Posted on 04/16/2012 11:15:39 AM PDT by Colofornian
RomneyCare now offers free elective surgical abortions.
Mitt Romney was the enabler. This is how his government-dictated health plan is playing out. And he’s still proud of it. When he does touch on defects in his health plan, he never mentions abortion coverage as a problem. He’s either fine with it, or realizes he has to downplay it to get the conservative vote.
When the law was first implemented, there was a $50 copay for a RomneyCare elective surgical abortion. Now RomneyCare abortions are "free" for a $0 copay (or $50-$100 in some plans). In fact, the $0 copay shows up as early as 2008 at the Massachusetts Health Care Connector site. (The "Commonwealth Care" plans cover low-income residents, many of whom pay no monthly premiums.)
Of course, the abortions are not exactly free. We, the taxpayers cover the cost, whether we want to or not.
Amazingly, as overall RomneyCare costs and insurance premiums escalate, the copay for abortion drops! Why?
Because government health care is promoting abortion. This is really about “population control” by arrogant politicians and bureaucrat elites, righteously implementing Margaret Sanger’s eugenics dream. They don’t like excess people, especially if they’re “low income.”
HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius recently shocked conservatives with her statement that, “The reduction in the number of pregnancies compensates for cost of contraception.” For such people, it’s an easy jump from contraception to abortion. Just think of all the health care that won’t have to be provided if a baby is disposed of before he’s born.
They view pregnancy (other than in their own families) as a negative health “condition.” It’s perfectly fine – and even enlightened – to see a baby as a cancer to be cut out and thrown into the hazardous waste bin.
To what extent does Mitt Romney fit in with that “enlightened” crowd? Possibly, he’s just motivated by his overweening ambition – to the point of not caring about anything other than going where he thinks the votes are. Whatever his motives, he cannot erase his severely pro-abortion record.
Romney’s own record is clearly in support of “a woman’s right to choose” to kill her baby, and pro population control:
1992: Romney voted for “population-control fanatic” Paul Tsongas in the Democrat Presidential primary.
1994: In his U.S. Senate debate with Ted Kennedy, he said: "I believe that abortion should be safe and legal in this country. I have since the time that my mom took that position when she ran in 1970 as a U.S. Senate candidate. I believe that since Roe v. Wade has been the law [sic] for 20 years, that we should sustain and support it. And I sustain and support that law [sic] and the right of a woman to make that choice." (Video)
2002: In his campaign for Governor of Massachusetts, Romney told Planned Parenthood he supported Roe v. Wade, state-funded abortions for low-income women, insurance coverage of contraception, expanded availability of “emergency contraception” (the morning-after abortion pill), buffer zones around abortion clinics, and “age-appropriate sex education” in the schools. He also noted his support for the state law allowing a girl under 18 to bypass her parents and get a judge’s permission for an abortion. "I will preserve and protect a woman's right to choose and am devoted and dedicated to honoring my word in that regard. I will not change any provisions of Massachusetts' pro-choice laws," ,a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=lNDsyKnQIes">he said in a debate. (See another of his unequivocal pledges in this video.) He picked a pro-abortion running mate for Lt. Governor.
Romney’s 2002 Planned Parenthood questionnaire.
2002-2006: As Governor, Romney never expressed religious-freedom concerns over the 2002 state law requiring employers to offer health insurance including contraception benefits. It was just a cost issue to him.
2004 (November 9): Romney claims he converted to a pro-life outlook following consideration of embryo and cloning research. (So, an abstraction supposedly woke him up on the human life issue? Yet, decades’ worth of descriptions of abortion techniques and graphic images of tiny babies torn limb from limb had not affected him?)
2005:
•July: Romney vetoed the “emergency contraception” (morning-after abortion pill availability) bill. His veto was overridden (as he knew it would be). But he had vetoed it not due to his new pro-life principles, but to stay true to his campaign promise not to change abortion laws as Governor.
•October: He contradicted his own veto, signing a bill to get a federal waiver to expand distribution of “emergency contraception” to low-income women (as he had promised Planned Parenthood he would do in 2002). “The administration did not publicize the waiver request. Yesterday, the governor’s communications director, Eric Fehrnstrom, suggested that the decision was not controversial.” Planned Parenthood praised the Governor for this act.
•December – Romney forced Catholic Hospitals,/a> to dispense “emergency contraception” (morning-after abortion pill). His pro-abortion Chief Legal Counsel, Mark Nielsen, provided cover for Romney’s 24-hour flip-flop (contradicting his own Department of Public Health).
2006:
•April 12: Romney signs RomneyCare into law, including Planned Parenthood on the advisory board setting standards for coverage. He did not veto that section of the bill. Abortions were then made available for a mere $50 copay – with taxpayers actually covering the cost. (Brian Camenker of MassResistance first revealed the presence of Planned Parenthood on the RomneyCare advisory board, and the inaugural abortion copay rate of $50.) Romney hides behind a false claim that Massachusetts court rulings required inclusion of abortion services, but these rulings on Medicaid referred to only “medically necessary abortions,” not the elective abortions available under RomneyCare.) Romney was proud of his close association with his “collaborator and friend,” pro-abortion Senator Ted Kennedy, during the “crafting” of the “bold” new health care plan: "Senator Kennedy: Together we pitched the secretaries on our vision to insure all our citizens and on the need for federal support to make the vision real. His work in Washington and behind the scenes on Beacon Hill [Mass. State House] was absolutely essential." (Video)
•December: Romney donates $15,000 to Massachusetts Citizens for Life to buy their endorsement.
After his “conversion” and governorship: Romney still declares abortion to be a state’s rights issue, believes abortions are acceptable in the case of rape and incest, and says some human embryo research is fine.
2011: His signature achievement, RomneyCare, “progressed” to offering free elective abortions. The Massachusetts HealthCare Connector benefits outline (October 1, 2011) confirms this.
2011-2012: As candidate for the 2012 Republican Presidential nomination, Romney refused to sign the Susan B. Anthony pledge and is a no-show and major Republican pro-life forums (see here and here).
Free abortions are a predictable outcome of empowering government bureaucracies with mandating standards of coverage. Did Governor Romney not imagine how things would “progress” – or did he?
Certainly, the Democrat-controlled “legislature was counting on a Democrat governor to succeed Romney to put the real regulatory thumb screws in place.” Romney was certainly aware that the next Republican Governor candidate would be very unlikely to win, since one reason he chose not to seek re-election was his own weak standing in the polls. (In any case, his hand-picked Lt. Governor and 2006 Republican Governor candidate, Kerry Healey, was proudly pro-abortion. She would have had no problem with this evolution of RomneyCare.)
The conservative media are understandably upset over the rediscovery of Mitt Romney’s July 2009 op-ed, urging ObamaCare to include an individual mandate (for each citizen to purchase health insurance or pay a fine) as pioneered by RomneyCare. (See RedState and National Review.) That op-ed contradicts Romney’s recent statements that RomneyCare is just a state solution, and he didn’t see it as a model for federal health care reform.
The individual mandate is not the only mandate in RomneyCare. Health insurance companies are told by the RomneyCare Health Connector authority which benefits they must include in their various plans, and what the copays will be. One of these mandated benefits is surgical abortion.
Andrew McCarthy wrote of RomneyCare:
Besides the individual mandate, Governor Romney’s op-ed also proposed government-managed cures to address the government-caused cost spiral generated by the government-designed fee-for-service structure. Patients, he suggested, should be “required to pay a portion of their bill, except for certain conditions” — to be chosen, of course, by the government…. nowhere does the op-ed make any mention of the Constitution. [Emphasis added.]
Thus, Governor Romney opened a wide door. So now, surgical abortion is one of the “certain conditions” in Massachusetts that has no copay (or a very low copay in some plans).
And yes, there’s also the issue of that bothersome Constitution – whether state or federal –that Romney chooses to ignore (as he also did when implementing “gay marriage” in Massachusetts).
The conservative media should pay more attention to the mandated benefits side of RomneyCare. As we are seeing at the federal level, bureaucrats who implement legislation exercise tremendous control over how these mandates evolve. It’s only a matter of time before ObamaCare regulations follow in RomneyCare’s footsteps, and forces coverage for surgical abortions – with or without copays.
If people are upset now with mandated contraceptive coverage, wait until abortions are added to Kathleen Sebelius’ must-do list. She is no doubt eager to push the ObamaCare cure for that bothersome “condition” (pregnancy) – namely, abortion.
RomneyCare’s $0-$100 copay for a surgical abortion will certainly result in an increase in abortions. The real cost of is carried by taxpayers. This violates the religious beliefs of a majority of citizens.
None of this seems to bother Mitt Romney. He never mentions his RomneyCare abortion benefit, or its moral violation of the citizenry.
A Family Research Council study notes,
… there is no provision in the [RomneyCare] law for a subscriber’s right of conscience. Without a conscience provision, the individual mandate can lead to abhorrent consequences that make a mockery of its justification on grounds of personal responsibility.
Romney could have vetoed the entire final version of RomneyCare, but instead he signed it. He played with a top-down government healthcare system and we, the citizens, lost.
Romney still defends his “bold” law as a major step forward overall, and refuses to take the blame for any problems now cropping up:
Governor Romney now says that he cannot be held responsible for the actions of the [RomneyCare] Connector board, because it’s “an independent body separate from the governor’s office.” However, many critics of the Massachusetts plan warned him precisely against the dangers of giving regulatory authority to a bureaucracy that would last long beyond his administration. (Michael Tanner, Cato Institute, 2008. Emphasis added.)
Many conservatives simply do not trust Romney to change course if he becomes President. Since he likes his RomneyCare, does he really believe it's imperative to overturn ObamaCare?
Conclusion
FREE ABORTIONS funded by the taxpayers: This RomneyCare outrage alone should disqualify Mitt Romney as a Republican candidate for President.
Ah, Romney's real Plan for America: To piggyback upon his own Big Govt-socialized, taxpayer-funded abortion -- and try to piggy back upon Obama's FED/national socialized Big Govt healthcare to ensure we all of us taxpayers dig even deeper into our pockets to fund the slaughter of pre-born babies!
From the article: RomneyCare now offers free elective surgical abortions. MITT ROMNEY WAS THE ENABLER. This is how his government-dictated health plan is playing out. And he’s still proud of it. When he does touch on defects in his health plan, he never mentions abortion coverage as a problem. He’s either fine with it, or realizes he has to downplay it to get the conservative vote. When the law was first implemented, there was a $50 copay for a RomneyCare elective surgical abortion. Now RomneyCare abortions are "free" for a $0 copay (or $50-$100 in some plans). In fact, the $0 copay shows up as early as 2008 at the Massachusetts Health Care Connector site. (The "Commonwealth Care" plans cover low-income residents, many of whom pay no monthly premiums.) Of course, the abortions are not exactly free. We, the taxpayers cover the cost...
From the article:
As we send our tax$ to the govt this April, think of the portion that goes to dismembering the pre-born...to the dismemberers (Planned Parenthood)...and think of those pioneer pols like Romney and Obama who have led the way to ensure we all reach deeper into our pockets to pay for this slaughter.
From the article: ,Romney hides behind a false claim that Massachusetts court rulings required inclusion of abortion services, but these rulings on Medicaid referred to only “medically necessary abortions,” not the elective abortions available under RomneyCare.) Romney was proud of his close association with his “collaborator and friend,” pro-abortion Senator Ted Kennedy, during the “crafting” of the “bold” new health care plan: "Senator Kennedy: Together we pitched the secretaries on our vision to insure all our citizens and on the need for federal support to make the vision real. His work in Washington and behind the scenes on Beacon Hill [Mass. State House] was absolutely essential." (Video)
Yes, Mitt & his old bud, Teddy, working together to socialize Massachusetts healthcare-wise...to do what even Hillary couldn't do when Bill Clinton unleashed her to try to socialize healthcare in the 1990s!
This shows that if Mitt picked Hillary as his running mate, he'd be picking somebody to his right -- at least on socialized healthcare!!!
There ya go Romney supporters.. Defend that.
Well, everything else aside, Romney is as stupid as a box of rocks. He’ll claim that this wasn’t his doing, that the liberals made him do it or put it into his wonderful conservative plan. Now, how stupid can a man be to hand the liberals a socialized medicine program to do with as they please after he’s gone?
Romney is not pro-life. I was disappointed that Raymond Arroyo didn’t challenge Chris Smith (R) when he was on “World Over Live this week gushing about Romney’s “conversion”. Romney lied about forcing Catholic hospitals to provide abortifactients during this election cycle’s debates, and he misrepresented Santorum’s pro-life record. People who have made conversions don’t undermine the pro-life movement in this way. He has also said that he will “replace” ObamaCare with his own brand of socialist medicine. Romney is NOT pro-life, and these links above should be used anywhere where the lie of his conversion is being spread.
Indeed.
And...National Right to Life has done -- and continues to do -- wonderful work on behalf of the pre-born. But somebody's head(s) there should roll within that org after it elected last week to endorse Romney.
Elsewise, "pro-life" = nothing anymore. It becomes "We endorse pols who we deem are less 'pro-death' than others."
When NRTL leaders [distinction from NRTL, the storied organization or grassroots supporters]...
...start becoming as relativist and as utilitarian as the countless conservative humanists we see who pitch political relativism-as-an-absolute upon some of us...
...we're in DEEP, DEEP, DEEP trouble as a nation...
...[Yeah, I know that's self-refuting to try to impose political relativism as some "absolute" that we MUST bow down to...but it hasn't stopped the FR imposers on many threads!]
What we're about to enter into this political season is the Liberal "Twilight Zone" --
--where we'll have the most liberal of liberal Dems attempting to take a higher "moral high ground" vs. those they deem as social-issues hypocrites...
They'll preaching Romney supporters: "How DARE you preach your anti-abortion & big govt & socialized govt. sermons at us...when here you are beating up non-Romney supporter conservatives over not supporting a pro-abortion, big govt., socialized govt candidate (Mitt)! Forever shove it re: your abortion & big govt & socialist moralizing!"
In about the only time I tuned into NPR (last week), even one guy doing an interview there claimed the positions between Romney & Obama were not that "starkly" different.
Indeed.
And...National Right to Life has done -- and continues to do -- wonderful work on behalf of the pre-born. But somebody's head(s) there should roll within that org after it elected last week to endorse Romney.
Elsewise, "pro-life" = nothing anymore. It becomes "We endorse pols who we deem are less 'pro-death' than others."
When NRTL leaders [distinction from NRTL, the storied organization or grassroots supporters]...
...start becoming as relativist and as utilitarian as the countless conservative humanists we see who pitch political relativism-as-an-absolute upon some of us...
...we're in DEEP, DEEP, DEEP trouble as a nation...
...[Yeah, I know that's self-refuting to try to impose political relativism as some "absolute" that we MUST bow down to...but it hasn't stopped the FR imposers on many threads!]
What we're about to enter into this political season is the Liberal "Twilight Zone" --
--where we'll have the most liberal of liberal Dems attempting to take a higher "moral high ground" vs. those they deem as social-issues hypocrites...
They'll preaching Romney supporters: "How DARE you preach your anti-abortion & big govt & socialized govt. sermons at us...when here you are beating up non-Romney supporter conservatives over not supporting a pro-abortion, big govt., socialized govt candidate (Mitt)! Forever shove it re: your abortion & big govt & socialist moralizing!"
In about the only time I tuned into NPR (last week), even one guy doing an interview there claimed the positions between Romney & Obama were not that "starkly" different.
Yet there are claimed conservatives, some right here on FR, that would have you vote for this clown, ROMNEY.
Newt is the last conservative standing......
What is he laughing about? Governor Romney signs his signature achievement, the RomneyCare health bill, in April 2006. Senator Ted Kennedy, collaborator, stands behind the Governor. On the far right, then House Speaker Sal DiMasi, now serving an 8-year prison sentence for corruption.
Hmm...a new phrase is needed: "Absolute corruption corrupts absolutely."
And with many of these posters, as I said in post #7, their attitude is actually worse than simply "have you vote for Clown Romney."
It's oft' more imposing -- almost like..."Haven't you heard one of our few 'commandments?' Thou shalt embrace political & moral relativism as one of your few absolutes."
If they were as relationally "relativistic" as they are being morally & politically, they wouldn't care that we're voting third party...
Instead, they think political & moral relativism is some "absolute"...and all they do is wind up refuting themselves!
Bingo!
It's like meeting a highly infamous band of thieves @ some bar...
...know exactly who they are...
...and then lead them back to the supply depot @ your place of work -- the largest national source of employment
...open the door with your security code & key...
...and bid them, "have at it"...
I was shocked when I heard of this endorsement. Romney isn't even the nominee, and this was totally unnecessary. #DenyMitt1144
You aint seen nuthin’ yet!
Between Mitt and Obama? Which do you prefer?
Neither. If I was in Nazi Germany & two regional concentration camp commidants were running for political office against each other, I would NOT say, "Hmm...Herr Schmidt has Less potential for the greatest number of additional Jewish (& other) deaths, therefore Herr Schmidt gets my endorsement, gets my vote, and gets my bullying of Free-Republic types of citizens on his behalf."
Nor would I vote for a reincarnated Hitler if he was running vs. THE anti-Christ (d).
Your political relativism only trains the next generations to eventually vote for somebody to the left of Obama...'cause the Dems will always offer up somebody worse.
Stop endorsing evil!
We will not waste our limited resources on FR in support for a liberal progressive LIAR
This might help you find your answer
OK, so Obama will win. If Mitt gets the nomination, then it becomes a binary solution set: Mitt or Barry. I understand the decision to sit it out and not expend conservative resources on Mitt. Hopefully Barry will not get an opportunity in the next 4 years to replace one of the five non-Leftist Supreme Court justices.
Why is Mitt your judicial "savior?" As MASS guv, he appointed only 1 of 4 judges who were Republican. 3 out of 4 were either Dem or Independent liberals. Or are you going to become an apologist for an argument I haven't even seen yet that Mitt had a conversion on judicial appts, too???... (along with his umpteen "pro-life" conversions, his turn-abouts on homosexual activism, etc.)
Do people think and look up service track records before they place their trust in people to "save" them from their own fears?
Romney appointed DOZENS of judges...and 75% were liberal...and that doesn't even include vetting those single-digit Republicans to weed out the liberal RINOs in that group!!!
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.