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

Skip to comments.

Mitt Romney holds fundraiser with manufacturer of the Morning After Pill
LifeSiteNews.com ^ | May 18, 2012 | Ben Johnson

Posted on 05/19/2012 7:15:24 AM PDT by EternalVigilance

MIAMI, FLORIDA – Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney scheduled a $50,000-a-plate fundraiser at the home of Phil Frost, the executive of the company that makes the Morning After Pill, on Wednesday night. Plan B One-Step is produced by Teva Pharmaceuticals, Frost’s company.


TOPICS: Breaking News; Constitution/Conservatism; Culture/Society; Front Page News; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: abortion; cino; fl2012; fundraiser; liberal; misinformation; notbreakingnews; pharmaceuticals; proabortion; rino; romney; romneyagenda; romneycare; romneydeathpanels; romneytruthfile; seepost144; seeposts31and42; teva; themagicrino
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-50 ... 201-250251-300301-350 ... 401-416 next last
To: Bryanw92
Not ONE more baby will be dismembered, sliced, diced and hamburgerized under Obozo that under the gutless liar and enthusiastic babykiller Romney. As late as 1983 or so and the end of Democrat Ed King's tenure as governor, Massachusetts was among the MOST socially conservative states in the nation.

Ummmm, I hate to burst your bubble but Romneycare REQUIRES all conservative churches and their institutions to fund abortion and birth control and sterilization, all of which are forbidden by the Catholic Church as mortal sins (the kind that send you straight to hell if unrepented at death). While doctrines may have nuanced differences, I would bet that Southern Baptists and Missouri Synod Lutherans and Wisconsin Evangelical Synod Lutherans and Evangelical Free Church and a whole lot of Reformed churches agree on abortion as utterly sinful. Romney is as bad as Obozo.

251 posted on 05/19/2012 11:18:35 AM PDT by BlackElk (Romney = Obama = Moloch = Obama = Romney = Moloch = Romney = Obama, Etc.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: Colonel_Flagg

I am truly sick. and. tired. of the manipulations from the elites. :\


252 posted on 05/19/2012 11:19:20 AM PDT by LUV W (This space reserved for heroes)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 243 | View Replies]

To: Charles Henrickson

Well, setting aside the fact that Romney’s Romneycare grants people the right to abortion at government expense and even setting aside the fact that Romney has long been pro-abortion in both word and deed, . . .

Has Romney at least been willing to state that he will not appoint to the court anyone who is unwilling to clearly commit himself to vote as a justice to overturn Roe v. Wade?


253 posted on 05/19/2012 11:20:19 AM PDT by Tau Food (Trust God. Reject Obama. Reject Romney. Reject all evil.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 247 | View Replies]

To: Charles Henrickson; Colonel_Flagg

I’m just darn ready to put my foot down and say no MORE “lesser of the two evils”!

We (in the general sense) have sacrificed every shred of self respect to fear and “second best” and safe.


254 posted on 05/19/2012 11:23:01 AM PDT by LUV W (This space reserved for heroes)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 250 | View Replies]

To: Bryanw92
In Illinois, Walgreen's successfully waged judicial war to overturn Blagojevich's executive order requiring Walgreen's or any other pharmacy to dispense abortion pills. At least so far, no one here in Illinois has to boycott Walgreen's.

Once you realize that Romney is an enthusiastic baby-killer, is Obozo STILL the only enemy on YOUR list?

255 posted on 05/19/2012 11:28:39 AM PDT by BlackElk (Romney = Obama = Moloch = Obama = Romney = Moloch = Romney = Obama, Etc.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 52 | View Replies]

To: greatvikingone

I wonder how many atheists are on FreeRepublic.


256 posted on 05/19/2012 11:28:45 AM PDT by jacknhoo (Luke 12:51. Think ye, that I am come to give peace on earth? I tell you, no; but separation.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: xzins

“The GOP-nc(no choicer’s) are being rode hard and will be put away wet.”

Without even a kiss. Assuming one is desired.

GRRrrrrr! I need to change my tagline AGAIN! It is for all of you out there who are in real pain in contorting yourselves to vote for Willard against your own conscience, hoping he may prove to be less leftist as POTUS than as governor.


257 posted on 05/19/2012 11:33:08 AM PDT by Psalm 144 ("I'm not willing to light my hair on fire to try and get support. I am who I am." - Willard M Romney)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Charles Henrickson; EternalVigilance
Again, if you've got a better idea to get any laws against abortion anywhere, I'd like to hear it.

If you don't mind, I'll take a stab at that question.

In the broad, practical picture of real politics, the deck is currently stacked against us. All legal avenues to prohibit abortion at the federal level are practically closed off. The same is true at (most) state levels.

To open these legal avenues, a new mindset is needed. I'm talking about the electorate. We need a substantial majority of the voting public to agree that abortion is murder, the Consitution means what it says, and that life must be protected at all levels of government.

So how do we go about accomplishing this objective?

In my humble opinion, it's by one person at a time. That may sound like empty rhetoric, but here is what I mean: I have one vote this election cycle. Yet I have sway with my wife and my grown children. There are many ways I can emply my sway, but I've determined the best way to do so is by example. In other words, I truly believe that the best way to influence your family and loved ones is by example. Leadership begins by example.

Thus, when I explain to my family why the issue of life is so important to me -- and why I can't vote for the duplicitous Romney -- they understand implicitly. If I were to compromise or collaborate on this issue, I truly believe that I would diminish my role as a husband and father (and grandfather). I would still be leading by example, but my example would be that compromise, collaboration, and expediency trump principle. I can't do it. I've failed too many times morally on a huge number of issues. I don't want to fail anymore. I won't compromise anymore. I will lead by example. If others follow me or not, I can't control that.

But I will *try* to lead by example.

And now to alleviate this serious moment, here's a humorous thought: What if all of us did the same?

258 posted on 05/19/2012 11:37:05 AM PDT by Flycatcher (God speaks to us, through the supernal lightness of birds, in a special type of poetry.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 247 | View Replies]

To: Tau Food
I’m not a Mormon bigot, either. I’m not any kind of Mormon, but Romney is a Mormon. I think he may try to appoint a Mormon to the Supreme Court.

It is posters like you that is dragging this site down. You have got to be a liberal troll.

259 posted on 05/19/2012 11:39:25 AM PDT by GreyMountainReagan ("Pray for America")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 149 | View Replies]

To: Flycatcher
And now to alleviate this serious moment, here's a humorous thought: What if all of us did the same?

Congratulations on a magnificent post. What some so-called ABOs fail to understand is that there are other "As" than Romney. If we as conservatives supported one, we'd make a difference.

In other words, if we stopped laughing and started voting and advocating, what would happen?

260 posted on 05/19/2012 11:44:14 AM PDT by Colonel_Flagg (Obama vs. Romney: Zero x Zero = Zero.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 258 | View Replies]

To: EternalVigilance
Mitt Romney is a death culture left liberal. He's in bed with Planned Parenthood and the drug companies and he sold his soul to the devil, believing the lie he can buy a new one. Much like Bill and Melinda Gates. You won't find my name on a vote for that disgusting excuse for a man - Catholics have no obligation to vote when both candidates are so ProDeath. The sad part is, many cafeteria Catholics and most atheistic secularists will vote for Obama, again. Think that is a small number of Americans? Think again!

This won't last long, though, for whoever gets this next election. America will receive her justice for not stopping the slaughter of well over 50 million innocent defenseless little boys and girls and for spreading her evils worldwide. We had the opportunity to to elect a candidate with morals, but we chose the amoral instead.

Pray, pray and pray some more for God's mercy on this nation and the world. What is coming must take place, because it has been written, but much can be alleviated with prayer and fasting.

261 posted on 05/19/2012 11:46:07 AM PDT by jacknhoo (Luke 12:51. Think ye, that I am come to give peace on earth? I tell you, no; but separation.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Colonel_Flagg

Thank you, Colonel.


262 posted on 05/19/2012 11:49:52 AM PDT by Flycatcher (God speaks to us, through the supernal lightness of birds, in a special type of poetry.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 260 | View Replies]

To: Tau Food; EternalVigilance; montag813; netmilsmom; Bryanw92; MARKUSPRIME; trailhkr1; Innovative; ...
Has Romney at least been willing to state that he will not appoint to the court anyone who is unwilling to clearly commit himself to vote as a justice to overturn Roe v. Wade?

During the debates I heard with my own ears Romney say, repeatedly, that he wants to appoint justices like Roberts, Scalia, Thomas, and Alito and that he wants Roe v. Wade to be overturned.

And that is what Romney is still saying is his position:

the Court created entirely new constitutional rights out of “penumbras” and “emanations” of the Constitution, abandoning serious analysis of the Constitution’s text, structure, and history. . . . Mitt believes in the rule of law, and he understands that the next president will make nominations that will shape the Supreme Court and the whole of the judiciary for decades to come. He will therefore appoint wise, experienced, and restrained judges who will take seriously their oath to discharge their duties impartially in accordance with the Constitution and laws. . . . As president, Mitt will nominate judges in the mold of Chief Justice Roberts and Justices Scalia, Thomas, and Alito.

. . . 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. . . . And he will nominate judges who know the difference between personal opinion and the law.

I'd say that's a whole lot better than anything you'll ever hear from Obama. What Romney is stating is a pro-life position. (Whether he'll follow through or not, no one knows.)

I am especially interested in where he stands on the abortion question, since that has been a personal "litmus test" for me all my voting life (since 1972). I will not vote for any candidate who is avowedly pro-abort and supports Roe v. Wade. So, e.g., I would not vote for Giuliani or, of course, for most any Democrat.

In early 2008, I went to hear Romney speak at an appearance in St. Louis. Rick Santorum was there, traveling with Romney and campaigning for him. I knew Santorum was "Mr. Pro-Life," so I took him aside and had a five-minute conservation with him as to Romney on the pro-life issue. He assured me Romney was genuine on this. Notice also, that now, in 2012, a lot of prominent, reliable, pro-life people are endorsing Romney. That is an indicator to me.

I still don't trust Romney. He could disappoint us. He could betray us. But I think there's at least a chance he will govern acceptably for the pro-life cause. And that's a thousand times better than Obama.

263 posted on 05/19/2012 11:53:42 AM PDT by Charles Henrickson (Constitutional and social conservative Republican who wants to win)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 253 | View Replies]

To: Starstruck; EternalVigilance
Starstruck:

I am not voting for Romney. I am not voting for Obozo. I AM voting for Tom Hoefling (our own FReeper Eternal Vigilance). Whoever is POTUS for the next four years (whether Obozo or Romney) won't have gotten my vote. That may not be important to you. It is VERRRRRY important to me.

If you succeed in electing Romney, you will be hearing non-stop four the next four years and then some from many FReepers. Likewise Mitt's other enthusiastic supporters.

264 posted on 05/19/2012 11:59:09 AM PDT by BlackElk (Romney = Obama = Moloch = Obama = Romney = Moloch = Romney = Obama, Etc.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 119 | View Replies]

To: Wyatt's Torch
They also make Augmentin, Azithromycin and Cipro the common anti-biotics.

I've used 2 of 3. Thanks you , Teva.

265 posted on 05/19/2012 12:01:36 PM PDT by muleskinner
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 72 | View Replies]

To: Charles Henrickson
I'll grant you that Romney sounds better than Obama on the life issue, but that's a recent phenomenon and that's not saying much.
266 posted on 05/19/2012 12:05:51 PM PDT by Tau Food (Trust God. Reject Obama. Reject Romney. Reject all evil.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 263 | View Replies]

To: Tau Food
I'll grant you that Romney sounds better than Obama on the life issue, but that's a recent phenomenon and that's not saying much.

Thank you. But that's about all I've got to hang my hat on for now. That, and a Congress more conservative than the Massachusetts legislature. (Heck, the Soviet Politburo would be more conservative than the Massachusetts legislature.)

It's a risk, I know. But the alternative is Obama, and I know what we would get from him.

We are agreed in our goals and our philosophy. The question is one of strategy, and there well-meaning conservatives may differ.

267 posted on 05/19/2012 12:15:13 PM PDT by Charles Henrickson (Constitutional and social conservative Republican who wants to win)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 266 | View Replies]

To: muawiyah

>>I remember the days when you rarely encountered a Catholic in a Republican discussion ~ nor a Mormon anywhere ~ they stayed away from the Gentiles lest they be polluted or something.<<

Two questions.

How old are you?
My definition of Gentiles is non-Jew. What is yours?


268 posted on 05/19/2012 12:17:26 PM PDT by netmilsmom (Romney scares me. Obama is the freaking nightmare that is so bad you are afraid to go back to sleep)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 225 | View Replies]

To: EternalVigilance

Yes he is. He has always been on the leftside of every issue.


269 posted on 05/19/2012 12:21:14 PM PDT by GeronL (The Right to Life came before the Right to Pursue Happiness)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Flycatcher

I agree with you, and am of the opinion that the culture war must be won in the culture, and before that one must prevail in spiritual warfare.

The board is about to be rearranged, and to what pattern we really do not know. But we do know what we are supposed to do.

Incidentally, I see that younger people usually get it. Even those young people who are ‘pro-choice’ usually respect the pro-life position. Not always, but usually.


270 posted on 05/19/2012 12:36:33 PM PDT by Psalm 144 ("I'm not willing to light my hair on fire to try and get support. I am who I am." - Willard M Romney)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 258 | View Replies]

To: Friendofgeorge

a chance he will appoint a conservative judge.

lol

based on what history? Check his record, 75% of judges he appointed were leftists


271 posted on 05/19/2012 12:38:49 PM PDT by GeronL (The Right to Life came before the Right to Pursue Happiness)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: trailhkr1

Okay, they do good things and only murder babies on the side, I guess that makes them wonderful people.

/sarc


272 posted on 05/19/2012 12:39:37 PM PDT by GeronL (The Right to Life came before the Right to Pursue Happiness)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]

To: Tau Food

do you think the words on his etch-a-sketch means more than his record and deeds?


273 posted on 05/19/2012 12:41:34 PM PDT by GeronL (The Right to Life came before the Right to Pursue Happiness)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 253 | View Replies]

To: netmilsmom

For mormons all non-mormons, even jews, are gentiles.


274 posted on 05/19/2012 12:43:18 PM PDT by muawiyah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 268 | View Replies]

To: EternalVigilance
Well, that's no surprise. Can a leopard change its spots? Can a zebra change its stripes?

We can look at a zebra and call it a horse and dress it up like one, pretending the stripes don't exist. But it will still be a zebra and its true nature comes out.

275 posted on 05/19/2012 1:06:59 PM PDT by Moorings
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: BlackElk
Nowhere did I say I was voting for Romney or Obama. I simply made the statement that since one on them will win the election I would be slightly less unhappy if it was Romney. I might vote for EV too, but I am not naive enough to think he will win.

By the way if you think my statement was support for Romney you are terribly mistaken. I see a socialist and a communist running against each other. Pick your poison. Hope you have fun with your after the election vendetta. Life must be great.

276 posted on 05/19/2012 1:10:40 PM PDT by Starstruck
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 264 | View Replies]

To: LUV W
If he has said this, can we really believe him? He is all over the map on all the issues, and I fear that he says what any given group he’s addressing wants to hear. I am not addressing this to be derisive but to truly understand the mindset of a man that seems to have no moral compass but only can seem to say and do what is expedient at any given moment.

Bears repeating...often!

277 posted on 05/19/2012 1:56:42 PM PDT by greyfoxx39 (The epitome of stupidity is a member of a proven racist sect running against a black man.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 239 | View Replies]

To: MHGinTN

http://pjmedia.com/rogerkimball/2012/05/16/obama-by-the-numbers/?singlepage=true

Get That OBamanation out of our White House..I’ll vote in November for the one most likely to do it..If it’s Romney so be it!!


278 posted on 05/19/2012 2:04:21 PM PDT by MEG33 (O Lord, Guide Our Nation)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 85 | View Replies]

To: Charles Henrickson
So how do you suggest we ban abortions in all states? Constitutional amendment? Supreme Court majority that strikes down all state laws permitting abortion? Overturn Roe v. Wade and then expect all 50 states to ban abortion? Which of those three ways--and those are the only three I can come up with at the moment--which do you think is most realistic and attainable? Or do you have some other way?

It's simple. Require every officer of government to keep their oaths, especially when it comes to their absolute first duty, which is to equally protect the lives of every innocent person within their lawful jurisdictions.

The Equal Protection for Posterity Resolution

If they won't do this, they have disqualified themselves. They have abdicated any legitimate, moral right to govern us, in the exact same way King George III did:

"He has abdicated Government here, by declaring us out of his Protection..."

Throw the bums out.

279 posted on 05/19/2012 2:08:42 PM PDT by EternalVigilance (Romney Republicanism: Leave your principles by the door. You won't be needing them any more.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 220 | View Replies]

To: EternalVigilance
It's simple. Require every officer of government to keep their oaths. . . . If they won't do this, they have disqualified themselves. . . . Throw the bums out.

How are you going to do this "simple" thing and "require" them, practically speaking? Imperial fiat? Executive order? How are you going to "throw them out" if they don't comply?

Convincing all the voters in all the states to "throw the bums out" sounds like a nice idea, but how likely is that to happen and how long would it take? And what if one "bum" is vastly more of a bummer (like Obumma) than the only other "bum" with a chance to beat him (especially when the latter's platform is not so "bummy")?

What if, in the meantime, while we're in the longterm task of persuading and convincing, we try to get Roe v. Wade overturned and let many of the states pass laws against abortion? Wouldn't that be a good thing and something attainable?

280 posted on 05/19/2012 2:33:30 PM PDT by Charles Henrickson (Constitutional and social conservative Republican who wants to win)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 279 | View Replies]

To: EternalVigilance
I just saw your proposed resolution: "we will henceforth deem failure to carry out this supreme sworn duty to be cause for removal from public office via impeachment or recall, or by statutory or electoral means, notwithstanding any law passed by any legislative body within the United States, or the decision of any court, or the decree of any executive officer, at any level of governance, to the contrary."

"Impeachment or recall." Do you really think you could get the Senate to impeach the pro-abort SC justices or the pro-abort Obama, because of their position on abortion? How realistic is that?

I don't think that's realistic. What is possible, though, is to get a majority on the Supreme Court that would overturn Roe v. Wade. Even that is not a given, no matter who is appointed to the SC. But it is much more likely than impeaching the pro-aborts.

281 posted on 05/19/2012 2:41:31 PM PDT by Charles Henrickson (Constitutional and social conservative Republican who wants to win)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 279 | View Replies]

To: EternalVigilance

It would be nice if some posters paid even half as much attention to criticizing Obama, as they do tearing down Romney.

Pick a lane.


282 posted on 05/19/2012 2:43:12 PM PDT by Cringing Negativism Network (America doesn't need any new laws. America needs freedom!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Bryanw92
Is that the only pill they make?

Does Planned Parenthood ONLY perform abortions? LOL

You use the same arguments the leftist use to advance evil under the umbrella of good. In this case you promote Romney.

Romney sucks and this is just one of the reasons. I would agree with you though that Romney is not primarily taking monies from these guys to promote the morning after pill. I think it more likely the drug company is seeking influence to get a piece of the large government nanny state progressive subsidized healthcare 'action' that Romney supports at supposedly ONLY the State level.

Chuckle chuckle hee hee lol....

283 posted on 05/19/2012 3:06:05 PM PDT by DBeers (†)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Cringing Negativism Network
It would be nice if some posters paid even half as much attention to criticizing Obama, as they do tearing down Romney.

Pick a lane.

I picked a lane many years ago -the conservative lane; the lane that both Obama and Romney veered of off.

I will stay on my lane while you pretend to be on a lane that is in actuality a progressive detour with a dead end called "winning the future" through government tyranny.

284 posted on 05/19/2012 3:11:26 PM PDT by DBeers (†)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 282 | View Replies]

To: Cringing Negativism Network; EternalVigilance
It would be nice if some posters paid even half as much attention to criticizing Obama, as they do tearing down Romney.

Perhaps.

On the other hand let me know who all of those Obama "supporters" on FR who need to be "set straight" re: any intentions to vote for Obama.

As far as I know, there are none on FR.

On the other hand, how many FREEPERs are there who've become sudden apologists for abortion, for govt healthcare, for big govt, and for Mormonism? (A LOT)

285 posted on 05/19/2012 3:20:43 PM PDT by Colofornian (Mom when I grow up, I want 2B like Ike. Mom when I grow up, I want 2B a god f rom Kolob like Mitt.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 282 | View Replies]

To: EternalVigilance

$50 for abortion under his RomneyCare. 50,000 a plate for him. POS the he is. He is evil to the core.

How any republican ever voted for him I have no idea - they need to come to grips and change parties.


286 posted on 05/19/2012 3:33:44 PM PDT by presently no screen name (God First!! VAB: Voting Against Both---> Romney and Obama.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: muawiyah

muawiyah - I remember the days when you rarely encountered a Catholic in a Republican discussion ~ nor a Mormon anywhere ~ they stayed away from the Gentiles lest they be polluted or something.<<

netmilsmom - Two questions.

How old are you?
My definition of Gentiles is non-Jew. What is yours?

muawiyah - For mormons all non-mormons, even jews, are gentiles.

Okay, so I know what you WANT to answer but it’s not the answer to either question I asked. Unless you are a Mormon.


287 posted on 05/19/2012 3:33:57 PM PDT by netmilsmom (Romney scares me. Obama is the freaking nightmare that is so bad you are afraid to go back to sleep)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 274 | View Replies]

To: Charles Henrickson; Tau Food; EternalVigilance; montag813; netmilsmom; Bryanw92; MARKUSPRIME; ...
What Romney is stating is a pro-life position. (Whether he'll follow through or not, no one knows.) I am especially interested in where he stands on the abortion question, since that has been a personal "litmus test" for me all my voting life (since 1972). I will not vote for any candidate who is avowedly pro-abort and supports Roe v. Wade. So, e.g., I would not vote for Giuliani or, of course, for most any Democrat. In early 2008, I went to hear Romney speak at an appearance in St. Louis. Rick Santorum was there, traveling with Romney and campaigning for him. I knew Santorum was "Mr. Pro-Life," so I took him aside and had a five-minute conservation with him as to Romney on the pro-life issue. He assured me Romney was genuine on this. Notice also, that now, in 2012, a lot of prominent, reliable, pro-life people are endorsing Romney. That is an indicator to me.

Charles, then you need to explain these two Romney statements -- one made by Mitt Romney Dec of 2008; the other by Ann Romney -- as published Nov. of 2011:

Remember, Romney said he "converted" to a pro-life position November of 2004...and when you look @ Ann's comments from Nov. 2011, remember that Romney has at times conceded his supposedly "previous" pro-abortion position:

Mitt Romney: Romney: ...surplus embryos...Those embryos, I hope, could be available for adoption for people who would like to adopt embryos. But if a parent decides they would want to donate one of those embryos for purposes of research, in my view, that's acceptable. It should not be made against the law." (Source: Candidates Reveal Their Biggest Mistakes)

[Charles...got any kids or grandkids you're willing to "donate" to "research"...and then care to tell us how "pro-life" that is...if ya wanna be consistent with defending Mitt's comments from 4.5 years ago, that is]

Ann Romney: In the past you’ve said he’s changed positions only once, on abortion. Was that your doing? No, no, I never talked to Mitt about that. Our personal opinions have never changed; we’ve always been pro-life (Ann Romney Reveals Mitt's Softer Side)

So Mitt's "always been pro-life," eh????

Hence, the need to constantly monitor the Romneys....'cause they're all over the map on NOT defending the pre-born...and then attempting to cover that up...like when Mitt wrote a letter to the editor of a Utah newspaper in July 2001 -- claiming he wasn't "pro-choice."

YEAR Obvious Pro-Abortion Romney Romney Feigning 'Pro-Life'
Bottom-Line Summary: ANN Romney Lies Thru Her Teeth Ann Romney, 1994: Romney's wife gives donation to Planned Parenthood (Ann Romney’s Planned Parenthood Donation Ann Romney, 2011: In the past you’ve said he’s changed positions only once, on abortion. Was that your doing? No, no, I never talked to Mitt about that. Our personal opinions have never changed; we’ve always been pro-life (Ann Romney Reveals Mitt's Softer Side)
Bottom-Line Summary: Mitt Romney Lies Thru His Teeth “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) + ...”my position was effectively pro-choice." (Source: 2007 GOP Iowa Straw Poll debate 8/5/2007) So, not only does Ann Romney tell Parade Magazine November 2011 that they've “never changed” re: abortion and that they've “always been pro-life,” but Mitt Romney told Chris Wallace part-way through their 2007 campaign that: “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”...This was seven months after he said in January 2007 that he was “always for life.”
2006 April 12, 2006--Mitt signs his "Commonwealth Care" into existence, thereby expanding abortion access/taxpayer funded abortions for women--including almost 2% of the females of his state who earn $75,000 or more. (Wait a minute, I thought he told us post-'06 that ALL of his actions were "pro-life?"). Also, not only this, but as governor, Romney could exercise veto power to portions of Commonwealth Care. Did Romney exercise this power? (Yes, he vetoed Sections 5, 27, 29, 47, 112, 113, 134 & 137). What prominent section dealing with Planned Parenthood as part of the "payment policy advisory board" did Romney choose NOT to veto? (Section 3) That section mandates that one member of MassHealth Payment Policy Board must be appointed by Planned Parenthood League of MA. (See chapter 58 of the Acts of 2006, section 3 for details). "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
Early 2007 On January 29, 2007 during South Carolina visit, Romney stated: “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) = OK how could "every action I've taken as the governor that relates to the sanctity of human life..." AND this statement BOTH be true? Another South Carolina campaign stop has Romney uttering "I was always for life”: "I am firmly pro-life… I was always for life." (Jim Davenport, "Romney Affirms Opposition to Abortion," The Associated Press, 2/9/2007) = Oh, of course as the above shows, he's always been pro-life!
Summer 2007 "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 '94 & '02 campaigns, both his public statements, his 2002 voter guide responses, & his actions (which are a major form of expression, ya know!) how could he say he "never said" he was "pro-choice?" Then comes 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..." = Whatever he was from '70 when his mom ran as pro-abortion senator & he sided w/ her, to 5/27/05, w/whatever interruption he had due to a pro-life altar call in Nov of '04, whatever that was...well, he assures us it wasn't a pro-abortion 'inlook' or outlook 'cause he didn't feel "pro-choice..." = So does that make him a life-long pro-lifer?
December 2007 vs. November 2011 (Pro-treating offspring as research refuse late in previous POTUS campaign vs. now claiming 'never changed...always pro-life' December 4, 2007: Romney: ...surplus embryos...Those embryos, I hope, could be available for adoption for people who would like to adopt embryos. But if a parent decides they would want to donate one of those embryos for purposes of research, in my view, that's acceptable. It should not be made against the law." (Source: Candidates Reveal Their Biggest Mistakes) Any "inquiring minds" want to try wrapping their minds around how a politician in one sentence mentions "adopting" embryos out (yes, a great thing to mention!) -- but then in the very NEXT breath says if a "PARENT" wants to be "pro-choice" (Mitt used the word "decides" which is what "pro-choicers" say they want) "to donate one of those embryos for purposes of research, in my view, that's acceptable." Say what???? How about 8-month gestationally-aged infants in the womb, Mitt? Or already-born infants, too, Mitt? If a "parent decides they would want to donate one of those...for purposes of research, in my view, that's acceptable..." No??? What's the 'pro-life' difference, Mitt? Here you call an embryo's mom&dad "parents" -- but "parents" w/ "research" give-away rights? How bizarre we have such a schizophrenic "candidate!" In the past you’ve said he’s changed positions only once, on abortion. Was that your doing? No, no, I never talked to Mitt about that. Our personal opinions have never changed; we’ve always been pro-life (Ann Romney Reveals Mitt's Softer Side)

288 posted on 05/19/2012 3:36:28 PM PDT by Colofornian (Mom when I grow up, I want 2B like Ike. Mom when I grow up, I want 2B a god f rom Kolob like Mitt.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 263 | View Replies]

To: Bryanw92
But he was the governor of the most liberal state in the country

Mitt's talking points. Before CA and NY? LOL!! He's the kinkmaker when it comes to ANTI-American. RomneyCare, same sex marriage - what a POS! EVIL, anti- American. He has NOT one redeeming trait.

289 posted on 05/19/2012 3:40:24 PM PDT by presently no screen name (God First!! VAB: Voting Against Both---> Romney and Obama.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: netmilsmom
Age? You want to know my age?

I"m older than dirt!

290 posted on 05/19/2012 3:45:39 PM PDT by muawiyah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 287 | View Replies]

To: I am bigjohn
yet the anti-Romney posts far outweigh the anti-Obama posts.

Romney with a complicit, ballwashing, RINO Congress could be more dangerous than 0bummer with a Congress offering even minimal opposition. Those of you who have enjoyed having Romney rammed up where the sun don't shine and can't wait to pull the lever for him will simply confirm to the GOP-e that Republicans will grab their ankles on command.

291 posted on 05/19/2012 3:47:31 PM PDT by j_tull (Massachusetts once lead the American Revolution. Under Mitt Romney, it lead the demise.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 68 | View Replies]

To: Charles Henrickson; LUV W
And that's enough to get me to vote for Romney. ;^) I'll take some chance over no chance.

Charles, May I suggest you reread that Biblical account where two women claiming the same baby appealed to Solomon to decide the matter, and he wittily chose to cut him/her in half to determine who the real mother was?

'Twas the real mom who said, "No, I don't need a place @ the baby's table if it means only half a baby."

Some of those pro-life groups you referenced in your post #263 ("Notice also, that now, in 2012, a lot of prominent, reliable, pro-life people are endorsing Romney") are ones who can't stand being left on the outside and having no place at the endorsement or influence table...they'd rather be @ table with "half a baby" than "no baby" -- even if the baby was kept alive by keeping him away from that table!

After all, if some of those ex-"pro-life" groups don't have any baby to show for their continued existence (even if only half of one), they're out of business. (Got to keep the pro-life movement alive, even if the immobilized babies for the large part aren't kept alive)

Bottom line: Your "some chance" gamble (and since when are men in your position advocating gambling with the lives of pre-born?) is the "we'll-take-half-a-baby syndrome" too many Pro-lifers are committing to. You'll take half-a-baby or none, eh?

292 posted on 05/19/2012 3:48:25 PM PDT by Colofornian (Mom when I grow up, I want 2B like Ike. Mom when I grow up, I want 2B a god f rom Kolob like Mitt.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 250 | View Replies]

To: muawiyah

>>Age? You want to know my age?

I”m older than dirt!<<

You still didn’t answer the questions.


293 posted on 05/19/2012 3:55:41 PM PDT by netmilsmom (Romney scares me. Obama is the freaking nightmare that is so bad you are afraid to go back to sleep)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 290 | View Replies]

To: Colofornian
Very astute analogy, Colofornian.

Great post.

294 posted on 05/19/2012 3:56:20 PM PDT by Flycatcher (God speaks to us, through the supernal lightness of birds, in a special type of poetry.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 292 | View Replies]

To: I am bigjohn; muawiyah
Choosing to be shot in the foot vs being shot in the head is a simple choice for me.

Easy for you to reduce this to some "foot-shooting" equivalency.

You haven't been dismembered in the womb in the Bay State @ Romney expense.

Unless you're a police officer or deployed military or something like that, you can't say like the average pre-born person alive (and almost half of 'em then dead) in the womb since 1973, that you've been in the life & dead trenches of warfare...in this case, warfare upon the pre-born, can you?

295 posted on 05/19/2012 3:58:26 PM PDT by Colofornian (Mom when I grow up, I want 2B like Ike. Mom when I grow up, I want 2B a god f rom Kolob like Mitt.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 205 | View Replies]

To: j_tull
>>Romney with a complicit, ballwashing, RINO Congress could be more dangerous than 0bummer with a Congress offering even minimal opposition.<<

Obama has ruled by executive order, czars and agencies. He has totally ignored the congress.

He is a marxist, Muslim Brotherhood Jihadi loving, Israeli hating dictator. The only thing that has stopped him has been the Supreme Court. He gets in again and he stacks it.

Love your country more than you hate the GOPe.


296 posted on 05/19/2012 4:01:01 PM PDT by netmilsmom (Romney scares me. Obama is the freaking nightmare that is so bad you are afraid to go back to sleep)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 291 | View Replies]

To: EternalVigilance

Piss on Romney


297 posted on 05/19/2012 4:03:21 PM PDT by big'ol_freeper ("Evil is powerless if the good are unafraid" ~ Ronald Wilson Reagan)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Friendofgeorge
There is a chance that Romney will appoint a Conservative judge. For the sake of the unborn I will take one last chance

LOL! Here's your chance! Hope you win!


298 posted on 05/19/2012 4:12:18 PM PDT by COBOL2Java (FUMR)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: Charles Henrickson; LUV W
I don't trust Romney. He may very well be a political chameleon....Also, now that he's got the nomination wrapped up and he's running against Obama, if deep down he were a liberal (assuming there is a "deep down" there), then why is he still campaigning on a conservative platform?

Charles, you answered your own Q here earlier in your post! The very reason Romney is campaigning on a conservative platform is because he IS such a political chameleon!

(It's already built-into Mormon leader DNA to be a counterfeit Christian wannabe; the DNA just extends the counterfeit currency into other arenas)

First, if you take the time to wade thru what's below, look @ how Romney catered to 3 groups of people on the pro-life/pro-abortion matter alone:

(a) Massachusetts voters (1994, 2002)
(b) Fellow Utah (Mormonites) who would "judge" Romney during the time of the Olympics if they thought he was pro-abortion (hence his disclaimer via a letter-to-the-editor in 2001)
(c) Republican voters (2007-2008...minus his "true" position evidenced in the Katie Couric interview Dec. of 2008); 2011-2012

*******************************

(1) Romney's on record saying his "pro-choice" opinions go back to when his mom ran for Senate (1970).
Assessment: [Pro-abortion, then, eh, Mitt?]

(2): "'He's been a pro-life Mormon faking it as a pro-choice friendly,'" Romney adviser Michael Murphy told the conservative National Review last year, says the Concord Monitor (Source: http://www.concordmonitor.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20061210/REPOSITORY/612100304/1217/NEWS98)
= Assessment: So I guess that made him a below-the-radar "flip" acting like a "flop?"

(3) Romney now invokes in this thread's article a "nuanced stance" about what he was in 1994: He says "Look, I was pro-choice. I am pro-life. You can go back to YouTube and look at what I said in 1994. I never said I was pro-choice, but my position was effectively pro-choice.

Well, what are the 1994 facts?

FACT a: Romney's wife gave a donation in 1994 to Planned Parenthood...
FACT b: On June 12, 1994, Romney himself attended a private Planned Parenthood event at the home of a sister-in-law of a Planned Parenthood board member where the president of Planned Parenthood recalls talking to Romney.
"Nicki Nichols Gamble, a former president and chief executive of Planned Parenthood League of Massachusetts, said today that the photo shows Mitt and Ann Romney at a private home in Cohasset in June 1994." Source: See http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1941932/posts
"Gamble said the pic was snapped at an event at GOP activist Eleanor Bleakie’s house and that she “clearly” remembered speaking with Romney at the event." Source: See http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1941627/posts
"In fact Romney personally attended the Planned Parenthood event in question on June 12, 1994. Gamble, the President of Massachusuetts Planned Parenthood in 1994, also attended the event at the home of a Republican, Eleanor Bleakie, the sister-in-law of a Planned Parenthood Board member. Both Romney and Michael Kennedy, who appeared on behalf of nephew of Ted Kennedy, attended the event." Source: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1941240/posts
FACT c: 1994 campaign in Massachusetts "I believe that abortion should be safe and legal in this country. I have since the time when my Mom took that position when she ran in 1970 as a U.S. Senate candidate. I believe that since Roe v. Wade has been the law for 20 years that we should sustain and support it, and I sustain and support that law and the right of a woman to make that choice." (October, 1994 Senatorial debate vs. Ted Kennedy)
= Assessment: Mitt the flipster from what most LDS represent

(4): Fast forward to 2001, when Romney needs to reassure Utah Mormons that...he's not really "pro-choice," after all: "I do not wish to be labeled pro-choice." (Mitt Romney, Letter to the Editor, The Salt Lake Tribune, 7/12/01)
= Assessment: So he doesn't want to be known as a "flop" (so what is he?)

(5) “I will preserve and protect a woman’s right to choose, and have devoted and am dedicated to honoring my word in that regard…(Nov. 2, 2002) = Well, now guess what? He's solidly pro-abortion AGAIN! See also: "I respect and will protect a woman's right to choose. This choice is a deeply personal one … Women should be free to choose based on their own beliefs, not mine and not the government's." (Stephanie Ebbert, "Clarity Sought On Romney's Abortion Stance," The Boston Globe, 7/3/05)
= Assessment: Ah, back securely in the "flop" saddle again?

(6): In November of '04, he & his wife had simultaneous pro-life "conversions" where he links it to stem cell research
= Assessment: (So the pro-abortion-but-no-pro-choice-label-please-is-now-a-pro-life-convert?)

(7): On May 27 '05, he affirms his commitment to being "pro-choice" at a press conference. ("I am absolutely committed to my promise to maintain the status quo with regards to laws relating to abortion and choice.")
= Assessment: OK, this is at least a flop from November '04!

(8): What about his gubernatorial record 2003-2006? Mitt later says his actions were ALL pro-life. So I assume somewhere in 2005 or so were so pro-life decisions. ("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.")
= Assessment: So, then THESE ACTIONS were not only a reversal of his 2002 commitment, but his May 27, 2005 press conference commitment. So "flipping" is beginning to be routine

(9): April 12, 2006--Mitt signs his "Commonwealth Care" into existence, thereby expanding abortion access/taxpayer funded abortions for women--including almost 2% of the females of his state who earn $75,000 or more. Assessment: (Wait a minute, I thought he told us post-'06 that ALL of his actions were "pro-life?"). Also, not only this, but as governor, Romney could exercise veto power to portions of Commonwealth Care. Did Romney exercise this power? (Yes, he vetoed Sections 5, 27, 29, 47, 112, 113, 134 & 137). What prominent section dealing with Planned Parenthood as part of the "payment policy advisory board" did Romney choose NOT to veto? (Section 3) That section mandates that one member of MassHealth Payment Policy Board must be appointed by Planned Parenthood League of MA. (See chapter 58 of the Acts of 2006, section 3 for details).

(10): On January 29, 2007 during a visit to South Carolina, Romney stated: “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)
= Assessment: OK how could "every action I've taken as the governor that relates to the sanctity of human life..." AND this statement BOTH be true?

(11): Another South Carolina campaign stop has Romney uttering that "I was always for life”: "I am firmly pro-life… I was always for life." (Jim Davenport, "Romney Affirms Opposition to Abortion," The Associated Press, 2/9/2007)
= Assessment: Oh, of course as the above shows, he's always been pro-life!

(12) "I never said I was pro-choice, but my position was effectively pro-choice." Source: 2007 GOP Iowa Straw Poll debate 8/5/2007
= Assessment: OK...looking at the 1994 & 2002 campaigns, both his public statements, his 2002 voter guide responses, & his actions (which are a major form of expression, ya know!) how could he say he "never said" he was "pro-choice?"

(13): Then comes 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..."
= Assessment: That whatever he was from 1970 when his mom ran as a pro-abortion senator & he sided with her, to 5/27/05, w/whatever interruption he had due to a pro-life altar call in Nov of '04, whatever that was...well, he assures us it wasn't a pro-abortion inlook or outlook 'cause he didn't feel "pro-choice..." = So does that make him a life-long pro-lifer?

(14): By December of 2007, you'd think after THREE supposed FULL years of being "pro-life," he'd have his talking points down by then...But no: December 4, 2007: Romney: ...surplus embryos...Those embryos, I hope, could be available for adoption for people who would like to adopt embryos. But if a parent decides they would want to donate one of those embryos for purposes of research, in my view, that's acceptable. It should not be made against the law." (Source: Candidates Reveal Their Biggest Mistakes) Any "inquiring minds" want to try wrapping their minds around how a politician in one sentence mentions "adopting" embryos out (yes, a great thing to mention!) -- but then in the very NEXT breath says if a "PARENT" wants to be "pro-choice" (Mitt used the word "decides" which is what "pro-choicers" say they want) "to donate one of those embryos for purposes of research, in my view, that's acceptable." Say what???? How about 8-month gestationally-aged infants in the womb, Mitt? Or already-born infants, too, Mitt? If a "parent decides they would want to donate one of those...for purposes of research, in my view, that's acceptable..." No??? What's the 'pro-life' difference, Mitt? Here you call an embryo's mom&dad "parents" -- but "parents" w/ "research" give-away rights? How bizarre we have such a schizophrenic "candidate!"

(15): Now we come to the 2011-2012 campaign. The Romneys do an interesting Parade Magazine interview (Nov. 2011). Ann Romney is interviewed: In the past you’ve said he’s changed positions only once, on abortion. Was that your doing? No, no, I never talked to Mitt about that. Our personal opinions have NEVER CHANGED; we’ve ALWAYS BEEN PRO-LIFE: (Ann Romney Reveals Mitt's Softer Side)

What? Did you Romneybots & would-be Romney voters not get the Romney campaign memo issued late in 2011: Per Ann Romney, the Romneys have "ALWAYS been pro-life..." They personally "NEVER CHANGED."

Which all means you can't trust a damn word Romney says. He has no personal integrity -- no core values.

299 posted on 05/19/2012 4:12:55 PM PDT by Colofornian (Mom when I grow up, I want 2B like Ike. Mom when I grow up, I want 2B a god f rom Kolob like Mitt.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 240 | View Replies]

To: Whats-wrong-with-the-truth
"Two things... 1) Romney cannot beat obomba. PERIOD. 2) Even if by some fluke he does"

Entertaining.

300 posted on 05/19/2012 4:15:17 PM PDT by StAnDeliver (=)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 58 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-50 ... 201-250251-300301-350 ... 401-416 next last

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.

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