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

Skip to comments.

Romney says won't pursue new abortion laws
Reuters ^ | Oct. 9, 2012 | Steve Holland

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 ...


TOPICS: Breaking News; Constitution/Conservatism; Culture/Society; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: 2012issues; romney2012
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-145 next last
To: All
"I didn't vote for Romney, I voted for a more Conservative candidate who ended up with 1.03% of the vote! Romney lost a close election and Obama got to continue his destruction of the American national polity, and chose the successors to Scalia and Kennedy, assuring that the United States as a federal republic would be destroyed forever. But I feel good because I voted my conscience."

If this sounds like you, maybe you should reassess your priorities.

51 posted on 10/09/2012 10:04:51 PM PDT by BushMeister ("We are a nation that has a government - not the other way around." --Ronald Reagan)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies]

To: Free ThinkerNY

Not his job, Its the states. They tried this before.


52 posted on 10/09/2012 10:04:57 PM PDT by sickoflibs (Romney is still a liberal. Just watch him. (Obama-ney Care ))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: BlackElk

Wondered when I’d see you on this thread, FRiend.

Point of the matter is, it’s hard to change the spots on a leopard. And when it comes to the unborn, Romney has a history of being a predator.


53 posted on 10/09/2012 10:10:54 PM PDT by Colonel_Flagg ("Don't be afraid to see what you see." -- Ronald Reagan)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: Rome2000; doc1019; GeronL

An Open Letter Regarding Governor Mitt Romney

January 11, 2007

Dear conservative friends:

We hail from a broad spectrum of organizations dedicated to fighting for the pro-family agenda in Massachusetts. As you know, Mitt Romney became the governor of our state in 2003. Since that time, we have worked closely with him and his excellent staff on that agenda.

Some press accounts and bloggers have described Governor Romney in terms we neither have observed nor can we accept. To the contrary, we, who have been fighting here for the values you also hold, are indebted to him and his responsive staff in demonstrating solid social conservative credentials by undertaking the following actions here in Massachusetts:

• Staunchly defended traditional marriage. Governor Romney immediately and strongly condemned the 2003 court decision that legalized “same-sex marriage” in our state. More importantly, he followed up on that denunciation with action – action that saved our nation from a constitutional crisis over the definition of marriage. He and his staff identified and enforced a little-known 1913 law that allowed them to order local clerks not to issue marriage licenses to out-of-state couples. Absent this action, homosexual couples would surely have flooded into Massachusetts from other states to get “married” and then demanded that their home states recognize the “marriages,” putting the nation only one court decision away from nationalizing “same-sex marriage.”

• Worked hard to overturn “same-sex marriage” in the Commonwealth with considerable progress to date. In 2004 he lobbied hard, before a very hostile legislature, for a constitutional amendment protecting marriage – an amendment later changed by the legislature to include civil unions, which the Governor and many marriage amendment supporters opposed. Working with the Governor, we were successful in defeating this amendment.

• Provided active support for a successful citizen petition drive in 2005 to advance a clean constitutional amendment defining marriage as the union of one man and one woman.

• Rallied thousands of citizens to focus public and media attention on the failure of legislators, through repeated delays, to perform their constitutional obligation and vote on the marriage amendment.

• Filed suit before the Supreme Judicial Court. The Governor’s suit asked the court to clarify the legislators’ duty to vote and failing that, to place the amendment on the 2008 ballot. That lawsuit, perhaps more than any other single action, was by all accounts instrumental in bringing pressure on the legislators to vote. The vote ultimately was taken on January 2, 2007 and won legislative support – clearing a major hurdle in the three year effort to restore traditional marriage in the Commonwealth.

• Fought for abstinence education. In 2006, under Governor Romney’s leadership, Massachusetts’ public schools began to offer a classroom program on abstinence from the faith-based Boston group Healthy Futures to middle school students. Promoting the program, Governor Romney stated, “I’ve never had anyone complain to me that their kids are not learning enough about sex in school. However, a number of people have asked me why it is that we do not speak more about abstinence as a safe and preventative health practice.”

• Affirmed the culture of life. Governor Romney has vetoed bills to provide access to the so-called “morning-after pill,” which is an abortifacient, as well as a bill providing for expansive, embryo-destroying stem cell research. He vetoed the latter bill in 2005 because the could not “in good conscience allow this bill to become law.”

• Stood for religious freedom. Last year, Governor Romney was stalwart in defense of the right of Catholic Charities of Boston to refuse to allow homosexual couples to adopt children in its care. Catholic Charities was loudly accused of “discrimination,” but Governor Romney correctly pointed out that it is unjust to force a religious agency to violate the tenets of its faith in order to placate a special-interest group.

• Filed “An Act Protecting Religious Freedom” in the Massachusetts legislature to save Catholic Charities of Boston and other religious groups from being forced to violate their moral principles or stop doing important charitable work.

All of this may explain why John J. Miller, the national political reporter of National Review, has written that “a good case can be made that Romney has fought harder for social conservatives than any other governor in America, and it is difficult to imagine his doing so in a more daunting political environment.”

We are aware of the 1994 comments of Senate candidate Romney, which have been the subject of much recent discussion. While they are, taken by themselves, obviously worrisome to social conservatives including ourselves, they do not dovetail with the actions of Governor Romney from 2003 until now – and those actions have positively and demonstrably impacted the social climate of Massachusetts.

Since well before 2003, we have been laboring in the trenches of Massachusetts, fighting for the family values you and we share. It is difficult work indeed – not for the faint of heart. In this challenging environment, Governor Romney has proven that he shares our values, as well as our determination to protect them.

For four years, Governor Romney has been right there beside us, providing leadership on key issues – whether it was politically expedient to do so or not. He has stood on principle, and we have benefited greatly from having him with us.

It is clear that Governor Romney has learned much since 1994 – to the benefit of our movement and our Commonwealth. In fact, the entire nation has benefited from his socially conservative, pro-family actions in office. As we explained earlier, his leadership on the marriage issue helped prevent our nation from being plunged into even worse legal turmoil following the court decision that forced “gay marriage” upon our Commonwealth.

For that our country ought to be thankful. We certainly are.

Sincerely,
Rita Covelle
President, Morality in Media Massachusetts

Richard Guerriero
Immediate Past State Deputy, Massachusetts State Council, Knights of Columbus

Mary Ann Glendon
Learned Hand Professor of Law, Harvard Law School

Kristian Mineau
President, Massachusetts Family Institute

Dr. Roberto Miranda
President, COPAHNI Fellowship of Hispanic Pastors of New England

James Morgan
President, Institute for Family Development

Joseph Reilly
President, Massachusetts Citizens for Life

Thomas A. Shields
Chairman, Coalition for Family and Marriage

__________________________
Note: The signatories are all acting as individual citizens, and not as representatives of their respective organizations. Organizational affiliations and titles appear for identification purposes only.

http://aboutmittromney.com/pdf/massleaders.pdf


54 posted on 10/09/2012 10:19:28 PM PDT by Tamzee (The U.S. re-electing Obama would be like the Titanic backing up and ramming the iceberg again.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: Free ThinkerNY

I don’t care if he pursues it. I only care if he signs it and if he appoints good SCOTUS justices.


55 posted on 10/09/2012 10:29:55 PM PDT by Darren McCarty (Holding my nose one more time to get rid of Eric Holder)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Running On Empty

marking


56 posted on 10/09/2012 10:42:33 PM PDT by Running On Empty (The three sorriest words: "It's too late")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Tamzee

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.


57 posted on 10/09/2012 10:50:06 PM PDT by ansel12
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 54 | View Replies]

To: sickoflibs

Abortion is an issue at the national level, the state level, the local level, the medical board level, the medical school level, the school board level, it is an all front war.

We pursue national laws and state laws at the same time, we fight on multiple fronts and take territory where we can.

Mitt has suddenly discovered “states rights” because it covers him for all of his radical leftism on homosexual “marriage”, being radically anti-second amendment, abortion, Romneycare, I don’t know how he works it into his pushing to homosexualize the Boy Scouts though.


58 posted on 10/09/2012 10:58:03 PM PDT by ansel12
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 52 | View Replies]

To: doc1019

Abortion was illegal in every state except California and New York.

A woman in Texas sued against the law in Texas. (Norma McCorvey, “Jane Roe.”)

On January 22, 1973, the Supreme Court struck down the abortion law in every state.

Just google for “Roe v. Wade.”


59 posted on 10/09/2012 10:59:36 PM PDT by Arthur McGowan (In Edward Kennedy's America, federal funding of brothels is a right, not a privilege.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: ansel12
Mitt hasn’t changed on supporting the homosexual agenda

Correct, he still doesn't support it.

And according to all the pro-family, pro-marriage, pro-life activists that actually worked with Romney in Massachusetts, your implying he supports the homosexual agenda makes you either ignorant or a liar.

.

60 posted on 10/09/2012 11:04:58 PM PDT by Tamzee (The U.S. re-electing Obama would be like the Titanic backing up and ramming the iceberg again.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 57 | View Replies]

To: Tamzee

Actually you seem eager to lie for Romney.

“” 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.””


61 posted on 10/09/2012 11:10:28 PM PDT by ansel12
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 60 | View Replies]

To: Tamzee

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


62 posted on 10/09/2012 11:20:38 PM PDT by ansel12
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 60 | View Replies]

To: Free ThinkerNY; wagglebee; BlackElk; Steve Schulin; SoConPubbie; Gelato

Mitt Romney has no intention of lifting one finger to stop the daily brutal slaughter of thousands of innocent, defenseless, helpless little boys and girls in this country. His every position guarantees the abortion on demand status quo.

Honest observers have known this all along.

Mitt Romney destroys our republican form of government with his gross judicial supremacist views, and his spurious claim that if a court says it, that’s “the law.”

He destroys the foundational moral, natural law premises of this free republic and our claim to liberty with his claim that abortion should be “legal” if a democratic majority thinks it is okay.

He doesn’t believe in God-given, unalienable rights, not even the supreme right, the right to live.

He doesn’t believe in our intrinsic equality before God and the law, and disdains the explicit, imperative requirements found in the Fourteenth Amendment.

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.


63 posted on 10/09/2012 11:24:00 PM PDT by EternalVigilance (The only wasted vote is one that doesn't represent you.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ansel12

I’ve never seen anything where Romney said he supports gay scout LEADERS... and he has also said repeatedly that he stands by the Boy Scouts right to uphold their decision.

Regarding “continuing Obama’s policy of having homosexuals in the military”, Romney did not say that, he said he wasn’t planning on repealing the repeal of Don’t Ask Don’t Tell. Which would be quite ridiculous, they already TOLD.

But I’m wasting my breath discussing any of this with you... there is enormous historical evidence based on HIS ACTIONS as governor and HIS SUPPORT from real pro-life, pro-marriage, pro-family values activists in Massachusetts who worked with him. But you deliberately ignore all that to try to paint him as something he is not by twisting and distorting quotes. You don’t care about the truth, you only care about your agenda. But just like I always tell folks about the left... if you need to lie and cheat and distort to support your goal, then it is already inherently an evil one.


64 posted on 10/09/2012 11:41:06 PM PDT by Tamzee (The U.S. re-electing Obama would be like the Titanic backing up and ramming the iceberg again.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 62 | View Replies]

To: Free ThinkerNY

This headline is a good thing. A few more Democrat females and a lot more liberal Independent females will vote for Romney now.. This demographic doesn’t read beyond the headlines.


65 posted on 10/09/2012 11:43:07 PM PDT by Obama_Is_Sabotaging_America
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Tamzee

The whole issues is scout leaders, and Romney has reaffirmed that he supports homosexual scout leaders as he always has.

Romney also supports Obama’s ending of DADT, because Romney has been passionately supporting homosexualizing the military since the 1990s.

Romney was way ahead of Obama on homosexual issues.

“”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.””


66 posted on 10/10/2012 12:19:29 AM PDT by ansel12
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 64 | View Replies]

To: Tamzee

Mitt Romney banned the Boy Scouts from the Olympics because of their refusal to allow homosexual scout leaders.

Here is another view of Mitt giving the nation homosexual marriage.

I. Mitt Romney demonstrates his commitment to homosexual “rights” before becoming Governor of Massachusetts in January 2003:

1994 Campaign vs. Ted Kennedy for U.S. Senate: Romney pledged he “will provide more effective leadership” than Kennedy on homosexual rights; endorsed by Log Cabin Republicans.
2000-2002: As head of Salt Lake City Olympic Committee, Romney banned Boy Scouts from participating.
2001 Called first citizens’ petition to define marriage “too extreme” and “bigoted” because it banned civil unions.
2002 Campaign for Governor: Romney makes promises to GLBT community, according to leading Boston homosexual newspaper; endorsed by homosexual activist Log Cabin Republicans.
II. Nov. 18, 2003 Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court (SJC) rules that same-sex marriage is protected in the Mass. Constitution, and gives the Legislature 180 days to act (“Goodridge” ruling).

Nov. 18, 2003 Romney responds to SJC ruling with four-sentence statement implicitly recognizing SJC’s authority, says only remedy will be a constitutional amendment: “I disagree with the Supreme Judicial Court. Marriage is an institution between a man and a woman. I will support an amendment to the Massachusetts Constitution to make that expressly clear. Of course, we must provide basic civil rights and appropriate benefits to nontraditional couples, but marriage is a special institution that should be reserved for a man and a woman.”
Nov.-Dec. 2003 Romney reportedly working with Legislators promoting “civil unions”.
Jan. 2004 Romney silent on proposal to remove four SJC justices through Bill of Address (put forward by Article 8 Alliance / MassResistance).
Feb. 4, 2004 SJC tells Legislature that civil unions for same-sex couples will not satisfy its interpretation of the Mass. Constitution; only full-fledged marriage will do.
Feb. 5, 2004 Romney publishes editorial in Wall Street Journal laying all blame on the SJC for problem in Massachusetts. Suggests other states strengthen marriage statutes and pass constitutional amendments. Says don’t “attack … gays, singles or non-traditional couples.”
Feb. 2004 Justices of the Peace are told by their professional association they will be able to claim “conscientious objector” status and refuse to perform same-sex marriages — though this was never agreed to by Romney administration.
Feb.-May 2004 Pro-family leaders and columnists urge Romney to defy court, and issue Executive Order to block same-sex marriage; no public comment from Romney.
March 12, 2004 As Legislature postures on constitutional amendments, Romney continues to say amendment to Mass. Constitution is solution.
March 26, 2004 Word leaks out that Romney’s Dept. of Public Health (DPH) and attorneys are planning training sessions for Town Clerks and preparing same-sex marriage licenses.
March 29, 2004 Romney tells Republicans in Mass. legislature to vote for Travaglini-Lees “compromise amendment” which would ban same-sex marriage but establish civil unions (and would not go to voters before Nov. 2006). Republican legislators had earlier opposed this amendment because of the civil unions clause, and it passed only due to their changed votes.
March 29-31, 2004 Romney seeks stay of SJC ruling until constitutional amendment issue is settled, but Atty. General Reilly refuses to take Governor’s case before SJC. [Did Romney believe that same court that issued Goodridge ruling would seriously consider his request for a stay?]
March 30, 2004 Romney says he’ll “abide by the law of the land as it exists on May 17” and says he would not order town clerks to defy court edict. Romney says he’d not explored the Constitution section giving him power over “causes of marriage” and whether it gives him any legal power to stop same-sex marriage (according to spokesman).
April 12, 2004 Romney spokesman says training sessions for town clerks will begin “with plenty of room to spare before May 17.” Ron Crews of Mass. Coalition for Marriage states hope for an Executive Order to halt the marriages.
April 15, 2004 Romney files emergency bill in Legislature to seek stay of SJC ruling, and is rebuffed and reprimanded by Senate President Travaglini.
April 15, 2004 Romney’s DPH Registrar of Vital Records informs town clerks by letter of training sessions before SJC ruling becomes effective.
April 16, 2004 Romney announces his administration is scheduling training sessions for May 5-12 with licenses changed from “husband/wife” to “Party A/Party B”.
April 17, 2004 Mass. Dept. of Revenue (under Romney) declares SJC ruling the new “law”.
April 22, 2004 Romney does not comment on Rep. Goguen’s filing of Bill of Address for Article 8 Alliance/MassResistance to remove the 4 SJC judges, or Article 8’s revelation of Chief Justice Marshall’s violations of the Code of Judicial Conduct. (Marshall had appeared as keynote speaker at homosexual advocacy group dinner in 1999 advocated extension of “rights” for homosexuals, and failed to recuse herself from ruling on same-sex marriage though she had publicly expressed her bias.)
April 26, 2004 Romney’s chief Legal Counsel, Daniel Winslow, issues directive to Justices of the Peace to resign (or be fired, fined, or sued) if they are unwilling to perform same-sex marriages (exact date not given on document).
April 29, 2004 Romney writes to 49 other Governors to inform them he’ll uphold section of Mass. marriage statutes banning same-sex marriages for out-of-state couples.
May 5-12, 2004 Town clerk training sessions held. [GLAD – Gay & Lesbian Advocates & Defenders — is only source on content of sessions; perhaps they were responsible for content?]
May 15, 2004 Romney issues proclamation: May 15 is “Gay/Straight Youth Pride Day”. Romney’s “Governor’s Commission on Gay and Lesbian Youth” events include parade, GLBT activism (with prominent transsexual radical activists), and a GLBT prom – two days before same-sex marriages are to begin.
May 17, 2004 Same-sex marriages begin across Massachusetts. Romney issues brief statement: “All along, I have said an issue as fundamental to society as the definition of marriage should be decided by the people. Until then, I intend to follow the law and expect others to do the same.” [What law? Original marriage statutes clearly defining marriage as between a man and a woman were –and are — still on the books, unchanged by the Legislature. So Romney is not enforcing the actual law—just a court opinion.]
May 18, 2004 Romney begins enforcement of section of marriage statute banning out-of-state couples marrying in Mass. if that marriage would be illegal in their home state, while other intact sections of the marriage statute (“man” and “woman”) are ignored.
June 22, 2004 Romney testifies before US Senate Judiciary Committee for federal marriage amendment and blames Court for situation in Massachusetts.
Oct. 29, 2004 Romney signs new law eliminating blood test for STDs as requirement for marriage license (Ch. 388 of Acts of 2004). [Note: this is the only part of marriage statutes changed to satisfy demands of same-sex marriage]
Dec. 2004 Romney has no comment on bills filed by Article 8 Alliance / MassResistance for 2005-6 session: to remove four SJC judges; strengthen definition of marriage in statute; and declare same-sex marriages since May 17, 2004 null/void and without statutory basis.
Feb. 21, 2005 Romney makes speech before South Carolina Republicans, then is accused of “flip-flopping” on civil unions by homosexual lobby. Romney also negatively refers to demands by the homosexual activists that birth certificates be changed to read “Parent A/Parent B” (instead of “father/mother”), arguing he had no authority to make such a change [though he had no such qualms about changing the marriage license].
June 16, 2005 Romney joins VoteOnMarriage (VOM) amendment effort, which would recognize same-sex marriages prior to amendment taking effect, and not ban civil unions. (Romney says VOM is superior to the Travaglini-Lees compromise amendment.) Romney also announces support of VOM’s proposed bill promoting partnership benefits for any couple wanting them (see “Benefits Fairness Act” filed Jan. 2006). Romney says he’s opposed to removing the four SJC judges. Calls for a “high degree of respect and tolerance for people whose lifestyle and choices and orientation is as they may choose.”
July 22, 2005 Romney says only Legislature can change birth certificates from “father/mother” to “Parent A/Parent B”.
Sept. 14, 2005 Travaglini-Lees compromise amendment defeated in Legislature.
Nov. 2005 Romney tells Federalist Society that judiciary must be grounded in Constitution and law and precedents, and only the Legislature and people can change that base.
Jan. 2, 2006 Boston Globe reports Romney issued special Governor’s ceremonial marriage licenses to 189 same-sex couples in 2005 (including to homosexual activist state senator), claiming he did not refuse because he was evenly applying the “statute”. [Note: There is no new statute establishing same-sex marriage.]
Jan. 11, 2006 Romney files “Benefits Fairness Act” with VoteOnMarriage, which is roundly criticized by GLBT lobby, and shelved in Committee as late-filed bill.
March 10-14, 2006 Romney says laws require Catholic Charities not to discriminate against same-sex parents in its adoption placements [but there’s only an administrative regulation]. He says same-sex couples have “a legitimate interest” in adopting children.
June 2, 2006 Romney sends letter to US Congress arguing for federal marriage amendment.
June 28, 2006 Romney urges Legislature to vote on VOM amendment, and addresses importance of following Constitution.
Sept. 30, 2006 Romney says he has to “follow the law,” and accept Mass. Superior Court ruling stating Rhode Island lesbian couple can marry in Massachusetts (following an earlier SJC ruling addressing Rhode Island’s lack of prohibition of same-sex marriage).
Oct. 15, 2006 Romney addresses nationally broadcast “Liberty Sunday” (Family Research Council) event in Boston. Blames SJC for Mass. problems, says we need an outpouring of respect and tolerance for all people regardless of different choices they make, and as a nation we must reject discrimination and bigotry. Calls for support of federal marriage amendment.
Nov. 19, 2006 Romney holds rally on State House steps announcing he’s delivering a copy of the Constitution to every Legislator who voted to recess the Constitutional Convention (to avoid the vote on the VOM amendment required by state Constitution). Romney also announces he’s appealing to the courts. [But he says nothing about the SJC precedent of Dec. 20, 2002, ruling that the Legislature must vote in this situation, which already affirms that he should call Legislators back.]
©2006 MassResistance (11-23-06)


67 posted on 10/10/2012 12:25:41 AM PDT by ansel12
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 64 | View Replies]

To: Free ThinkerNY

This is nothing new. Willard’s pro-abortion views have been discussed here for years. In the zeal to embrace anyone but hussein, I’d say most conservatives are going to vote for someone who doesn’t have much of a problem with the continuation of infanticide.

Most conservatives, but not all.

There are conservative anti-abortion candidates on the ballot in VA and in most states. And thus a choice exists for conservatives. I intend to exercise that choice. As I noted, I think that most conservatives will fall in line and vote for APACEh (Any Pro Abortion Candidate Except hussein).


68 posted on 10/10/2012 3:08:37 AM PDT by RKBA Democrat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: doc1019

Anyone in favour of the status quo is pro-abortion. Romney lied. Republican primary voters knew he lied but enough of them didn’t care so you’re stuck with him. His sole appeal to conservative voters is “Obama is worse”. How inspiring.


69 posted on 10/10/2012 3:24:44 AM PDT by littleharbour
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: MNJohnnie

Notice also the ABR crowd here wants to ignore that inconvenient fact. At worse Romney will maintain the current status quo, Obama will radically advance the pro Death agenda.

I am not in the ABR crowd any longer. Oh I admit I was for a very long time but the closer we get to the election, the more I am thrilled to vote for Romney and that is not a lie one bit. I just asked a simple question about Late Term abortion. I don’t think asking that is a sin against Romney.


70 posted on 10/10/2012 4:01:06 AM PDT by napscoordinator (GOP Candidate 2020 - "Bloomberg 2020 - We vote for whatever crap the GOP puts in front of us.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: MeanGreen2008

You don’t. You mean Obama working hard to create a “Romney” he can defeat?

Isn’t it ironic that Obama has to push Romney’s agenda just to have something to talk about?


71 posted on 10/10/2012 4:12:22 AM PDT by 1010RD (First, Do No Harm)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: doc1019

“Romney is pro abortion.”

Which is why I’m mystified as to all the cheering about his debate win. He performed great on stage for 90 minutes so let’s overlook his disgusting pro choice positions?


72 posted on 10/10/2012 4:18:33 AM PDT by KantianBurke (Where was the Tea Party when Dubya was spending like a drunken sailor?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Viennacon

Agree and his ( Obama’s) support of killing the baby that survives a ‘failed abortion’ is beyond understanding.


73 posted on 10/10/2012 4:47:01 AM PDT by HollyB
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: BushMeister

Well said!!


74 posted on 10/10/2012 4:56:06 AM PDT by driftdiver (I could eat it raw, but why do that when I have a fire.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 51 | View Replies]

To: ansel12

Still supporting Obama?


75 posted on 10/10/2012 4:58:47 AM PDT by driftdiver (I could eat it raw, but why do that when I have a fire.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 61 | View Replies]

To: RKBA Democrat

What are the chances those other candidates could become President?

While you vote your “conscience” the nation burns.


76 posted on 10/10/2012 5:01:30 AM PDT by driftdiver (I could eat it raw, but why do that when I have a fire.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 68 | View Replies]

To: doc1019

So you want a king to waive a magic wand on this ?


77 posted on 10/10/2012 5:10:10 AM PDT by GlockThe Vote (The Obama Adminstration: 2nd wave of attacks on America after 9/11)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: Free ThinkerNY
"There's no legislation with regards to abortion that I'm familiar with that would become part of my agenda,"

The above line means absolutely nothing, since it includes the phrase "that I'm familiar with".

That could mean "already existing that I know about."

Neither side, pro-life or pro-abortion, should take any solace whatsoever in such a fungible comment.

78 posted on 10/10/2012 5:13:20 AM PDT by xzins (Retired Army Chaplain and Proud of It! True supporters of our troops pray for their victory!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ansel12
RE :”We pursue national laws and state laws at the same time, we fight on multiple fronts and take territory where we can.
Mitt has suddenly discovered “states rights” because it covers him for all of his radical leftism on homosexual “marriage”, being radically anti-second amendment, abortion, Romneycare, I don’t know how he works it into his pushing to homosexualize the Boy Scouts though.

Mitt will say anything to get elected and he NOW knows that most Republicans dont care what he says now, they just want O gone. So he almost has a blank check by the R side.

Regardless I dont want Federal laws dictating abortion to the states, homosexuality, anymore than I want them dictating election laws or education laws. That is the states job,
I dont want to replace a Dem King with a R king.

Overturning Roe, defending DOMA, cutting abortion funding. etc is the role the Feds should play. I seem to remember Palin saying the same thing in 2008. Romney said the same thing as now in the primary, overturn Roe.

I dont see any future R POTUS nominee running on outlawing abortion at the Federal level anyway. They all seem to have trouble explaining over-turning Roe to average voters.

79 posted on 10/10/2012 5:27:57 AM PDT by sickoflibs (Romney is still a liberal. Just watch him. (Obama-ney Care ))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 58 | View Replies]

To: GeaugaRepublican

It really is that simple of a choice.


80 posted on 10/10/2012 5:41:07 AM PDT by Girlene
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: Free ThinkerNY
Liberal psyops in an attempt to salvage the campaign of our Abortionist-in-Chief.
81 posted on 10/10/2012 5:53:49 AM PDT by 1010RD (First, Do No Harm)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: MNJohnnie

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.


82 posted on 10/10/2012 6:35:03 AM PDT by AFPhys ((Praying for our troops, our citizens, that the Bible and Freedom become basis of the US law again))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: EternalVigilance

“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.


83 posted on 10/10/2012 7:34:39 AM PDT by lquist1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 63 | View Replies]

To: EternalVigilance

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.


84 posted on 10/10/2012 7:38:53 AM PDT by Tau Food (Tom Hoefling for President - 2012)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 63 | View Replies]

To: EternalVigilance

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.


85 posted on 10/10/2012 7:47:06 AM PDT by Tau Food (Tom Hoefling for President - 2012)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 63 | View Replies]

To: AFPhys
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.

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.

86 posted on 10/10/2012 7:55:34 AM PDT by BlatherNaut
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 82 | View Replies]

To: Tau Food

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!


87 posted on 10/10/2012 8:02:45 AM PDT by EternalVigilance (The only wasted vote is one that doesn't represent you.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 85 | View Replies]

To: Free ThinkerNY

Takin’ another bite of that Romney s*#t sandwich, boss! mmm...(now, back to clearing that highway ditch...


88 posted on 10/10/2012 8:04:46 AM PDT by TADSLOS (Conservatism didn't magically show up in Romney's heart in 2012. You can't force what isn't in you.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: BlatherNaut
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?

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".

89 posted on 10/10/2012 8:39:49 AM PDT by ansel12
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 86 | View Replies]

To: sickoflibs

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.


90 posted on 10/10/2012 8:48:30 AM PDT by ansel12
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 79 | View Replies]

To: Free ThinkerNY

“...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...”

http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/obamacare-provides-taxpayer-funding-elective-abortions_654076.html


91 posted on 10/10/2012 9:04:46 AM PDT by Qbert ("The best defense against usurpatory government is an assertive citizenry" - William F. Buckley, Jr.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Free ThinkerNY

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.


92 posted on 10/10/2012 9:23:16 AM PDT by Yashcheritsiy (It's time to make Obama a minor footnote in the pages of history)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Laura722; All
Romney is now pro-life and I believe him.

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.

93 posted on 10/10/2012 9:26:09 AM PDT by Yashcheritsiy (It's time to make Obama a minor footnote in the pages of history)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: doc1019

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.


94 posted on 10/10/2012 1:02:58 PM PDT by dschapin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: Tennessee Nana
Great pic; it really says it all. The Republican Party is horrid, it never pursues what it says it will do.
95 posted on 10/10/2012 1:18:22 PM PDT by OneWingedShark (Q: Why am I here? A: To do Justly, to love mercy, and to walk humbly with my God.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: dschapin

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...


96 posted on 10/10/2012 1:46:37 PM PDT by Tennessee Nana
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 94 | View Replies]

To: ansel12

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.


97 posted on 10/10/2012 1:48:23 PM PDT by MNJohnnie (Giving more money to DC to fix the Debt is like giving free drugs to addicts think it will cure them)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: MNJohnnie

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


98 posted on 10/10/2012 2:13:38 PM PDT by ansel12
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 97 | View Replies]

To: MNJohnnie

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


99 posted on 10/10/2012 2:18:47 PM PDT by ansel12
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 97 | View Replies]

To: ansel12
Mitt Romney banned the Boy Scouts from the Olympics because of their refusal to allow homosexual scout leaders.

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

.

100 posted on 10/10/2012 4:07:29 PM PDT by Tamzee (The U.S. re-electing Obama would be like the Titanic backing up and ramming the iceberg again.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 67 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-145 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