Posted on 09/03/2012 8:07:13 AM PDT by Engraved-on-His-hands
Tampa – Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney misspoke this week when he said he believed abortion should be permitted if a doctor says the “health” of the mother might be compromised, according to the leader of one of the nation’s leading pro-life organizations.
Mitt Romney “My position has been clear throughout this campaign,” Romney told CBS News. “I’m in favor of abortion being legal in the case of rape and incest, and the health and life of the mother.”
Romney had not previously included maternal “health,” an exception pro-abortion activists have interpreted so broadly that it essentially justifies abortion under any circumstances.
Marjorie Dannenfelser, president of the Susan B. Anthony List, told American Family Radio host Bryan Fischer this week that she had spoken with a campaign official, who confirmed the former governor did not favor such an expansive exception.
“If that were his position, he would never have received our endorsement, that’s for sure,” Dannenfelser said. “I have heard clarification from his spokesperson, restating what his position really is, which is rape, incest, life of the mother. That is his position. Those are his exceptions.”
(Excerpt) Read more at lifesitenews.com ...
What trend am I talking about? That would take volumes. But here is a sample, discussing the homosexual agenda, that I posted three years ago (so the time frame in the comment is now three years older). And people who simply state that they believe that homosexuality is wrong are increasingly being fired, fined, kept from graduating from college, and jailed. If you don’t understand that trend (which would require another volume) you need to get up to speed on it and multitudes of others in our culture. Unfortunately, much of the recent trends have taken place with Republican approval and even complicity. But that also is another story. Here is one snippet, from three years ago, of one trend:
“Forty-seven years ago, homosexual behavior was not legally endorsed anywhere in the United States. Five years ago, it was still illegal in thirteen states. Now, due to the U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling in Lawrence v. Texas, it is legal in all fifty states.
“Nineteen years ago, homosexual civil unions were not legal anywhere in the world. Eight years ago, homosexual civil unions were not permitted anywhere in the U.S.
“Seven years ago, homosexual marriages were not legal anywhere in the world. Five years ago, homosexual marriages were not legal anywhere in the United States–nor anywhere else in the world outside of the Netherlands.
“Five years ago, there were no openly homosexual bishops sanctioned by mainline churches in the United States. Three years ago, even the European Union wouldn’t have threatened to revoke a country’s membership, as they are now doing with Poland, because of their laws against homosexual behavior. Until recently, no major American industrial giant like Ford Motor Company would donate hundreds of thousands of dollars to sponsor homosexual causes. Until recently no one would have thought that there would be a camp limited to homosexual teenagers that was designed to encouraged them to become homosexual activists, as is the case with the Triangle Foundation’s Detroit-area camp. Until recently no head of a major denomination would have said that it is not a sin to be a homosexual, as Jefferts Schori of the Episcopal Church recently did. Until recently no one would have imagined that a school district would require posters even in kindergarten and first grade classrooms, as was done by the San Leandro, California school district, that highlight the words “lesbian”, “gay”, “bisexual”, “transgender”, and “questioning”.”
First of all, I do not agree that Romney agrees with 85% of “our” position. But, even if he did, the inexorable trend is our bigger problem. Even if Romney agrees with 85% of our position, the trend means that the next President will agree with 75%, then the next one with 50%, and the next one with 35%.
Your comment implies that the last president, or the last Republican president, or the last Republican nominee agreed with our positions 95%.
McCain, Dole, Bush and Bush II weren't ninety-five percenters. There is no trend as you describe.
Accordsing to those who crafted the “right to life” plank in the RNC platform at the convention - calling for a Constitutional amendment calling for proctection for the right to life of the unborn, and with no exceptions mentioned, that was not because they believed that, in the end, there might not be exceptions.
Their belief, and I think they are correct, is that to the extent that there are any exceptions, or not, it will be a legislative matter left up to the states, as the Constitutional amendment revokes Roe-v-Wade and throws the issue back in their arena.
Most of our “rights” including Freedom of Speech, etc., have also never been without exceptions, with the exceptions mostly pertaining to context - such a you can’t shout “fire” in a crowded theater just to watch everyone trample over each other to get out.
And, no one should think that contextual exceptions to the rights in the Bill of Rights are new - they’re not; they have existed in Federal law and in the laws of the states since the founding of rhe Republic, so one should believe that “without exception” was part of what the founders understood, because it was not.
All I am warning everyone about is that even if a right-to-life amendment were adopted, and even if repeal of Roe-v-Wade were part of it, the net result would revert the matter the legislatures of the states, and that will result in some exceptions being legislated in, and then some will obtain challenges that will go all the way to the Supreme court, and I doubt very much that the Supreme court, no matter who sits on it, will reject every exception.
So, quit arguing over how “right-to-life” Romney is, because that will matter far less, in total, than will a right-to-life Constitutional amendment.
I believe the right-to-life movement has focused too much energy on Presidential politics and not enough getting state legislatures to sign onto a right-to-life Constitutional amendment; because even if such amendment starts as a Federal Congress proposal, it will still require enough support in state legislatures, or it will not succeed.
The GOP has had a right-to-life Constitutional amendment in the RNC platform for many years. I think only once was that amendment proposed in legislation in Congress.
My boss used to tell me, when I thought I was looking at a problem wrong - “You’re looking at the hole, not the Doughnut.”
I think, when it comes to a right-to-life Constitutional amendment, state legislatures are the Doughnut and everything else is the hole. State legislatures speak for the voice of their state. It seems difficult to believe that if 2/3 of them passed legislation proposing a Constitutional amendment that their own legislators would turn around and vote against it.
Until the right to life movement has a significan body of state legislatures on it’s side, they should quit hanging the enire issue on candidates for President.
Fair - nope.
Stupid - yes.
Romney supports homosexual agenda, abortion, man made global warming, big government, higher taxes, government mandates, government health care, gun grabbing, stimulus bail outs..........his governing style is liberalism.
You want to support 85% of that be my guest, I am not.
Do you realize that if obama is reelected, we will likely never be the same country again? Do you think we have the luxury to take that chance?
I heard it from the grapevine...
Mitt's lips are moving but no sound it coming out, LOL.
I've been noticing these ostensibly irrational posts for months. Some of them are likely Obama supporters IRL.
You're right that no rational pro-lifer would find Obama (who opposed the Born Alive Act, attacked the Catholic Church's right to religious freedom regarding life issues, and instituted Obamacare, which increases abortion funding as well as the number of abortions) preferable to Romney, who holds the exact opposite positions.
Stare decisis is not just a legal concept for today's world you know...and as America ends I will encourage my new nation my state my South Carolina as under the Articles to furiously print our money and to quickly furnish our military with the tools of defense in case the North Carolina, Tennessee and Georgia barbarians rush our gates..
Glad to see the correction!
Romney is not pro-life.
Because a person points out that Romney is not pro-life, only translates to the confused as support for obama.
All it took was a quick shake of that Etch-A-Sketch!
Romney agrees with 85% of our position. RomneyCare, gay marriage, same sex adoptions. cap & trade, free wheels for welfare. trying to force Catholic Hospitals to provide abortions, etc. A record any liberal would be proud of.
Bingo!
Romney wants to defund planned parenthood, shrink government, strengthen the military, stand up to Iran, renew ties with our traditional allies (those whom Obama has scorned), and wants to rebuild the economy by reducing taxes, government spending and government regulation.
He also opposes abortions except for the stated exceptions, although ultimately, his position is only relevant in regard to national policy such as Obamacare (which he has pledged to repeal) because Roe vs. Wade is, unfortunately, the law of the land.
Just going by his long political record, not his flapping gums today.
Is there ANYONE here that REALLY believes Romney is pro-life? God I hope not. Because if you do, you’ll be taken advantage of your entire life.
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.