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.
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.
Exactly, Onyx. Sarah is doing what she has to do.
Well you didn’t expect them to endorse Obama, did you?
Of course not.
Showing their weak pro life commitment, they
voted for a man with a very checkered abortion
record. They didn’t have to endorse anyone
yet. Newt is still ostensibly in, MR doesn’t
yet have the delegates, and no one knows what
will happen at the convention.
They’re just reflecting the reality of the situation. I don’t believe Newt can garner the votes needed, and apparently neither does the Committee.
We don’t know what’s going to happen with certainty yet as the days/months roll on, do we. And what’s that got to do with it anyway? This is allegedly a pro life organization endorsing someone who’s amply demonstrated he’s NOT a trustworthy pro lifer.
However, when I was looking around for more information on the issue, I found this Politifact piece from last cycle which had a different take:
The Thompson campaign, which has been playing up the former U.S. senators antiabortion stances, sent out this e-mail in November 2007:
So what sort of services does Romneys health care plan provide? Per the state Web site: $50 co-pay for abortions.
While court mandate requires Massachusetts to cover medically necessary abortions in state-subsidized health plans, Mitt Romneys plan covers ALL abortions no restrictions.
And its true.
Romneys campaign counters that the decision about what services to cover was ultimately left up to the independent Commonwealth Care Authority.
But Romney was well-represented: Of the six policy-making members of the authoritys 10-member board, half are appointed by the governor, and half by the state attorney general. Half of the ex-officio members also are appointed by the governor, including the chairman the governors secretary of administration and finance and the state insurance commission.
Although Romney shares responsiblity with the state legislature and the programs board, Commonwealth Care was his pet project, and he takes credit for it. We find Thompsons claims true.
Flip flopper at very best is the accurate appraisal of MR. How proud must he feel that Obama celebrated the 6 yr anniversary of Romneycare this week.
As they say, watch what they do, NOT what they say.
It’s NOT over, ‘til it’s over.
“What are you going to do, bleed on me?”
I am not singing high praises to Romney, you are dishonest if you claim otherwise.
I simply refuse to allow you are anyone else to sing the praises of Obama, and you do just that with the delusional postings about Obama and Romney being identical, as they clearly are not.
As for your “dear friends”??
Give me a break, those who pick fights should have the ability to defend themselves, and the ability to take it as well as dish it out.
It is highly unlikely that your political or legal accomplishments, on behalf of the Conservative cause, would ever measure up to mine.
I have no need for your lectures and I am amused by your ignorant, defensive insults.
Truth does NOT change, and I speak the TRUTH!
You find the truth “tiresome” as you live in denial and self-delusion.
You attacked the NRLC.
I defended the NRLC by asking what wonderful accomplishments YOU have, on behalf of the unborn.
That is a very legitimate question, if you think YOUR ideas and strategy are some how “superior” -—
You respond with a crybaby tantrum and accuse me of personal attacks?
Get over yourself.
The NRA, National Right-to-Life, and similar organizations are single-issue advocacy groups. Sometimes a long-term Democrat incumbent can be very effective on gun issues or abortion or whatever. I don't dispute that — pro-gun Democrats have historically been critical to killing anti-gun legislation and there was a point that pro-life Democrats were providing necessary majorities to keep important legislation from being derailed by Democratic Party leaders. It's pretty hard for the Senate or House leadership to keep a bill bottled up in committee when it's not just Republicans but also high-level Democrats who are demanding a vote.
But Romney has a track record of telling abortionists and homosexual marriage advocates that he wanted their endorsement because he'd be an effective advocate for their views in the Republican Party!
Also, we're not talking about the general election. I can understand why NRTL might back Romney over Obama there as the “least bad” candidate. But somebody explain to me why these organizations decided to back Mitt Romney when 1) he probably doesn't need their endorsement in the primary, and 2) the nomination fight isn't over yet.
I'm not happy at all about the National Right to Life endorsement. I believe all it did was antagonize conservatives by giving “cover” to Mitt Romney. and for no good reason since at this point there's a good chance he's going to win the nomination anyway without their help.
I really can't see any good reason for this Right-to-Life endorsement of Romney at this point. It seems like the endorsement risks damaging the organizations without providing meaningful help to the candidate they're endorsing.
Did Newt Gingrich do something decades ago to torque off Right to Life and the anti-homosexual marriage lobby? I can see no good reason for this endorsement, even from a single-issue perspective.
You're missing the point.
The Republican Party has made a calculated decision that it can win without Social Conservatives...or, more correctly...without pandering to Social Conservatives.
They are right.
Social Conservatives, by limiting themselves to JUST a couple/three issues have so marginalized themselves that they have become more of an election liability than asset.
Think about it.
"Social Conservatives" have, historically, NOT been reliable Republican voters. The Reagan years were an anomaly.
In fact, as many Social Conservatives vote Democrat today as those who vote Republican.
Why would the Republican Party make a special place for them? After all, their power is the primaries, NOT the General Election.
SoCons need to get over this idea that they will determine who the GOP nominee and POTUS will be. They are 10% of the general election vote. They hold less clout then blacks in the Democratic Party...and don't have even 10% of the sympathizers of the blacks.
I'm not SoCons should reduce their voice or demand. I'm saying folks are waking up to the numbers and calculating otherwise.
We'll see if they're wrong.
I don't think they are.
SoCons that are conservatives will vote GOP. SoCons that are liberal will vote Democrat.
Check my posting history... I've spent a fair amount of time since Santorums withdrawal by writing on Christian principles in voting, and a key issue for me is that I believe it's important to cite chapter-and-verse why an evangelical can vote for Newt Gingrich in good conscience.
Here are some examples:
I'm not very happy about backing a person with Gingrich's background, but I will vote for a repentant adulterer before I'll vote for a baby-killer who doesn't appear to have seriously repented of his wickedness.
It really is that simple.
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.