Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: Will88; Rock&RollRepublican
What you got in 1980 was a governor from California who’d signed into law one of the most liberal abortion laws in the nation. He become very pro-life when he realized he needed another leg to the proverbial three legged stool of the Reagan coalition. [Will88]

What you got with Reagan was not someone who, after writing a book, Abortion: The Conscience of a Nation in 1984, didn't slip back (like Romney did) into pro-abortion words & actions.

All you purists would never have supported Reagan in 1976, or 1980, because of his pro-abortion politics in California.

Oh, did Reagan have a 13-year hand-holding affair with Planned Parenthood like Romney did? (attended Planned Parenthood promo events with his wife's $150 check in hand...enough to pay for 1/2 abortion--in 1994; answered Planned Parenthood's political questionnaire all to PP's liking in 2002 + did same for NARAL & Majority for Choice--even personally sought the one for MFC; then put a PP rep as a permanent oversight rep for RomneyCare board...the latter supposedly after he was "pro-life.")

Did Reagan attempt to obfuscate his previous role like Romney did in 2007?

How could both of the following 2007 statements be true? (a) "As governor, I’ve had several pieces of legislation reach my desk, which would have expanded abortion rights in Massachusetts. Each of those I vetoed. Every action I’ve taken as the governor that relates to the sanctity of human life, I have stood on the side of life." and (b) “Over the last multiple years, as you know, I have been effectively pro-choice." (Bruce Smith, "Romney Campaigns in SC with Sen. DeMint," The Associated Press, 1/29/07)

And then, of course, 11 days after saying he was "effectively pro-choice...over the last multiple years" he then announces in the same state: "I am firmly pro-life…I was always for life." (Jim Davenport, "Romney Affirms Opposition to Abortion," The Associated Press, 2/9/2007)

"Always for life?" (Does he even know the difference?) Reagan did. The 1984 book proves it. But of course Romney's not done there...even before his "parent...donate" embryos for dissection comments to Couric in December, he told Iowa folks in August:

"I never said I was pro-choice, but my position was effectively pro-choice." (Source: 2007 GOP Iowa Straw Poll debate 8/5/2007)

OK...looking at the 1994 & 2002 campaigns, how could he say he "never said" he was "pro-choice?"

(Signs of a serial liar popping up here...What? Are you now going to call Reagan a "serial liar" to bring him down to Romney's level?)

Oh, but Romney's still not done even for August of '07.

He does his 8/12/07 interview with Chris Wallace of Fox: "I never called myself pro-choice. I never allowed myself to use the word pro-choice because I didn't FEEL I was pro-choice. I would protect the law, I said, as it was, but I wasn't pro-choice, and so...

Oh. So now he wasn't pro-choice just because the other side of him censored him...I never allowed myself to use the word pro-choice... Why the self-censorship? All because of the typical Mormon fallback position the most important things in life are determined by "feelings"--a burning in the bosom: I didn't FEEL I was pro-choice (Oh, yeah, that settles it...so why are YOU arguing with him then...he said he wasn't pro-choice, didn't label himself pro-choice, didn't feel pro-choice...now, why did you say he "changed" again? Changed from what?--Since he wasn't ever "pro-choice?"

But others are intelligent enough to recognize that politicians do change, for a variety and reasons, and become strong advocates for the opposite of positions they once took.

And others are intelligent enough to recognize that politicians do change...and change...and change...and keep changing!

He was pro-abortion in 1994, 2002-2004 & May of 2005...but he "wasn't pro-choice" in a letter-to-the editor in a Utah newspaper in 2001 and made pro-life actions in 2005 SANDWICHED between a pro-abortion comment in 2005...but then back to pro-abortion actions in 2006 with RomneyCare...supposedly "pro-life" in 2007...but then he was "always for life" in early '07 and wasn't ever "pro-choice" in the Summer of '07. [Further documentation available]

And the biggest flip-floppers of 2008 have been McCain and Huckabee. They’ve flipped from major positions...

If we could only get the convo down to Romney's "mere" flip-flops, that would be something in and of itself. The fact is that in addition to his multiple abortion switches, he took three different positions on embryonic stem cell research in 5.5 years; and he took three different positions on forcing businesses to hire alternative sexual minority employees; and he...

146 posted on 02/09/2008 5:22:07 PM PST by Colofornian
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 116 | View Replies ]


To: Colofornian

Nice recap of Romney’s twists and turns over abortion. He should have just stuck to being pro-choice. It would be more coherent, if nothing else.


147 posted on 02/09/2008 5:29:04 PM PST by zebrahead
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 146 | View Replies ]

To: Colofornian

Hey I appreciate your multitude of anti Romney posts, but in the end conservatives will give him a listen if Keene and Weyrich are will to do so. Apparently he is their guy for 2012 at this point.


151 posted on 02/09/2008 6:00:37 PM PST by rbmillerjr (Big Government Evangelicals.....leading conservatives to Landslide 2012)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 146 | View Replies ]

To: Colofornian; Will88

Colofornian: According to your logic, Duncan Hunter is killing babies in California every time he votes to fund Medicaid.

Says so here on Californiaprolife.org

Here is a snippet: you can check yourself: Duncan the baby killer.


“”It was the policy in twenty-seven states to fund abortions only when the life of the mother was endangered until the Clinton administration through threats and law suits forced funding for other exceptions in several of the states. (AL, AZ, AR, DE, FL, GA, ID, IN, KS, KY, LA, ME, MI, MS, MO, MT, NE, NV, NH, ND, OH, OK, RI, SC, SD, TX, UT)

Eight other states choose to fund abortions only when the life of the mother is endangered or when the baby has been conceived by rape or incest— several also fund when the baby might be born with handicaps or for other exceptions. (CO, IA, NC, PA, TN, VA, WI, WY)

Eight states pay for abortions by order of their state courts. (California has been so ordered, but subsequently moved into the next category.) (CT, IL, MA, MN, NJ, NM, WV, VT)

Seven states and the District of Columbia fully fund abortions by legislative decision. Since 1990 the California Legislature put California in this group by voting to fund abortion on demand. (AK, CA, HI, MD, NY, OR, WA)



157 posted on 02/09/2008 7:16:53 PM PST by Edit35
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 146 | View Replies ]

To: Colofornian

“What you got with Reagan was not someone who, after writing a book, Abortion: The Conscience of a Nation in 1984, didn’t slip back (like Romney did) into pro-abortion words & actions.”

In 1984?? Heck, Reagan had run for president twice before 1984, and had been a governor for years before. You don’t know what positions he took, or what statements he made beginning in the late 1960s. Here’s one:

“In May 1967, the Therapeutic Abortion Bill began to take shape. It was a measure to allow pregnant women to terminate embryos prejudicial to their “physical or mental health.” Reagan had to admit that he agreed with “the moral principle of self-defense.” If 100,000 California women were desperate enough to undergo illegal abortions every year, he could at least make it safer for some of them.” - Lol, open it up to “mental health” and you’ve opened it up to any and every whim of a woman who just wants to avoid the inconvenience.

http://www.ontheissues.org/Celeb/Ronald_Reagan_Abortion.htm

Lots of territory you’ve got to cover there from 1967 to 1984. How long did it take Reagan to become pro-life?

You Romney haters really make yourselves look silly smearing Romney for changing positions just as Reagan and umpteen other politicians have done over the years.

And trying spin Reagan’s flip-flops on abortion sounds as silly as trying to spin John Kerry’s flip-flops on Iraq. He was a great president, but he was also human. Not the saint some want to make him out to be.


159 posted on 02/09/2008 9:05:58 PM PST by Will88 ( The Worst Case Scenario: McCain with a Dhimm majority in the House and Senate)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 146 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson