Mitt Romney is pro-life. He believes it speaks well of the country that almost all Americans recognize that abortion is a problem. And in the quiet of conscience, people of both political parties know that more than a million abortions a year cannot be squared with the good heart of America.
Mitt believes that life begins at conception and wishes that the laws of our nation reflected that view. But while the nation remains so divided, he believes that the right next step is for the Supreme Court to overturn Roe v. Wade – a case of blatant judicial activism that took a decision that should be left to the people and placed it in the hands of unelected judges. With Roe overturned, states will be empowered through the democratic process to determine their own abortion laws and not have them dictated by judicial mandate.
Mitt supports the Hyde Amendment, which broadly bars the use of federal funds for abortions. As president, he will end federal funding for abortion advocates like Planned Parenthood. He will protect the right of health care workers to follow their conscience in their work. And he will nominate judges who know the difference between personal opinion and the law.
Because the good heart of America knows no boundaries, a commitment to protecting life should not stop at the water’s edge. Taking innocent life is always wrong and always tragic, wherever it happens. The compassionate instincts of this country should not be silent in the face of injustices like China’s One-Child policy. No one will ever hear a President Romney or his vice president tell the Chinese government that “I fully understand” and won’t “second guess” compulsory sterilization and forced abortion.
Americans have a moral duty to uphold the sanctity of life and protect the weakest, most vulnerable and most innocent among us. As president, Mitt will ensure that American laws reflect America’s values of preserving life at home and abroad.
Good comment about the Supreme Court. I’m sending this to you because I don’t want to waste the next several hours of the day arguing with ansel12.
I wonder... is he/she suggesting that he or she would rather have Obama appoint the next 2-3 Supreme Court justices than Romney?
Yeah, that’s the ticket. This person would have to deal with Romney for 4-8 years, but with Obama’s appointees to the Court for probably decades. Yep, that sure seems like a winning strategy to me. /s
BTW, I’ve noticed that in the last few months it seems that FR has degenerated into sometimes very heated discussions between people I would call religious/social conservatives and those I would call political/economic conservatives. I am I guess (although I don’t like all these boxes we get put into) something of a conservative libertarian, so I usually just sit and watch.
But if these two sides don’t get there act together, we’ll all lose.
I’m reminded of two comments made by Americans :
“We had better hang together or we most assuredly will all hang separately” (Franklin)
“Never let the perfect be the enemy of the good”
(Reagan)