened. The House had included language to "expressly apply" the 1975 conscience law protections to the new emergency contraception law. The Senate had included language saying the new law should apply "notwithstanding" any existing law.
"In the end, neither amendment was included in the bill," said the Massachusetts Catholic Conference. "House Majority Leader John Rogers, who worked tirelessly behind the scenes to defend the hospitals' right of conscience, made it clear during floor debate on July 21 that the House blocked the Senate amendment so that the 1975 conscience statute would continue to have full effect."
The conference provided me with a copy of this bulletin, and Rogers assured me its account was "accurate and true."
The Catholic Church still opposed the bill because it would facilitate abortions. But at least the religious liberty of Catholic hospitals had been preserved -- or so it seemed.
On July 25, 2005, Romney vetoed the bill -- even though it was clear his veto would be overridden.
He published an op-ed in the Boston Globe the next day explaining his decision. "The bill does not involve only the prevention of conception," he wrote. "The drug it authorizes would also terminate life after conception." Romney said the veto kept his pledge not to change the state's abortion laws.
Romney made no mention of the religious liberty issue in his op-ed. But then, the bill, as the Massachusetts Catholic Conference and the House majority leader understood it, did not allow coercion of Catholic hospitals.
On Dec. 7, 2005, a week before the law was to take effect, the Boston Globe ran a piece headlined: "Private Hospitals Exempt on Pill Law." The article said the state Department of Public Health had determined that the emergency contraception law "does not nullify a statute passed years ago that says privately run hospitals cannot be forced to provide abortions or contraception."
Public Health Commissioner Paul Cote Jr. told the Globe: "We felt very clearly that the two laws don't cancel each other out and basically work in harmony with each other."
Romney spokesman Fehrnstrom told the Globe that Romney agreed with the Department of Public Health on the issue. The governor, he said, "respects the views of health care facilities that are guided by moral principles on this issue."
"The staff of DPH did their own objective and unbiased legal analysis," Romney's spokesman told the Globe. "The brought it to us, and we concur in it."
The Globe itself ruefully bowed to this legal analysis. It ran an editorial headlined: "A Plan B Mistake." "The legislators failed, however," the Globe said, "to include wording in the bill explicitly repealing a clause in an older statute that gives hospitals the right, for reasons of conscience, not to offer birth control services."
Liberals joined in attacking Romney's defense of Catholic hospitals. But that defense did not last long.
The same day the Globe ran its editorial, Romney held a press conference. Now he said his legal counsel had advised him the new emergency contraception law did trump the 1975 conscience law.
"On that basis, I have instructed the Department of Public Health to follow the conclusion of my own legal counsel and to adopt that sounder view," Romney said. "In my personal view, it's the right thing for hospitals to provide information and access to emergency contraception to anyone who is a victim of rape."
A true leader would have said: I will defend the First Amendment right of Catholics to freely exercise their religion -- against those who would force them to participate in abortions -- all the way to the Supreme Court.
ELECTION 2012
10 reasons Christians should reject Romney
Exclusive: Gordon James Klingenschmitt notes none of them involve Mormonism
Published: 10/27/2011 at 5:55 PM
We’ve all heard the controversy about presidential candidate Mitt Romney’s faith. Is he a Christian? He claims to be, yet 75 percent of American Protestant pastors disagree with the statement: “I personally consider Mormons to be Christians.” Wherever you stand, here are the top 10 reasons Christians can never vote for Mitt Romney – and they have nothing to do with his Mormon faith.
Romney forced homosexual marriage upon Massachusetts.
When the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court decided in 2003 to recognize homosexual “marriage,” ignoring the voters and the Constitution, the court admitted it did not have power to issue licenses or force participation by justices of the peace to solemnize the weddings. But as governor, Romney didn’t wait for the legislature to act, he just ordered the marriage licenses and weddings to go forward, all by himself. Earlier this month, Romney said in New Hampshire, “What I would support [nationwide] is letting people who are of the same gender form – if you will – partnership agreements.” And despite the over 2,500 pedophilia cases now on record involving homosexual Scout leaders, Romney once stated, “I feel that all people should be allowed to participate in the Boy Scouts regardless of their sexual orientation.”
Romney is pro-abortion.
This year he’s the only major Republican presidential candidate who has yet to sign the Susan B. Anthony List pledge to defend life and defund Planned Parenthood nationwide. Candidates Bachmann, Perry, Gingrich, Paul, Pawlenty and Santorum all signed the pledge, although it should be noted Herman Cain supports everything in the pledge except the Fetal Pain Act. (Cain is not fully pro-life, either.) And who can forget Mitt’s famous 2002 campaign debate bragging repeatedly that he’s more pro-choice than Ted Kennedy?
Romneycare is the reason we have Obamacare.
Long before President Obama forced a socialist health-care system on America, Mitt Romney seized control of private hospitals for the People’s Republic of Massachusetts. Then he forced Christian hospitals and taxpayers to subsidize and facilitate abortions for just a $50 co-pay, proof here.
Romney won’t defund abortion, and he won’t protect the conscience rights of Christian health-care workers who refuse to help in child-murder.
Romney opposes our Second Amendment rights.
Gun Owners of America recently rebuked Romney for saying he promised not to do anything to “chip away” at Massachusetts’ extremely restrictive gun laws. “We do have tough gun laws in Massachusetts; I support them,” he said during a gubernatorial debate. “I won’t chip away at them; I believe they protect us and provide for our safety.” Even worse, Romney signed a law to permanently ban many semi-automatic firearms. Romney said in 2004, “They are instruments of destruction with the sole purpose of hunting down and killing people.” Romney also spoke in favor of the Brady law’s five-day waiting period on handguns. The Boston Globe quotes Romney saying, “I don’t think (the waiting period) will have a massive effect on crime, but I think it will have a positive effect.”
Romney appoints liberal Democrats as judges.
The Boston Globe confirmed that as a so-called “Republican” governor of Massachusetts, Mitt Romney appointed 14 Democrats, 13 Independents and only 9 Republicans as judges. That’s 27 of 36, or 3 of every 4, Romney judges that are liberal. So if President Romney someday appoints even one Supreme Court Justice, there’s a 75 percent chance they’ll vote with Kagan and Sotomayor 100 percent of the time. If we wouldn’t trust Romney himself on the Supreme Court, why let him appoint more Massachusetts Democrats to the federal bench?
Mitt Romney supports adoption of innocent children by homosexual cohabitaters.
As if orphans don’t have enough troubles, “Gov. Romney has consistently said that gay adoption should be assessed on a state-by-state basis,” his spokesman said this month. On Oct. 17, 2006, CNN’s Wolf Blitzer asked Romney: “Should – do you believe that gays and lesbians should be able to adopt children?”
Romney responded: “Well, they are able to adopt children.”
Blitzer followed: “But do you think that’s good?”
Romney said: “And I’m not going to change that.”
And Romney won’t veto any pro-homosexual bill passed by Congress. He’d start by supporting ENDA, the so-called “Employment Non-Discrimination Act” that would force churches, religious schools, and Christian charities and bookstores to hire immoral people who oppose their religious mission. Tim Russert once asked Romney on “Meet the Press”:
Russert: You said [in 1994] that you would sponsor [Sen. Ted Kennedy’s federal] Employment Nondiscrimination Act. Do you still support it?
Romney: At the state level. I think it makes sense at the state level for states to put in provision of this.
Romney won’t protect the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), or actually campaign to repeal Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell to protect our chaplains and Christian troops from harassment. He’s in bed with the homosexual movement – at the same time he avoids Christians in Iowa like the plague.
A shocking new book shows Romney actively hurt pro-family causes.
According to Amy Contrada’s new book, “Mitt Romney’s deception, His Stealth Promotion of ”Gay Rights” and “Gay Marriage” in Massachusetts,” Gov. Romney, from 2003-2006:
worked closely with homosexual activists and pro-gay rights advisers;
implemented “gay marriage” through his executive departments without legislative authorization, violating the Massachusetts Constitution;
pushed a constitutional amendment strategy doomed to failure, and ignored the call to remove the activist judges who ruled for “gay marriage”;
funded and promoted GLBT indoctrination in the public schools through his “Governor’s Commission on Gay and Lesbian Youth,” and his Department of Education “Safe Schools” programs;
undermined religious freedom, failing to defend Catholic Charities in the “homosexual adoptions” fiasco;
continued or implemented radical homosexual and transgender programs in his executive departments.
Romney is not a fiscal conservative.
While he wishes to appear pro-business, Romneycare proved him just another Obama-clone socialist. And Romney still hasn’t told the truth about how he opposed the Bush tax cuts.
Romney supported liberal amnesty programs.
He hindered America’s national security and economic independence, as Americans for Border Security reports: “In 2006 Gov. Romney supported the president’s immigration policy as well as the McCain-Kennedy bill. He expressed support for an immigration program that places large numbers of illegal residents on the path toward citizenship. …” [without requiring they return home and wait their turn, allowing them to cut in line before law-abiding immigrants]
Never mind that Romney hired (then fired) illegal aliens to landscape his yard. If Romney supports unlimited amnesty without any rule of law, how will he stand on national security?
Romney made the Top 10 list of worst RINOs.
According to the official list keepers of Republicans-In-Name-Only at Human Events, he’s listed eight-worst in America because he said, “I believe that abortion should be safe and legal in this country.” He supports civil unions and stringent gun laws. After visiting Houston, Romney criticized the city’s aesthetics, saying, “This is what happens when you don’t have zoning.”
Bottom line: Evangelical Christians who care about pro-family, pro-freedom, pro-life, pro-marriage and pro-law/order issues can NEVER support Mitt Romney for president, even if he wins the Republican primary, and it has nothing whatsoever to do with his Mormon faith.
Chaplain Gordon James Klingenschmitt is a former Navy chaplain who runs The Pray In Jesus Name Project, which delivered 2.5 million fax petitions to Congress last year for Christian causes.
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.