Posted on 03/12/2010 11:23:26 AM PST by Colofornian
Washington, DC (LifeNews.com) -- Mitt Romney is likely one of several Republican candidates who will vie for the GOP nomination and the right to take on pro-abortion President Barack Obama. For his 2008 attempt at representing Republicans, Romney caused consternation by talking about his position change on abortion and he is doing it again.
Appearing on the "Imus in the Morning" radio program with Don Imus this morning, Imus asked Romney to revisit his position change.
"Well, you know, I never really called myself pro-choice, but I did say when I was running for governor that I would keep the law as it was," Romney said.
But that appears to contradict what he said at the 2007 GOP Iowa straw poll debate.
"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. I changed my position. And I get tired of people that are holier-than-thou because they've been pro-life longer than I have," he said then.
American Spectator writer W. James Antle noticed the Imus comment and said Romney could hurt his own chances of getting the nomination in 2012 by revisiting his former position in favor of legal abortions.
"Romney's problem has never really been that he changed his mind. It has been the fact that he can't resist insulting people's intelligence about his past record when discussing his current position," Antle writes.
"This is a perfect political climate for Romney to downplay abortion and run as an economic problem-solver. But if he continues to pretend he was never pro-choice or play word games about his previous stance, abortion will plague his candidacy again in 2012," Antle continues.
For pro-life advocates, overturning the Roe v. Wade abortion decision so abortion can again be prohibited has always been a hallmark of a true pro-life stance.
During a January 2008 campaign stop in Nevada, Romney said he lined up with the pro-life movement against Roe.
"I am pro-life, and I would welcome a time when the people of America concluded that abortion was wrong, but that's not where America is, and that's why I believe that the next right step for America is for the court to overturn Roe v. Wade," he said. "That would return to the states and to the elected representatives of the people the ability to set their own laws related to abortion."
Romney converted to a pro-life position after years of supporting legalized abortion.
He also said during the 2008 presidential campaign that he supports a federal human life amendment as a second goal after first toppling Roe and letting states ban abortions again.
Any Republican taking on Obama would face a president who has compiled a lengthy pro-abortion record.
Notice, how Romney tried to bare his inner soul on abortion on this Aug. 12, 2007 interview with Fox Network's Chris Wallace: "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..."
So, in Romney's mind, though he pledged to protect status quo of abortion-on-demand in Mass as Guv, he "wasn't pro-choice" ONLY because he didn't have a burning-in-the-bosom "FEEL"ING that he was "pro-choice???" (Oh, OK)
From the article: But that appears to contradict what he said at the 2007 GOP Iowa straw poll debate.
Yes, and also what he told South Carolina voters within two weeks (late Jan/early Feb, 2007) of kicking off his last campaign, where Romney made the following 2 statements—BOTH of which CANNOT be simultaneously true:
Jan. 28, 2007: “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 his even later claim that "every action I've taken as the governor that relates to the sanctity of human life..." AND this statement BOTH be true?)
Feb. 8, 2007: "I am firmly pro-life… I was ALWAYS FOR LIFE." (Jim Davenport, "Romney Affirms Opposition to Abortion," The Associated Press, 2/9/2007)
“You lie”
Zelig
What an f’ing LIAR!!!!!
Romney lies
Babies die
Pathetic attempt to curry favor with conservatives.
The more he speaks, the less use I have for him.
Mitt Romney lies. Shamelessly, and repeatedly.
Do you really want a President so blandly willing to lie, right to your face...?
If you never were pro-choice, what was that emotional conversion speech about?
I’m also sick of people being pro-Romney of FR.
Are they going to deny being pro-Romney five years from now?
Yep, he lies like the rest of them.
Does this mean you have seen the light?
OK, let's go back, Mitt, what did you say, after all?
"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)
Now when an upstanding Mormon uses the term "sustain" he is using one of the most serious & solemn words of support that is even contained in the normal "currency" within the Lds vocabulary. Note this comment from a Mormon who actaully took issue with Mitt's past commitment to abortion:
”In the LDS context 'sustain' has a very special meaning. Whenever someone in a congregation gets a new responsibility (a calling), their names are presented in our sacrament meeting along with what they are being asked to do. This is usually presented to the congregation by a member of the local leadership as follows: 'Brother Jones has been asked to serve as the 15 and 16 year-old Sunday School teacher. All that can sustain him in this calling please show by the uplifted hand.' At this point members of the congregation who sustain the calling raise their right hand. The leader than says 'any opposed may manifest it', and anyone who opposes the calling may raise their hand. To me this is one of the greatest things about the Mormon experience, that when we are asked to do something in our local congregation, we can look around us and see that the people around us know what we are being asked to do, and are showing a willingness to help and support us. It is an exceptional sense of community, especially considering that at the local and regional levels there is no paid clergy. Since as a rule everyone has some responsibility in the congregation, and those responsibilities change sometimes every 2-3 years, sometimes more frequently, there is a very egalitarian aspect to how local congregations are run. We are also taught that once we sustain someone we should do all we can to help someone in their calling, and not needlessly tear them down....Everyone in the Church from the highest ranked ecclesiastical official on down, is supported by a sustaining...Current president of the Church Gordon B. Hinckley said: “The procedure of sustaining is much more than a ritualistic raising of the hand. It is a commitment to uphold, to support, to assist those who have been selected” -Ensign, May 1995, p. 51 ...We take the same approach to sustaining other things, such as the law of the land. Our 12th Article of Faith says that we are to sustain the law. What does this mean? The best explanation I have found is when past President of the LDS Church David O. McKay said: “To sustain the law, therefore, is to refrain from saying or doing anything which will weaken it or make it ineffective” -Conference Report, Apr. 1937, p. 28 When we sustain someone or something, and especially when we make that sustaining an overt public act, we take on very specific responsibilities. Support, strength, assistance even when we might personally disagree with something in the person or thing, are all things required of us in 'sustaining'. When Mitt Romney was an LDS bishop he was in charge of the sustaining process every Sunday. On Sundays he didn't officiate in the process, the process was still done under his very close oversight. The LDS concept of 'sustaining' can't be far from his mind when he makes statements saying he 'sustains' a law..." Source: http://massresistance.blogspot.com/2006/12/mormons-against-romney-analyze-romneys.html
From the article: "...he can't resist insulting people's intelligence about his past record when discussing his current position," Antle writes.
Exactly right. Mitt even attended a Planned Parenthood party when he ran for Senate vs. Kennedy in the 90s & is on record that he was "pro-choice" going back to when his mother ran for Senate in 1970.
Mitt RomneyCARE: “Just buy my book
and ignore what we have done.
Now go back to your bananas.”
“Who ya gonna believe? Me or your lyin’ eyes?”
Romney’s pro-abortion position is on a number of articles in the old Romneytruthfile.
There really isn’t much point in discussing this. He was pro-abortion, and he’s come to realize that he will lose the conservative base with that position.
His problem is the chameleon-like nature of all his position.
He shifts with every wind of politics.
(snip)
On abortion and religion
ROMNEY: I believe that abortion should be safe and legal in this country. I have since the time that my mom took that position when she ran in 1970 as a US Senate candidate. I believe that since Roe v. Wade has been the law for 20 years we should sustain and support it. . . . I think the low point of this race was when my opponent and their family decided to make religion an issue in this campaign. Brought it out, attacked me for it. I think that's a mistake. I think the time has passed for that.
(snip)
Source: "On jobs and wages; The Kennedy-Romney debates." (1994, Oct. 26). The Boston Globe, p. 23.
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.