Romney’s conversion on abortion

The conversion of a political candidate prior to an election is naturally met with questions and even skepticism. Mitt Romney has been no exception. It has led even the casual observer to say, “Is this authentic?”

To fully understand why this can be true, we must first review some history. Pro-life conversions have happened in the past at the highest levels of politics. Central to this was President H. W. Bush. As a vice presidential candidate, George Bush changed his position from pro-abortion to pro-life after a lengthy meeting with me.

My relationship with George H. W. Bush, who was to eventually become president, began in August 1980. Mr. Bush and Ronald Reagan had run against each other in the Republican primary. Reagan won that race and was nominated for president at the Republican National Convention in Detroit. During the primary campaign, it was evident the two men did not see eye-toeye on several issues. Most of us had the distinct impression that while Ronald Reagan was quite pro-life, George Bush was not.

At the convention, Reagan—probably for political reasons—chose George H. W. Bush as his vice presidential running mate. This came as quite a surprise to us, and immediately presented a problem. I had just been elected president of the National Right to Life Committee. We very much wanted to have our people support the Reagan ticket, but now it was complicated because his running mate seemed to be proabortion. I decided to see what I could do to change the situation.

On the last day of the convention, I took an elevator in the Pontchartrain Hotel up to the 14th floor, which was Republican headquarters, and knocked on the door. I explained who I was and asked to talk to Mr. Bush. The young lady answering the door seemed somewhat taken aback as I explained that this was important for the upcoming election.

A few minutes later she came back and said, “Mr. Casey will be seeing you.” Bill Casey later became head of the Central Intelligence Agency, and I would become well acquainted with him. We sat and talked for a bit. Mr. Casey was quite sympathetic to our issue, and said that he would arrange for me to meet Mr. Bush.

After about 30 minutes, I was ushered into what obviously had been a committee meeting room. The smoke still hung heavy, and there were a number of folding tables, some with empty drink glasses and cups. Mr. Bush got up from his chair and came over, shook my hand, and we sat down alone in the room. I explained who I was and that we supported Ronald Reagan’s pro-life stand. We wanted to support the ticket, but there seemed to be some real question about his position on our issue. Due to that uncertainty, I didn’t know whether pro-life people would support the ticket.

Mr. Bush thanked me for my straightforward comments and said, “Let me tell you where I stand.” I held up my hand, interrupted and said, “Please don’t. I think perhaps if I could brief you on this entire issue, then you could think this over and I might possibly change some of your thinking. I would like to give you a professional briefing.”

Mr. Bush relaxed, sat back, smiled and said, “I think that is a good idea, Doctor.” He fished for his business card and said, “We are all taking some time off now, but when we get back to Washington, call. I’ll have (he mentioned her name) set you up with an appointment.” I said, “I would like to be very respectful here, sir, but that won’t be sufficient.” “Oh,” he looked at me. “To do this right would take the better part of three or four hours and that is what I’d like to request from you.” He almost swallowed his teeth. “Four hours?” I interrupted and said, “Of course I would like to change your opinion and make you pro-life. I am probably not going to do that. But if I can report in our National Right to Life News that you were so interested in this issue and so respectful of it that you gave me this kind of time, that is going to make a profound impression on our people.” He sat back, mulling this over for a bit. Then he said, “You’re pretty convincing.”

He paused again, then said, “Okay . . . look, I am going back to Kennebunkport, which is our home in Maine, umm . . . let me carve out a time up there and umm . . . here is the person you want to talk to, we’ll set you up there for a morning meeting. Will you come alone?” I said, “I would probably bring one lady with me.” “That’s fine,” he said, “I will have one of my aides with me. We will meet at my home.” “Fine, Mr. Bush, we’ll meet in the morning. My presentation will be medical and scientific with moral overtones. Would you mind then, perhaps after lunch, if I could bring a few other more political people with me? Then we could discuss the campaign.” Another long pause and he said, “All right, let’s do it.”

Several weeks later, I found myself entering the Bush home with my Political Action Committee director, Sandra Faucher. I had brought my trusty Kodak carousel projector and some literature. It was a very pleasant day, which I have never forgotten. The house was on a small peninsula extending into the ocean, and on a bit of a rise. The French doors and windows were all open with a gentle ocean breeze wafting through. Barbara Bush was very gracious, serving iced tea and some snacks. I set my projector on a small coffee table. Mr. Bush was on one side and I on the other. The aide provided a screen and the briefing began. For about three hours, I would speak, then flip on a slide, then speak some more. Mr. Bush would question. I would answer. His aide spoke occasionally, as did Sandy, but basically it was a dialogue between the two of us.

Barbara Bush sat about 10 or 15 feet away, knitting. She only spoke once, asking “Well, what if the life of the mother is in danger?” I answered. She seemed to be satisfied and went back to her knitting.

Lunch was served and then the other pro-life leaders joined us. For another two hours that afternoon we all discussed the campaign. When it was time to go, I said, “Well Mr. Bush, back in Detroit you offered to tell me where you stand. Now I am going to ask you, would you be so kind as to answer?” He smiled, looking at me with an “Okay you did it” sort of look. He said, “I wasn’t here before, but I am now. I will support an amendment to the Constitution to forbid abortion and to overturn Roe v. Wade, but it will be a states’ rights amendment. I can’t support a federal amendment.”

When we publicized this news, the pro - l i f e movement strongly supported the Reagan-Bush ticket and the rest is history.

As of June 1988, Reagan and Bush had served two terms, a total of eight years. I was in the White House with some frequency during those years. Sometimes I met with President Reagan, sometimes with Vice President Bush, and occasionally both. My acquaintance with Mr. Bush grew during those years, and we worked together on several things.

After the Reagan administration, it was a pleasant four years with George H. W. Bush in the White House. We didn’t get everything we wanted, but we got the important things. Every time we asked him to threaten a veto, he did. While we are still not sure that this good man is completely pro-life in his heart, he certainly was prolife in his actions. He was a man of his word.

As this is written, Barack Obama has proven to be the most pro-abortion president of modern times and he is now seeking a second term. Former Massachusetts Governor, Mitt Romney, is the presumptive nominee for the Republican Presidential slot in November. Naturally, some have questioned his pro-life credentials and convictions so let’s examine the details of Governor Romney’s conversion.

When he was first elected Governor of Massachusetts, it was generally presumed that his position was “prochoice.” However, about half way into his first term as governor in 2005, Romney announced that he was opposed to embryonic stem cell research and proceeded to veto a bill making the “Morning After,” plan B contraceptive pills available. In the same year, he declared that he was pro-life.

Governor Romney tells us that he changed his mind in November 2004. At that time, he was obviously searching and had questions. He met with Douglas A. Melton, PhD, a scientist from the Harvard Stem Cell Institute on November 9. In that interview the Governor said this researcher told him, “Look, you don’t have to think about this stem cell research as a moral issue because we kill the embryos after fourteen days.” This had a major impact on Romney and his chief of staff, as they saw it recognizing that such embryonic stem cell research in fact was killing what they were convinced were human lives already in existence. Later, through a spokesperson, Dr. Melton disputed that he used the word “kill.”

But Governor Romney, wanting to know more, consulted with one of the best people available in February 2005. This expert was William B. Hurlbut, a physician and professor at Stanford University Medical Center Neuroscience Institute. Dr. Hurlbut is a dedicated pro-lifer.

The two of them met for several hours, discussing the issue in great detail. They went through the dynamics of conception, embryonic development and repercussions of the various research and experimentation that has been going on aimed at exploring the first weeks after fertilization. At that point, Romney was under intense pressure to change a state law that, at the time, still protected human embryos from lethal stem cell research. Some of the pressure came from Harvard, his own almamater. After this in-depth consultation, Romney stated that he was pro-life.

Asked about their meeting by columnist Kathleen Parker, Dr. Hurlbut said, “Several things about our conversation still stand out strongly in my mind. First, he clearly recognized the significance of the i s s u e, not just as a current controversy, but as a matter that would define the character of our culture way into the future. Second, it was obvious that he had put in a real effort to understand both the scientific prospects and the broader social implications. Finally, I was impressed by both his clarity of mind and sincerity of heart. He recognized that this was not a matter of purely abstract theory or merely pragmatic governance, but a crucial moment in how we are to regard nascent human life and the broader meaning of medicine in the service of life.”

Similar to my time with President H. W. Bush, Dr. Hurlbut presented Governor Romney with sound scientific and medical information. The Governor responded by changing his position to support the protection of innocent human life from the point of fertilization. He declared himself pro-life and has repeatedly done so since that time.

For over twenty years, Life Issues Institute has been solely dedicated to prolife education. It has been my primary contribution to the pro-life movement since the 1960s. Our strength comes from the central fact that we are daily changing the hearts and minds of Americans on abortion. And our efforts have greatly be en assisted by science. The tool of ultrasound has resulted in an entire generation having their first baby picture taken within the womb, and it’s greatly impacted people’s opinion on abortion. Every pro-life individual and organization should rejoice when anyone—political or otherwise—responds to the unmistakable fact that human life begins at fertilization and that it should be protected.

Life Issues Institute and I are confident that Governor Romney’s conversion is real, heartfelt and authentic. Since the Institute is a 501(c)(3) organization, we cannot endorse a political candidate. As such, this article should not be construed as an endorsement of Governor Romney’s candidacy but rather a testament to the fact that we believe Mitt Romney is truly pro-life.

As to your last paragraph, we are called to God's children and servants not God's oddsmakers or bookies. No pro-lifer can vote for either of these monsters.

Just wait until Myth appoints Margaret Sanger's feminazi great grand daughter to SCOTUS and then Myth goes on autobabble as to how terribly disappointed he is in her SCOTUS voting record (this is not an actual person but is a good approximation of what appeals to Myth).

The candidates are Caligula and Diocletian. Caligula is known to be a rank lunatic and Diocletian is a pious pagan and Roman traditionalist (and total power freak who executes people for violating price control laws as well as for being Christians). Whom to choose? Whom to choose? How about neither? BTW, the pious megalomaniac Diocletian killed a hell of a lot more Christians before resigning in a huff because no matter how many he killed, the people would STILL not obey him. Constantine won the war of succession while still a pagan in the Battle at the Milvian Bridge and, converted by a vision of the Cross with the words In Hoc Signo Vinces (in this sign, you will conquer) made Christianity the religion of the Empire as Diocletian went off to Aquila to tend his roses.

Not Caligula. Not Diocletian. Not Obozo. Not Romney.

Somehow I get the impression that Myth wasn't the "first choice" of anyone who now claims to support him lest the boogieman get us if we don't. I'm waiting for a press conference at which Anne Romney tells us that Myth wasn't her first choice but now we just gotta vote for him.

Does anyone actually believe that their support for Myth Romney is sanitized in the slightest by the ritual incantation that Myth was not their first choice? Face it. Myth's sycophants are well aware of how much conservatives despise him and they invoke the ritual incantation that he wasn't their first choice to establish solidarity with actual conservatives to gull the more gullible among them into a false sense of security.

Remember now: The boogieman'll getcha if ya don't watch out!!!

Dare I suggest that we, as pro-lifers, withhold our votes from Obozo AND from Myth Romney?

Yes, you may, and I will support you in that, given that both Obama and Romney subscribe to the doctrine of murder of the unborn.

For the life of me, I can't comprehend how any so-called conservative can throw away their sacred principles to vote for either of these men. Romney doesn't deserve our support, because he's in foursquare agreement with nearly every plank of leftist ideology - as evidenced by his entire record in politics.

If there is such a thing as sin, then one definition is giving ones support to a person who has violated everything that one has recognized as abominable and destructive to life and goodness. Mitt Romney has done these very things throughout his political career.

How can this possibly be reconciled through logic or reason? I posit that there's no way that it can. Not in any universe, or earthly plain. You either believe in something, or you don't. It's that simple.

And Wind, it seems to me, IMHO, that while Barack Obama is making an ever-fresh effort to hijack your race to ends that are gross obscenities, which includes getting its rubber stamp for the Democrat idea of what should be done with abortion, Mitt Romney isn’t. It would be best if Mitt Romney took a firm stand that abortion is a plague that needs to be brought to an end in America, let alone starved of public funded. And he might yet. We haven’t seen the last pastry out of his waffle iron yet. I’d say please try to keep your powder dry and your options open. Your November ballot is not asking who you think is a saint. It is asking whether the guard should change.

I’m waiting for a press conference at which Anne Romney tells us that Myth wasn’t her first choice but now we just gotta vote for him.
_____________________________________

He wasnt...

She got engaged to another guy while he was vacationing in luxury in Paris, France and wrote him a Dear John letter...

(He went to France to dodge the draft...poor boys could only afford Canada)

For all his breaking the mormon summer camp rules and continually calling her and begging her to wait she wanted someone else...

Wee Willie Mitty had to call Big Daddy George and beg him to carroll her back to the Romney plantation...

George made her a better deal by making the other guy drop out of the race I guess...

Willard ended up the last man available...

Poor Willie Mitty...

always a bridesmaid...never a bride...

Unless youre The Slasher Bridesmaid from MASS...

I’m waiting for a press conference at which Anne Romney tells us that Myth wasn’t her first choice but now we just gotta vote for him.
_____________________________________

He wasnt...

She got engaged to another guy while he was vacationing in luxury in Paris, France and wrote him a Dear John letter...

(He went to France to dodge the draft...poor boys could only afford Canada)

For all his breaking the mormon summer camp rules and continually calling her and begging her to wait she wanted someone else...

Wee Willie Mitty had to call Big Daddy George and beg him to carroll her back to the Romney plantation...

George made her a better deal by making the other guy drop out of the race I guess...

Willard ended up the last man available...

Poor Willie Mitty...

always a bridesmaid...never a bride...

Unless youre The Slasher Bridesmaid from MASS...

So you don’t trust Dr Willke?

“Life Issues Institute and I are confident that Governor Romney’s conversion is real, heartfelt and authentic.”

I trust that they were duped by Romney.

Romney is a gifted political pragmatist, he's cut from the same cloth as Bill Clinton, his only compass is expediency and he is well versed in convincing people that he's on their side.

Mitt Romney advocated a pro choice position while running in liberal Massachusetts and a pro life position which running in the Republican primary. I don’t believe any of those men had strong feelings either way, they simply adopted the position the would confer the most political advantage to them.

Romney has been very adamant that his pro-abortion views come from the heart, and that he committed to abortion as a young man in 1963 along with the rest of his family, after the (according to him) needless death of a loved one because abortion wasn't legal. Romney has never been more convincing or sincere than when he has explained the depth of his commitment to abortion. Romney abandoned the GOP because of Reagan, and at the height of the abortion wars supported moderate candidates until he eventually drifted into supporting solely democrats.

Romney was very deeply and passionately, and convincingly pro-abortion, more so than almost any republican we can name , he was not merely indifferent to it.

I’d say please try to keep your powder dry and your options open. Your November ballot is not asking who you think is a saint. It is asking whether the guard should change.

I understand. I want a change of the guard in the White House as bad as anyone, but substituting Romney for Obama accomplishes little to nothing, in my opinion. They're two peas in a pod, as far as I'm concerned.

The man has never been one of us, and at this late date, he never will be. If he'd taken a hard right turn after losing the 2008 primary to McNuts, I might be more open to trusting him now, but look what happened. The Tea Party was born, and Mitt never broke bread with us. Not once.

Now he needs the patriotic right to put him over the top, and because we're in a pickle with the alternative, many conservatives are kicking at Lucy's football AGAIN. How many times do we have to land on our backs with a thud, before we finally wise up to the GOPe's game?

I, for one, am sick to death of taking them to the party, just to be dumped for the skanky leftist, batting her eyelashes at them.

I think this is a sad mischaracterization of the purpose that general elections with limited viable competition serve. It isn’t an American Idol contest for alabaster sainthood.

No, it isn't, but at the very least, we should expect (and demand) that our nominee has a demonstrated track record of supporting at least some of our values.

For the life of me, I can't find anything in Mitt Romney's record to indicate that he's ever shared any beliefs or convictions with center-right Americans, let alone, solid conservatives.

On the other hand, if I were a liberal Democrat, I'd find quite a bit to like about his record, and might even cross the aisle to vote for him.

Maybe Barack is a pea and so is Mitt, but they aren’t even out of the same garden let alone pod. Obama was cynically raised up by others as a Marxist, polarized and polarizing class warrior. Mitt, bless his silver spoon and his jillions of dollars, is a wishy washy pandering wimp who never saw much of a challenge in the real world except for doing pretty fair with Bain’s investments. There is yet hope for Mitt’s politics. There isn’t any hope for Barack’s.

I dont know if your comparison to Caligula and Diocletian are really fair or relevant to the choice we have this election year, but if you see Romney as comparable to one of those guys then I wont belabor the point. As I’ve held previously, I’m not someone who is going to tell you how bad you are if you dont vote for Romney, we all have to sleep at night and if you cant vote for either in good conscience, I can respect that.

Constantine is an interesting comparison though. I wonder if when he came back and said that he had converted, if anyone scoffed and looked at his (accurate) history as a pagan, and said, no way. I dont believe it. And post conversion, he did some good things and some bad things. I am a Christian too, and I would hope that whoever you vote for, you will pray for whoever wins, be it Romney or Obama. The lesson of Constantine is that no one is beyond the power of God, and whoever wins, I will pray that God puts a “Daniel” in his ear to persuade him to do right. Remember that the Apostle Paul spent his life before conversion killing Christians.

The one thing I will absolutely disagree with you on though, is your statement that “No pro-lifer can vote for either of these “monsters” (Romney or Obama)”. Many pro-lifers, myself included, will vote for Romney. I can respect you speaking for yourself, and doubtless there are many others that would agree....but I can’t really let you speak for me. Men of good will can disagree, and just as I wont engage in the nonsense of saying that if you wont vote for Romney you are a “closet Obama supporter”, I equally can’t accept a blanket declaration that all true pro-lifers cant vote for either.

One of my favorite sayings is “our greatest hopes or worst fears are seldom realized”. This is how I think a Romney Administration would end up being. Would he end up being the 2nd coming of Ronald Reagan?... almost certainly not. But I also dont think he’d end up being the complete and total villian that some fear he will be either. But after its all over, I hope we all remember we’re all on the same and all want the same things...and most importantly, put our ultimate trust in the same place.

Mitt isn’t really rooted in anything, but looks for whatever gets him cheers at the moment, in the situation. In Massachusetts that was pandering to liberals.

Red, I can feel you trying to downplay Romney's demonstrated, documented, left-liberal track record in life and politics. I don't know whether you're trying to convince me that 'maybe he's not so bad', or whether you're trying to convince yourself that you really won't be selling out everything you believe in, to give this guy your vote.

If Mitt was merely pandering to liberals while he was Governor of Massachusetts, the record would show that he threw them the occasional bone when he needed their help on something. That's not what his record shows at all. It's an unbroken string of pure statist, left-liberal governance, from start to finish.

He's a lib's lib, my friend. I'm a conservative, and I don't vote for libs under any banner. Everyone's got to do what they've got to do in this election. For myself, I'll be concentrating on the down ticket races and voting ABOorR for president.

Massachusetts wanted Romney as a liberal who could save them a little money compared to Democrats. Romney ran and delivered on that platform. And he still got ousted in favor of a more radical liberal.

We obviously disagree on how flexible we believe Mitt Romney is likely to be.

Obama can’t be accused of a lot of flip flops in Washington, that’s for sure.

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.