Skip to comments.National Right to Life, others endorse Romney (Dear Lord)
Posted on 04/12/2012 9:01:29 PM PDT by STARWISE
National Right to Life and two other major pro-family groups have endorsed Mitt Romney for president, saying that on the issues of abortion and marriage, he stands with them.
National Right to Life's endorsement Thursday (April 12) came two days after Romney's leading challenger for the Republican nomination -- Rick Santorum -- dropped out, making Romney the presumptive nominee. Also endorsing Romney were the Susan B. Anthony List, a group that supports pro-life women for political office, and the National Organization for Marriage, which has led the charge nationwide in protecting the traditional definition of marriage.
In its endorsement, National Right to Life said Romney "has taken a strong pro-life position and is committed to implementing policies to protect the unborn." The organization said Romney:
-- opposes Roe v. Wade, having called the 1973 decision a "big mistake."
-- supports the Hyde Amendment, which prohibits the use of federal funds to pay for abortions.
-- backs the Mexico City Policy, which bans federal funds for organizations that perform or promote abortions in foreign countries.
"On pro-life issues, Mitt Romney and Barack Obama provide a stark contrast," said Carol Tobias, president of National Right to Life. "As the country's most pro-abortion president, Barack Obama has pursued a radical pro-abortion agenda. It is now time for pro-life Americans to unite behind Mitt Romney. For the sake of unborn children, the disabled, and the elderly, we must win."
The Susan B. Anthony List made similar points and added that Romney has pledged to "appoint only constitutionalist judges to the federal bench" and also to defund Planned Parenthood.
"Women deserve a president who truly respects our views on an issue so central to womanhood," said Susan B. Anthony List President Marjorie Dannenfelser. "A President Romney will be that man. If there was murkiness during the last election over Barack Obama's extreme abortion position, absolute clarity exists now -- and his abortion position is rejected by women young and old."
The National Organization for Marriage, which played key roles in preventing gay "marriage" from being legalized in California and Maine, said Romney was an early signer of the organization's pledge, which meant he was committing to:
-- support an amendment to the U.S. Constitution defining marriage as the union of one man and one woman.
-- appoint Supreme Court justices and an attorney general "who will apply the original meaning of the Constitution."
-- "vigorously" defend the federal Defense of Marriage Act in court.
-- establish a presidential commission on religious liberty.
-- advance legislation to allow District of Columbia citizens to vote on the definition of marriage. Gay "marriage" currently is legal in D.C.
Brian Brown, president of the National Organization for Marriage, said the group was "proud" to endorse Romney.
"President Obama," Brown said, "has declared our nation's marriage laws to be unconstitutional and not only has refused to defend them, his administration is actively working to repeal them in the courts. He's come out against state constitutional amendments defining marriage as the union of one man and one woman. And he has appointed leaders of the same-sex 'marriage' movement as national co-chairs of his reelection campaign.
Incredibly, Obama still apparently claims to personally support traditional marriage. With friends like President Obama, the institution of marriage doesn't need enemies."
Compiled by Michael Foust, associate editor of Baptist Press.
Not terribly convincing.
Still no sale on Romney, but now I'll be sure that nary a cent of mine ever goes to NRLC again.
This is also why we MUST replace the GOP with a viable conservative party, just as the GOP replaced the Whigs at a time when social issues (i.e., slavery) where dividing the country.
How long are we going to stupidly put up with this subterfuge from the GOP e?
I re registered independent after the 2011 primaries. I refuse to be part of this completely corrupt GOP party.
It's expertise at what? Drumming up donations from suckers or selling its "principles" down the river?
Anybody who actually believes Romney as President would act in a significantly pro-life way is the one who is "politically incompetent."
Here here. Since my state has an open primary, I didn’t even wait until after to reregister as an independent. I’m through with the GOP, once and for all.
What a ridiculous statement.
"Ive always been personally pro-life, but for me, it was a great question about whether or not government should intrude in that decision. And when I ran for office, I said Id protect the law as it was, which is effectively a pro-choice position."
~ Mitt Romney
An awful lot of FReepers who relentlessly trashed Newt supporters last summer (As an early Newt supporter, I was on the receiving end of that) became newly-minted lifelong Newtistas about thirty seconds after FR officially became "GINGRICH COUNTRY!!"
So flip-flopping is actually a survival skill here...........
Every word of my statement was true.
NRLC has done more to save babies than all the radical ALL “no compromise” types combined!
ALL is run by fools and incompetents.
Operation Rescue often falls for the same stupidity.
Our local OR “leader” actually endorsed Ron Paul!
As a first step, I have joined the Constitution Party Veterans Coalition.
I await their nominee to be decided this weekend in Nashville.
I’m having a laugh about this. There’s such a fortress mentality over here. Apparently, the Right to Life group took Romney at his word. Apparently, everyone else in the entire world is wrong except for the hard core anti-Romney people.
You have never had a significant roll in any conservative Court case.
You have never had a significant roll in getting any Conservative elected.
You and your tin-foil-hat perspective might have something to do with giving Obama 4 more years!
How much is OBAMA paying you?
It seems that your definition of “cult” would apply to a lot of people posting here. Of course, I think it’s a really screwed up definition.
Even Jesus made the point that nonbelievers OFTEN put believers (HYPOCRITES!) to SHAME!
A little humility would serve you well.
“This is not a hard call.”
Really? So, when we get Santorum as the nominee, another very weak conservative from a blue state, just because ‘he’s due, and he paid his dues’, what will you say then?
Seriously, this party isn’t a conservative one. I think maybe somebody on the right has done the math, shown it to the right-wing pundits and all of the pols, and said,
“Look we’ve PASSED the tipping point - even the guys who are for limited government are taking government checks. What’s worse, the boomers, even the conservatives, are going to rethink their positions once they retire and start paying their own medical expenses. People are going out to dinner on their 65th birthday, not because they are 65, but because they finally qualify for Medicare. Like it or not, we are all now socialists, and we need to move our people in that direction. That’s the way it is.”
It’s the only thing that explains Drudge, Coulter, Noonan, and the rest of them, especially Romney. He’s an expert in the medical entitlement area. Romeny said he’d repeal Obamacare, but he’s never disavowed Masscare either. There’s a reason for that, and it isn’t all ideology. I think he thinks that the political forces within insurance, tort, pharma, and unions are so strong that the only thing that can break it is government. It’s the only way to put a fiscal lid on it. I think that’s the way he sees it.
Which leads me to this point - maybe its time for something else? Frankly, and I live on the West Coast, maybe its time to cut them loose and say, “The midwest isn’t going to bail you out. Good luck. Form your own union, print your own money, discharge your debts, and start over. We’re not going to do that over here in North Dakota.”
If you doubt this ISN’T already happening behind closed doors in DC, you can read Michael Lewis’ new book Boomerang. It talks about how the third world reacted and got caught up in the mess in 2008.
He talks specifically about Iceland, Greece, Spain, and Ireland, but then he comes back home, and talks about California, and then Vallejo and San Diego.
It is already untenable, what we are doing, and the middle states who haven’t completely screwed themselves and took steps to make sure they didn’t are NOT going to bail out NY, CA, FL and others.
Two reasons for this - there is no bailing them out.
First, It’s not possible. There isn’t enough money to honor the pensions, contracts, benefits, and infrastructure committments without bankrupting the other states too.
Second, The states in the black are ready to violate federal law to do it now. “What if we didn’t comply?” is what some of these governors are saying to the feds and to the governors of the states deep in the red.
It means those states are going to have to default. They made their own bed anyway, since they were taking their own bonds to market as any sovereign state would anyway. The governors in the other states are, rightly, saying, “Hey, at least it will be a clean default, and it wont’ spread to us.”
The case of Ireland is especially relevant, and he goes into detail about it in the book. The mules really aren’t all tied together. DC can default, and so can the idiot states, and it can leave the rest of the states to decide what they want to do.
We’ve been talking about this election in terms of ‘conservatism’. I think the GOP-E has convinced itself that they really need a Wall Street banker to figure it out this go around, because the math is so far beyond ugly, that it’s going to take a hedge-fund manager to get it done. Their logic may be faulty, but times are desparate.
That’s the only way that I can rectify in my head the massive difference between where demonstrably conservative commentators have been for decades, and where they are today. Frankly, they may think that they are handcuffed, because the situation really is so bad that talking about it could crash the market, but to not talk about it really exposes the fact that Romney is, for all intents and purposes, a Social Democrat.
Someone on this thread used Churchill’s quote about Dishonor and War.
At the gubernatorial level, its become much simpler - ‘Why should we bail you out when you show no resolve in getting your act together?’ Bailouts are going to lead to civil war, no matter how you slice it - the end is the same. The haves resent the profligate have-nots, and when both states are broke, you end up at war anyway. Why not just agree up front not to bail them out and keep one state afloat instead? The debtor states people will still hate their neighbors, but the responsible state will at least be viable.
This VERY SAME THING is happening right now in Greece. The Greeks believe, and I get this information from people on the street in Greece, that the Germans contrived the crisis with the help of the US and the Brits in order to conquer Greece without firing a shot. This isn’t a fringe belief.
Germany has asked Greece to puts its assets up for sale - islands, landmarks, resources - in order for Germany to buy more Greek bonds. It’s a reasonable request if you are German, but to the Greeks it looks like conquest by financial means. Never mind that the Greeks figured out a way to pay their public employees for 14 months for 12 months of work. The facts are irrelevant now.
So, WHEN California defaults, who here doesn’t believe this will be the very same debate? Why would any state agree to help bail out California when it won’t stop spending?
Thee is an excellent reason why the Feds turned oil, coal, and strategic metals lands into either national parks or federal property - collateral. It’s the only reason I can see as to why anyone would pay such low prices for US government bonds - we have enough physical real assets to make good on it.
I’ve tried to get my head around the ‘why’. Why send the white smoke up the chimney on Romney before there’s even a primary?
Anyway, ‘party solidarity’ isn’t a reason to back Romney. I can’t think of a less conservative idea than making myself hostage to a candidate I know to be destructive to conservative ideals because I’m afraid Obama will wreck the country.
My question: How do we know it isn’t already so wrecked financially that we can no longer be a union of 50 states - some of which are financially insolvent, and some who can’t, even if they wanted to, help the others?
The Russians are convinced this is going to happen to us, primarily because it happened to them in very much the same way. What they went through was very liberating, because the US bailed them out, gave them a strategic breather on defense, and allowed them to cut loose all of the dead weight. What they have now works fine - their budget is balanced and they have as much geopolitical influence as they did when they had the entire planned economy on their back.
We aren’t bombing Syria because Russia moved their own troops in to guarantee an act of war with Russia should any of those troops die. We aren’t bombing Iran because they share a border with the Russians, and unless they green light it, Iran is going to get the bomb. The only reason why Israel hasn’t acted is because the Saudis are smart enough to realize that if Iran attacks Israel and wins, the Saudis are next. It’s ironic that Israel is influencing the US through the Saudis, but that’s what’s happening.
That’s how bad it has become.
A long rant, but the bottom line is that the rationale for voting for Romney doesn’t hold water - if we don’t we get Obama, the end of the Republic will happen.
Fiscally, if we are there already, then it makes even less sense to vote for Romney, since Obama’s just finishing the job. Let the last thing people remember about the US was, “The black fella was the guy who went down with the ship. People felt so good about themselves electing that guy, but in the end, the US was toast in 2004. It just hadn’t happened yet.”
What I’m seeing in America is so similar to what we all saw happen in Russia with Gorbachev. Gorbachev moved to the center just before it all caved in because it was going to cave in no matter what he did. Reagan guaranteed that with SDI, because Herb Meyer and others had done the math and knew the Russians were COMPLETELY committed to their military policies and COMPLETELY inable to sustain it financially.
We are COMPLETELY committed to our entitlement programs and COMPLETELY inable to sustain it financially. Europe is worse off than we are, and they have already suffered the default of one of their states. Spain’s next, Ireland, Portugal, and then PERHAPS France. Germany can’t pull them all out of the mud.
And so, unless someone can show me the financial way out of this mess, I saw let Obama wear it. If the US is already done, why hang the blame on Conservatives?
It means that Romney has an opening here. If he can demonstrate a way out and sell it to us, he deserves to win, and I’ll vote for him.
Failing that, why do it if neither guy can fix it? What’s the difference if both guys can’t do it?
Reasonable people can disagree on whether it’s better if Obama or Romney is elected. It’s pretty much a toss up. Palin probably is hoping to keep her enemies in the GOP close and hopefully gain more power in the party later. It would be a drastic move for her to go third party and I would think it’s easier to retake the GOP from the inside. Plus if she went rogue on this election, people would accuse her of just being self-serving so Romney would lose and she could run in 2016. I would suggest if she really wants to hold Romney’s feet to the fire than she suggest she’ll give him a primary challenge in 2016 if she’s not happy with what he does.
Why did they not wait? See what Romney’s positions are by Labor Day? See who he picks as his running mate?
Maybe Romney will end up being pro-life, but I think pro-lifers, pro-traditional marriage voters (and social conservatives in general) need much more information, since right now Romney’s record is quite mixed. Maybe I am even being generous to Romney by calling his record mixed.
Let me think..how many babies are aborted every year? All the groups you mention are doing is allowing the abortion industry to continue doing its murderous work. But at least the NRLC and others who support them can feel superior to the rest of us. That’s an accomplishment, right?
It’s not about only Newt, it’s about denying Romney enough delegates to get the nomination without facing a floor fight.
There are 11 days until the next primaries, enough time for anything in politics to change dramatically.
20 out of 50 states are left to vote.
45% of the total delegates come from these states, something like half of them in territory where Romney has been losing.
If Romney is denied a little over half of the remaining delegates, he will fall short of 1,144.
Potential challenges to FL and AZ allocation could take more delegates from Romney.
With Romney the question is always "which word, which day?"
But, in any case, even the best formulation on either Romney's or NRTL's "positions" leave them in gross violation of the most important principles of the republic and our Constitution.
Anyone who thinks Mitt had the best chance of beating Obama out of all the primary candidates is a nitwit. He has the worst chance. Spending countless days trying to explain away weird Mormon doctrine alone is going to sink him. That doesn't mean that he might not get elected if conditions are so bad or gas prices so high that people will take anyone over Obama. But if it's a competitive field at all, he has no chance.
Newt took running for president very seriously. He went "all in" in Florida for instance and it turned out to be a bad bet. You can't blame Newt if he is so smart and well-versed in politics that he can deliver some of the best debate performances in modern times without even needing to do debate prep.
Don't imply they're doing it out of stupidity. They're doing the same thing by endorsing Steve Welch for Senate in Pennsylvania, a man who donated to Joe Sestak and admitted he voted for Obama. The GOP is becoming the official party of the vanity millionaire candiates. I'm sure party members get a lot of nice perks and like to kiss these liberal millionaires' butts to keep the cash flowing.
What, exactly, have YOU done?
Other than pass judgment on the groups who actually are relevant to the cause and actually are effective?
“I think”...”I feel”......but never any regard for facts.
A little humility would serve you well."
Would you be more specific, please? In what way have I been arrogant? Asking sincerely.
Not terribly convincing.
If Romney's track record of honesty remains consistent, that pledge will mean precisely as much as the one Obama gave to Bart "Stupid" Stupak.
Your argument has devolved into the common, liberal hodgepodge of insults and horror at anyone making judgments.
So why are you passing judgment on me?
The problem is none of that explains why they’re pushing Romney on us. Fiscal policy is set by Congress and it’s likely that any Republican president will sign the Ryan budget or whatever budget Republicans come up with. Not to mention the idea that Republicans are working so hard to find a guy to solve the debt crisis doesn’t wash when they spent the 2000s driving the debt up. Not to mention Newt is as strong a budget hawk as any, but he was the candidate they tried to destroy harder than anyone. Ah, but, he’s also a tax-cutting hawk, which Romney is not, and the Rockefeller/Romney Republicans have always loved to raise taxes. I think it’s all smaller and pettier than that.
We’ve already seen the reporting showing Republicans are “softening their stance” on gay marriage because they see younger voters are heavily for it. The amount of closeted or gay-friendly people in the Republican party is also probably far higher than anyone’s estimated so far, probably driven mostly by Republican women who aren’t bothered by homosexuality at all, like Coulter and Noonan, and to a lesser extent by the alleged closet case “libertarians” like Drudge. Romney is the man who created gay marriage so he is obviously their pick.
The party is also all about bringing as much money into the party as possible and, rightly so, see Romney as the guy who brings the big financial backing with them. Broadening their voter base and bringing in money is much more important than standing up for their values. The base, of course, feels exactly the opposite.
As Michael Reagan has said, there are two wings of the party and there always have been. The Rockefeller wing is the one pushing Romney. They’re socially liberal, okay with raising taxes, and prefer to appease their enemies rather than stand up to them. The Tea Party successes of 2010 probably terrified them. Romney is their big chance to take the party back.
Our choices are never limited when we have rightiousness and morality on our side. Our nation’s Founders referred to their ‘Sacred Honor’ in relation to good honest government. I believe that means doing what is right and honorable even when it may not be the most comfortable path politically for an individual, or for the nation as a whole.
Jesus was right. The truth will set us free.
Lol. Agreed, but at the time, Carter was seen as a better representation of Christian principles to evangelical groups because Reagan was divorced! Now we all know it’s a farce to think Carter was more religious...he’s an anti-semite and hardly a decent man!
Are these people totally ignorant of Governor Etch-a-Sketch’s history??
He doesn't stand for ANYTHING except "it's my turn to be president".
Did Romney sign the pledge on his Etch-a-Sketch?
He might as well have -- his word is worthless the moment he decides it's politically advantageous to flip-flop again.
CONTACT INFORMATION National Right to Life Committee
National Right to Life Committee
CONTACT INFORMATION National Right to Life Committee
National Right to Life Committee
You have launched an attack against the NRLC and against my post, yet you can’t take any critique of your own posts?
Take up fishing or knitting or some other hobby if you can’t take the heat in the kitchen.
This applies in Catholicism, and I assume also
to the non-progressive Christian denominations:
“This may come as a revelation to political pragmatists, but Catholics may not choose any evil. None period.
There is a principle in Moral Theology the principle of double effect which, under certain clearly defined conditions, permits us to perform an act that has both a good and an evil effect, but there is no allowance whatsoever in the Catholic system for directly choosing an evil.
We are speaking of politics. Like economics, politics was classically part of the science of ethics. The Greeks approached it this way, and their tradition was continued by the Scholastic thinkers.
Politics is the art and science of governing a society. It is a normative science inasmuch as it seeks to govern society well and rightly . Normative sciences, such as logic and aesthetics, seek to establish the right way of doing things.1 We can contrast these with the descriptive sciences, which study the way things actually are.
An illustration will help:
The normative science of ethics tells us how people ought to act, while the descriptive sciences of behavioral psychology or criminology study how people do act and that is often badly!
Since politics is a subdivision of ethics, its principles must fit coherently with the entirety of right behavior.
All this established, we can answer our above questions very simply: It is a moral evil to support a candidate whose platform runs contrary to the natural law.
Conversely, it is a moral good to support one who works to uphold the natural law. For Catholics, to do the latter is, in part, to advance the social reign of Our Lord.”
DITTO~! Whoever knows with ANY certainty what’s coming even tomorrow?
(See my previous post before this)
Our choices indicate what our beliefs are.
Is Sarah now a RINO for supporting Mitt?
I don’t think she is.
But many here must now conclude she is.
Your problem, not mine.
That’s a loser’s response. Your claims are laughable.
Unless these organizations know something bad we don't about Gingrich or good we don't know about Romney (not likely in either case), I can think of no good reason why they've made an endorsement while there are still other pro-life candidates in the Republican Party primary.
I can think of a number of bad reasons but I'm not going to throw stones without facts.
No, I don’t think Sarah is a RINO, though she will eventually support Romney, if he’s the nominee. Her conservative credentials are well-established. She, like Mark Levin, has been clear that we need to nominate a conservative, and that’s not Romney. But if she supports him as the nominee, that’s her choice, her reasoning, and she has to make it herself. That’s fine. It’s not as though she’s been hyperventilating over him for months and wishing he’d make her his second wife, like Ann Coulter’s done.
But I know what I have to do, as well.
The precedent here really undermines the purpose for the organization. As the article points out, Giuliani was (correctly) rejected by NRTL because he, as a pro-abort, ran as a pro-abort but promised to appoint strict constructionist judges to try to persuade us to accept him. That dog didn’t hunt, of course. But compare it to Romney, who as a pro-abort, who simply lied about being pro-abort, and (incorrectly) received an NRTL endorsement.
The message they’re giving pro-abort Republicans is not to acknowledge they’re pro-abort and try to bargain with us pro-lifers to accept them (as Giuliani did), but instead simply to lie to us pro-lifers (as Romney did).
Sarah knows that a 2nd Obama term is the worse then any other alternative.
On the election:
Sarah on the Sean Hannity show 4-12-2012
Download here: http://www.mediafire.com/?wo9bxx7mqma9x1m
Hannity: (8:40min:seconds to 8:46 ) Alright, Lets talk about the campaign and your convinced Romneys it now? Do you think its pretty much over?
Palin(8:47 9:09 ) Well let me put it this way, I dont want Newt to drop out, I dont want Ron Paul to drop out, because I want debate still on the ideas that both of the other candidates have been able to espouse and explain to the country, I want Ron Pauls message about cutting the budget, about the economic woeful times that we are in and what we can do about it I want those to continue to be discussed and Newt has some good ideas too.
Hannity: (9:09-9:22 ) Are you convinced, because you spoke about this at an earlier time during the primary, are you convinced as to time has gone on that governor Romney will govern as a solid strong conservative or do you still have doubts?
Palin: (9:23-9:37 ) I am convinced that governor Romney, if he is our nominee and if he is elected president, he will know to surround himself with those that will inherently know to go right, to err on the side of smaller, smarter government and that gives me a lot of confidence.
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.