Free Republic
Browse · Search
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

National Right to Life, others endorse Romney (Dear Lord)
Baptist Press/Town Hall ^ | 4-12-12 | Michael Foust

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.

TOPICS: Culture/Society; Front Page News; News/Current Events; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: 2012election; abortion; bizarroworld; dogandponyshow; election2012; endorsement; endorsements; evangelicals; evangelicalsrscrewed; kenyanbornmuzzie; massachusetts; michigan; mittromney; nationalrighttolife; newtgingrich; prolife; ricksantorum; romney; utah
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 221-240241-260261-280281-298 next last
To: butterdezillion
Don't worry! If Newt is on the ballot for the NC Primary in May, I will proudly vote for him!! In fact, I am thrilled to have the chance to vote my convictions in the primary. My response was about the comparison between Obama and Romney in case Romney is the nominee. I can not bring myself to vote for a third party candidate because another term for Obama is something the United States can not afford.
241 posted on 04/13/2012 3:31:20 PM PDT by srmorton (Deut. 30 19: "..I have set before you life and death,....therefore, choose life..")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 103 | View Replies]

To: CatherineofAragon

That’s a loser’s response. Your claims are laughable.

242 posted on 04/13/2012 4:23:18 PM PDT by sand lake bar (You have not converted a man because you have silenced him.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 224 | View Replies]

This is a big deal and it's very bad news. It's going to cause real damage to those who are trying to get the word out about Romney's views.

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.

243 posted on 04/13/2012 4:44:07 PM PDT by darrellmaurina
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: KSanders

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.

244 posted on 04/13/2012 4:49:24 PM PDT by CatherineofAragon (Time for a write-in campaign...Darryl Dixon for President)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 239 | View Replies]

To: KSanders; CatherineofAragon; trisham; RedMDer
Is Sarah now a RINO for supporting Mitt?
I don’t think she is.
But many here must now conclude she is.

Sarah Palin is a TEA Party patriot of national prominence. She commands the media attention of a president; in fact, the current _resident.

A RINO? Never!

She has said all along *ABO* = "Anyone But Obama," but she has always said to keep the primaries going and the vetting process active and for the other candidates, namely Newt Gingrich not to drop out.

Romney is her least favored candidate, which she has made crystal clear.

Of course she will endorse Romney, if he wins the nomination. She, like Newt Gingrich and others, are not about to give the other side any amunition to help the Marxist's reelection.

People need to grow the He// up.

245 posted on 04/13/2012 5:16:01 PM PDT by onyx (SUPPORT FREE REPUBLIC, DONATE MONTHLY. If you want on Sarah Palin's Ping List, let me know.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 239 | View Replies]


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).

246 posted on 04/13/2012 5:18:16 PM PDT by order66.exe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: onyx

Agreed 100%!

Sarah knows that a 2nd Obama term is the worse then any other alternative.

247 posted on 04/13/2012 5:28:19 PM PDT by KSanders
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 245 | View Replies]

To: Kansas58; trisham; RitaOK; presently no screen name; STARWISE
Care to place a wager on who is correct?
Courage is the ability to face the truth and do our best in dealing with that truth.
You do not deserve to be a leader in the Conservative movement if you dwell in fantasy and delusion.

Now you sound, like Romney: placing bets.

I've already told you, you're stuff is tedious, tiresome and repetitious.

Your defense of Romney, the inevitible, goes against most of us here and we're in this fight to see that this primary continues with the slim hope that Romney won't get 1144 delegates.

You, not at all, and now you've taken to insulting dear friends of mine with personal attacks.

Newt Gingrich remains in the race. You say he hasn't a prayer and I said "he has mine."

You mock prayers and try to lecture me about courage. You're a surrender monkey and no Conservative surrenders to a liar liberal from Massachusetts.

Stuff it.
248 posted on 04/13/2012 5:29:35 PM PDT by onyx (SUPPORT FREE REPUBLIC, DONATE MONTHLY. If you want on Sarah Palin's Ping List, let me know.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 142 | View Replies]

To: Yashcheritsiy

On the election:

Sarah on the Sean Hannity show 4-12-2012

Download here:

Hannity: (8:40min:seconds to 8:46 ) “Alright, Lets talk about the campaign and your convinced Romney’s it now? Do you think it’s pretty much over?”

Palin(8:47 – 9:09 ) “Well let me put it this way, I don’t want Newt to drop out, I don’t 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 Paul’s 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.”

249 posted on 04/13/2012 5:30:36 PM PDT by KSanders
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 201 | View Replies]

To: onyx; KSanders; CatherineofAragon; trisham
Sarah Palin is a TEA Party patriot of national prominence.

Sarah Palin can't be a RINO. She has been fighting the Republican establishment RINOs and any others since she entered elective office. She is a Conservative pure and simple.
Exposing corruption no matter what is behind the "label". It doesn't matter if it's Republican, Democrat or any other.
250 posted on 04/13/2012 5:39:08 PM PDT by RedMDer (
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 245 | View Replies]

To: onyx

Exactly, Onyx. Sarah is doing what she has to do.

251 posted on 04/13/2012 5:40:58 PM PDT by CatherineofAragon (Time for a write-in campaign...Darryl Dixon for President)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 245 | View Replies]


Well you didn’t expect them to endorse Obama, did you?

252 posted on 04/13/2012 7:15:38 PM PDT by SuziQ
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SuziQ

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.

253 posted on 04/13/2012 7:35:38 PM PDT by STARWISE (The overlords are in place .. we are a nation under siege .. pray, go Galt & hunker down)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 252 | View Replies]


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.

254 posted on 04/13/2012 7:56:33 PM PDT by SuziQ
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 253 | View Replies]

To: SuziQ; onyx; butterdezillion; RitaOK; Jim Robinson; mojitojoe; CatherineofAragon

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. senator’s antiabortion stances, sent out this e-mail in November 2007:

“So what sort of services does Romney’s 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 Romney’s plan covers ALL abortions — no restrictions.”

And it’s true.

Romney’s 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 authority’s 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 governor’s secretary of administration and finance — and the state insurance commission.

Although Romney shares responsiblity with the state legislature and the program’s board, Commonwealth Care was his pet project, and he takes credit for it. We find Thompson’s 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.

255 posted on 04/13/2012 8:20:59 PM PDT by STARWISE (The overlords are in place .. we are a nation under siege .. pray, go Galt & hunker down)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 254 | View Replies]

To: onyx
A Monty Python scene comes to mind.

“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.

Guess what?

Truth does NOT change, and I speak the TRUTH!

You find the truth “tiresome” as you live in denial and self-delusion.

256 posted on 04/13/2012 9:32:05 PM PDT by Kansas58
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 248 | View Replies]

To: trisham


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.

257 posted on 04/13/2012 9:36:41 PM PDT by Kansas58
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 240 | View Replies]

To: CharlesWayneCT; STARWISE; ConfidentConservative; GeronL; Antoninus; Lazlo in PA; cripplecreek; ...
105 posted on Fri Apr 13 2012 01:45:04 GMT-0500 (Central Daylight Time) by CharlesWayneCT: “National Right-to-Life isn’t God. It’s a human organization, run by flawed humans. It is political, and therefore makes political calculations. I’ve seen the state organizations endorse pro-life democrat incumbents against better pro-life republican challengers, simply because they wanted to encourage pro-life democrats, knowing that a democrat majority was bad for the pro-life movement. But they are a good group, and they have sound reasons for their endorsements.”

We agree.

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.

258 posted on 04/13/2012 9:38:16 PM PDT by darrellmaurina
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 105 | View Replies]

To: darrellmaurina
"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"


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.

259 posted on 04/13/2012 10:08:54 PM PDT by Mariner (War Criminal #18)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 258 | View Replies]

To: katiedidit1
167 posted on Fri Apr 13 2012 10:28:36 GMT-0500 (Central Daylight Time) by katiedidit1: “Why is it the evangelicals and right to lifers can forgive a man that supported abortion but they can't forgive Newt for his divorces?”

Check my posting history... I've spent a fair amount of time since Santorum’s 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.

260 posted on 04/13/2012 10:13:00 PM PDT by darrellmaurina
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 167 | View Replies]

Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 221-240241-260261-280281-298 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794 is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson