Posted on 10/09/2012 7:42:34 PM PDT by Free ThinkerNY
(Reuters) - Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney, in an apparent fresh move toward the political center, said on Tuesday if elected he would not pursue specific legislation targeting abortion.
"There's no legislation with regards to abortion that I'm familiar with that would become part of my agenda," Romney told the Des Moines Register's editorial board during a campaign visit to Van Meter, Iowa.
Romney's comment could be construed as reassuring some women voters who have had reservations about his candidacy. In recent weeks he has taken some steps toward the political center as he tries to attract independent voters before the November 6 election.
Some conservatives would like legislation aimed at limiting abortions, which were legalized in the U.S. Supreme Court's landmark 1973 Roe v. Wade ruling.
Reacting to Romney's comments, President Barack Obama's campaign sharply criticized the Republican, saying he had previously pledged to appoint Supreme Court justices who would overturn Roe v. Wade.
(Excerpt) Read more at reuters.com ...
I am happy to see that people on FR have an accurate take about this issue.
If President Romney were to focus on anything other than getting the US economy back on track during his first couple years, it would be the last political error he would have a chance to make.
“Comments that defend Romney on this are shameful, especially since the man just spent an entire election season blatantly and obviously lying to the American people concerning the central moral question of our day. They are a clear signal of the extreme danger to the republic that Mitt Romney represents.
Sadly, his supporters are becoming more and more like the man they are following.
May God have mercy on us.”
So what’s your suggestion then? Vote some 3rd party candidate with ZERO chance of winning, insuring that ZERO will be re-elected. That’s a great idea — then we’ll continue to have the most radical pro-abortion POTUS in history, one who even supported infanticide as an Illinois state senator. And someone who is guaranteed to appoint pro-abortion justices to the SCOTUS, where all of this is likely to be decided.
If you are really concerned about the cause of the unborn, you have to think sensibly about what we can accomplish this election cycle. We all understand that Romney is the worst GOP choice for the pro-life cause. But he has said he will appoint justices in the mold of Scalia and Alito. I know he could slither out of that promise, but at least we have a chance to get better justices on the SCOTUS.
Lastly, aside from the life issue, ZERO has been a lawless POTUS with no respect for our constitution. He routinely ignores court rulings and crafts executive orders that are clearly unconstitutional. And he’s done all this with an election coming up. I shudder to think what he’ll do when he no longer has to face the voters again.
With this in mind, I have no reservations whatsoever about voting for Romney — warts and all.
Romney has never deviated from his pro-abortion stance. Both he and Obama prefer the term pro-choice, but they are both anti-life. Romney’s answers here confirm that.
Tom, I don’t vote in California, but I’m in California right now. A friend here told me he received his California ballot yesterday and your name is printed on that ballot in letters just as large as the letters for the two liberals (Obama and Romney) that you’re running against. He said that you have as much chance of winning California as Romney does! Many Californians are hostile to both Obama and Romney and are looking for the kind of option your candidacy represents.
It's evident that Obama (who said the U.S. Constitution was a "flawed document" because it doesn't allow for redistribution) has every intention of continuing to "transform" the U.S. economy according to his Marxist ideals.
Economic destruction ultimately results in the loss of ALL freedoms. The freedom to exercise God-given rights in ALL areas is easily wrested from a population once its right to private property is taken away.
Why care about Romney's personal thoughts on these issues (which are ultimately between him and God), as long as political necessity forces him to take the side of the pro-life cause?
Preoccupation with Romney's past positions regarding abortion and "gay" rights while the economy is being gutted by Obama is akin to rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic. If Obamacare isn't repealed, the pro-life battle will be truly lost, not only on the abortion front, but also in regard to the sanctity of life at all stages.
When Obama complete his mission of reducing the middle class to serfdom, freedom of religion, freedom of speech, and Freedom of Conscience will become fading memories. In short, we'll have reached the ultimate goal of Marxism, that of a modern form of national feudalism where the citizens produce, and the government owns everything, including a permanent stranglehold monopoly on your body, your mind, and if they can manage to wipe out all your religious tendencies, your soul.
California voters could shake the political world, if they set their minds to it.
If they’re conservatives they don’t even have a bad excuse not to vote for me.
Thanks for the good report!
Takin’ another bite of that Romney s*#t sandwich, boss! mmm...(now, back to clearing that highway ditch...
You aren't reading the thread, Romney reverted back to his pro-abortion position and came out against the pro-life party platform, only weeks ago. He also restated his pro-homosexual agenda support again.
Mitt is moving the GOP, "political necessity" is changing the right, not Romney, it did not "force[s] him to take the side of the pro-life cause".
Marriages need to be recognized in all states, polygamy was banned before slavery in early America at the federal level, and child killing and slavery cannot be legal anywhere in the United States, not even California and New York.
“...On Tuesday night, the Romney campaign seemed to walk back the statement by the Republican presidential nominee. In an email to National Review’s Katrina Trinko, Romney campaign spokeswoman Andrea Saul wrote: “Governor Romney would of course support legislation aimed at providing greater protections for life.”
As president, Mitt Romney would affect abortion policy in large part by issuing executive orders and appointing Supreme Court justices that would (hopefully) allow the states to legislate on abortion—not by signing federal legislation. But the Supreme Court currently allows a small space for Congress to legislate on the issue, and within those confines Mitt Romney has pledged to support some modest legislative restrictions related to abortion.
Most importantly, Romney would repeal Obamacare. Romney may not think of Obamacare as an abortion-related issue, just as he forgot that Obamacare is also a tax issue at a September 25 event. But Obamacare provides taxpayer dollars to purchase insurance plans that cover abortion-on-demand—a policy that is politically toxic and nearly brought the bill down in an overwhelmingly Democratic Congress. Obamacare also forces almost all insurance plans, including plans provided and purchased by religious Americans, to cover abortion drugs...”
Obama apparently doesn’t understand that nominating pro-life SCOTUS justices is not the same thing as “legislation.”
Honestly, “constitutional scholar” Obama needs to go back to 8th grade civics class.
That won't be good enough for many around here.
You'll notice that many of the ABR (Anybody But Romney) people resort to the exact same sort of "spin" tactics that the MSM takes.
That should be instructive to the thinking person.
Not voting for Romney has the same effect as voting for Obama. Romney has not said that he would veto pro-life bills. He just won’t spearhead the effort. Thats not ideal but it is a far cry from Obama who is pushing for taxpayer funded abortion.
Thats not ideal but it is a far cry from Obama who is pushing for taxpayer funded abortion.
_____________________________________________
What do you think RomneyCare and Willards $50 abortions and free if you dont have $50 or dont want to pay it is ???
Ah its called “taxpayer funded abortion”
Willard boasted to OReilly that his RomneyCare in MASS is “working” the way he planned it...
Half the money comming form the MASS taxpayers and half from the rest of the country...(he called that bit “Federal”)
thats you dear...
You want to ignore Obama record on Abortion and Gay Marriage so you can excuse your willingness to actively campaign for him fine. However it is utterly hypocritical and absurd for you to try and dress up your opposition to Romney in moral terms then.
You always lie about which post you are posting to so I will have to repost all of mine to you.
This statement by Mitt Romney does seem pretty supportive of the homosexual agenda.
“” I am more convinced than ever before that as we seek to establish full equality for Americas gay and lesbian citizens, I will provide more effective leadership than my opponent (Ted Kennedy).
I am not unaware of my opponent’s considerable record in the area of civil rights, or the commitment of Massachusetts voters to the principle of equality for all Americans. For some voters it might be enough for me to simply match my opponent’s record in this area. But I believe we can and must do better. If we are to achieve the goals we share, we must make equality for gays and lesbians a mainstream concern. My opponent cannot do this. I can and will.””
“”One issue I want to clarify concerns President Clinton’s “don’t ask, don’t tell, don’t pursue” military policy. I believe that the Clinton compromise was a step in the right direction. I am also convinced that it is the first of a number of steps that will ultimately lead to gays and lesbians being able to serve openly and honestly in our nation’s military. That goal will only be reached when preventing discrimination against gays and lesbians is a mainstream concern, which is a goal we share.””
39 posted on Tue Oct 09 2012 21:10:12 GMT-0700 (Pacific Daylight Time) by ansel12
To: GeronL; MNJohnnie
*””He has been a faithful supporter of abortion since he was 11, I think that was his own statement””*
It is his own statement, but he was 16 and a republican intern when he became dedicated to abortion in 1963, not 11.
43 posted on Tue Oct 09 2012 21:20:25 GMT-0700 (Pacific Daylight Time) by ansel12
Since you lie about which post you are reponding to, I have to guess at which one you disagree with, is it this?
Romney recently restated that he will not challenge the homosexualizing of the military that he was promoting in the past and was one of his passionate goals, and was recently put into practice by Obama, and he still supports homosexualizing the Boy Scouts.
Mitt hasn’t changed on supporting the homosexual agenda.
THIS?
You believe him even since his August 27 interview with CBS? Do you really think that he changed all of his life views for this campaign, and that it was all miraculously a real conversion of a 60 year old politician, and that it was just a coincidence that it matched his run for the GOP nomination?
August 27th, 2012. CBS Interview:
PELLEY: Well, the platform as written at this convention for the Republicans does not allow for exceptions on abortion with regard to the health of the mother or rape or incest. Is that where you are?
ROMNEY: No. My position has been clear throughout this campaign. I’m in favor of abortion being legal in the case of rape and incest, and the health and life of the mother.
THIS?
Mitt Romney, President Obama affirm support for gay Boy Scout leaders
Compiled by Eric Schulzke, Deseret News
Published: Thursday, Aug. 9 2012
http://www.deseretnews.com/article/865560391/Mitt-Romney-President-Obama-affirm-support-for-gay-Boy-Scout-leaders.html?pg=all
Romney Says He Will Continue Obama’s Policy of Having Homosexuals in Military
By Michael W. Chapman
December 21, 2011
http://cnsnews.com/news/article/romney-says-he-will-continue-obamas-policy-having-homosexuals-military
Again, a flat-out falsehood in your first sentence. According to the Boy Scouts, they were never banned and were very happy with how the Olympics Committee worked to include them.
--------
"We're very pleased to have Scouts help out," said Romney, who is a member of the national board of directors of the Boy Scouts of America.
"We've not been excluded. . . . The report is not accurate and not true, " said Kay Godfrey, an executive with the Great Salt Lake Council of the BSA.
He said local Scout leaders have an open dialogue with SLOC and Salt Lake Scouts plan to participate in the background projects Romney has suggested.
Ogden Scout leaders also report a positive association with SLOC.
"We've been dealing with SLOC for months," Tom Hunsaker, program director for the Trapper Trails Council of the Boy Scouts in Ogden, said. "We've had tremendous response. SLOC has been very congenial."
http://www.deseretnews.com/article/799406/SLOC-denies-snubbing-Scouts-over-gay-stance.html?pg=all
.
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.