The problem is that Romney is all about political expediency. He will say ANYTHING to get votes.
It was interesting to read Dr. Wilke's account of what happened with GHWB in 1980. However, there are two big points that need to be considered:
1. 1980 was the first time that abortion had ever been an issue in a national election. It wasn't unusual that Bush hadn't ever really considered the pro-life position (and note that in the end he still wanted a "pro-choice-by-state" approach). Abortion has been an issue for Romney's ENTIRE POLITICAL CAREER and he had been fully aware of pro-life positions the entire time, yet he remained devoutly pro-abortion; it seems all to convenient that his position changed when he decided to run for president.
2. The fact still remains that whatever transpired between Wilke and GHWB, Bush was never really pro-life. I'm sick of supporting politicians who claim to be pro-life to get votes and then ignore it later.
If Romney was genuinely pro-life HE would get up and tell the story of what changed his mind, HE would explain how wrong he was -- Romney hasn't done anything like this. His advisers told him that he was going to need to say he was pro-life to get the nomination and that's what he did.
Romney told this story during the debates.
I don’t doubt the word of either Dr. Willke or Dr. Hurlbut. For one thing, the testimony goes back to that veto by Romney of the embryonic stem cell bill and the morning after pill bill.
Dr. Hurlbut reports:
“Finally, I was impressed by both his clarity of mind and sincerity of heart. He recognized that this was not a matter of purely abstract theory or merely pragmatic governance, but a crucial moment in how we are to regard nascent human life and the broader meaning of medicine in the service of life.”
Agree. He hasn’t even expressed regret over the fact that the cheap (and sometimes free) abortions he enabled in Massachusetts are still happening today.
Yes, the timing is important. Way back then, most people hadn't thought about abortion, one way or another. They hadn't given the issue any serious consideration, or really looked into the pros and cons.
Romney, on the other hand, converted from pro-life to pro-abort while he was Governor of Massachusetts. By that time, the issue was perfectly clear, and everyone had heard the arguments from both sides.
Now he's converting back to pro-life? That might make sense if he had had a religious conversion, but there are no signs of that. He has been an LDS leader all his life, top of the heap.
The same difference applies to Ronald Reagan. When he signed off on the bill in California, he really hadn't considered the issues. But his advisers clued him in, later, and when he ran for President he HAD experienced a genuine conversion.
That seemed obvious enough to me at the time, so I gladly voted for him. But it is FAR from obvious with Mitt Romney. Somehow, he always announces these changes when it is politically convenient, although by now he is fully aware of what the issues are.