What is Mitt's Real Stance on Abortion?

[IGotWorms 4,060]

So here is Mitt's stance on abortion as he told the Des Moines Register yesterday:

 

Mitt Romney today said no abortion legislation is part of his agenda, but he would prohibit federally-funded international nonprofits from providing abortions in other countries.

 

“There’s no legislation with regards to abortion that I’m familiar with that would become part of my agenda,” the GOP presidential candidate told The Des Moines Register’s editorial board during a meeting today before his campaign rally at a Van Meter farm.

 

But by executive order, not by legislation, he would reinstate the so-called Mexico City policy that bans U.S. foreign aid dollars from being used to do abortions, he said.

 

 

Here's what Mitt Romney's campaign then told the National Review Online a mere two hours later:

 

“Governor Romney would of course support legislation aimed at providing greater protections for life.”

 

 

And here's what Mitt Romney himself said today:

 

DELAWARE, Ohio – A little more than 24 hours after he told an Iowa newspaper that abortion legislation would not be part of his agenda if elected, Mitt Romney told reporters today that he would “immediately” move to defund Planned Parenthood.

 

“I’ve said time and time again, I’m a pro-life candidate,” Romney told reporters during a stop at a restaurant in Ohio today. “I’ll be a pro-life president. The actions I’ll take immediately are to remove funding for Planned Parenthood. It will not be part of my budget.

“And also, I’ve indicated I’ll reverse the Mexico City position of the president,” Romney added. “I will reinstate the Mexico City policy.”

 

Romney frequently touted his desire to defund Planned Parenthood, an organization that provides abortions and other services to women, during the Republican primary.

 

He added during a debate in January that he’d like to see Roe v. Wade overturned, referring to the 1973 Supreme Court ruling that made abortion legal.

 

 

So in the span of a mere 24 hours, Mitt Romney goes from being a hardcore pro-life firebrand (his persona during the Republican primary) to a moderate guy who doesn't really intend to legislate on any of this stuff, and then back to a staunch pro-life guy who will immediately move to defund Planned Parenthood.

 

Which one is it? What could we expect from Romney if he's elected president? Is he blowing smoke up the hard right's ass, or is he blowing smoke up the ass of centrists?

 

 

Governor of Massachusetts: pro choice

Running for Republican nomination: pro life

Running for President: not really all that pro life...no, wait, meant what he said about being pro life

 

[BunnysBastatrds 2,511]

So here is Mitt's stance on abortion as he told the Des Moines Register yesterday:

 

 

 

 

Here's what Mitt Romney's campaign then told the National Review Online a mere two hours later:

 

 

 

 

And here's what Mitt Romney himself said today:

 

 

 

 

So in the span of a mere 24 hours, Mitt Romney goes from being a hardcore pro-life firebrand (his persona during the Republican primary) to a moderate guy who doesn't really intend to legislate on any of this stuff, and then back to a staunch pro-life guy who will immediately move to defund Planned Parenthood.

 

Which one is it? What could we expect from Romney if he's elected president? Is he blowing smoke up the hard right's ass, or is he blowing smoke up the ass of centrists?

 

 

Governor of Massachusetts: pro choice

Running for Republican nomination: pro life

Running for President: not really all that pro life...no, wait, meant what he said about being pro life

 

 

Why are you grabbing at straws? Or strawmans?

[Strike 5,748]

So here is Mitt's stance on abortion as he told the Des Moines Register yesterday:

 

 

 

 

Here's what Mitt Romney's campaign then told the National Review Online a mere two hours later:

 

 

 

 

And here's what Mitt Romney himself said today:

 

 

 

 

So in the span of a mere 24 hours, Mitt Romney goes from being a hardcore pro-life firebrand (his persona during the Republican primary) to a moderate guy who doesn't really intend to legislate on any of this stuff, and then back to a staunch pro-life guy who will immediately move to defund Planned Parenthood.

 

Which one is it? What could we expect from Romney if he's elected president? Is he blowing smoke up the hard right's ass, or is he blowing smoke up the ass of centrists?

 

 

Governor of Massachusetts: pro choice

Running for Republican nomination: pro life

Running for President: not really all that pro life...no, wait, meant what he said about being pro life

 

 

He wishes your Mom had aborted you.

 

/thread

 

[IGotWorms 4,060]

Why are you grabbing at straws? Or strawmans?

 

Nope, just curious what he believes. Is a pro-choice guy pretending to be pro-life so that fundies will like him? Is a hardcore pro-life guy pretending to be middle of the road so independents won't be totally turned off? Or is he just a well lubricated weather vane twisting with the political winds of the moment?

[RaiderHaters Revenge 4,386]

you know its completely possible for someone to be 100% pro life (like myself) but also be 100% pro-choice. Its the stupidest argument we have around

 

personally I would never be with anyone who would have an abortion, however I also feel it is not my right nor the right of the government to decide what each woman believes is right for their lives

[Chronic Husker 85]

you know its completely possible for someone to be 100% pro life (like myself) but also be 100% pro-choice.

 

Raiderhaters Revenge, welcome to the geek club. I believe you've found your home.

[drobeski 3,061]

[Brad GLuckman 519]

His stance is that he will say whatever he thinks he has to say to get elected. Kind of like how Obama "evolved" on gay marriage.

[Vikings4ever 567]

Romney's the epitome of the term "political empty suit". His platform depends completely on who he's talking to at the moment, who he's trying to suck up to at the moment.

[RaiderHaters Revenge 4,386]

Raiderhaters Revenge, welcome to the geek club. I believe you've found your home.

 

I dont even know what that means, I guess I'm a noob

[Bruce Benedict 0]

you know its completely possible for someone to be 100% pro life (like myself) but also be 100% pro-choice. Its the stupidest argument we have around

 

Welcome to the wonderful world of republican labeling.

 

Of course you can be 100% "in favor" of life, and still be pro-choice. It's where virtually all liberals come down on the issue.

 

It's also why the conservative use of the label "pro life" in an attempt to set it apart from the liberal ideology of freedom for women to make their own adult decisions is disingenuous. AND why their continued attempts to stick the label "pro abortion" on the left is equally numbskulled. Almost everyone in the world wants living babies. Only some want free women.

 

But in the political realm, the label "pro life" means you must be 100% "anti-pro-choice." So no, you can't be both any time the letters R and D are involved. You're either an anti-freedom republican, or a pro-freedom democrat.

[phillybear 366]

It's a dumb issue. Just flat out dumb. The topic surfaces in every campaign, people on both sides get incensed, and after the election whoever wins does absolutely nothing about it for the next 4 years. Nothing. Anybody that casts a vote based solely on abortion is a stupid motherfocker.

[RLLD 4,275]

It's a dumb issue. Just flat out dumb. The topic surfaces in every campaign, people on both sides get incensed, and after the election whoever wins does absolutely nothing about it for the next 4 years. Nothing. Anybody that casts a vote based solely on abortion is a stupid motherfocker.

 

This. It's simply a tool to garner votes, no one is stupid enough to actually mess with this.....

[Recliner Pilot 61]

I think Mitt may have lost Worm's vote.

[MDC 7,590]

Abortion ranks pretty low on the list of objectional Mitt Romney policies.

[drobeski 3,061]

[Phurfur 70]

Matlock is presenting a very week case.

[Patriotsfatboy1 1,432]

This is an editorial from the Boston Globe today. I post it because it requires a subscription. I forgot that Mitt is not necessarily pro-choice, but rather "multiple-choice".

 

http://www.bostonglobe.com/opinion/2012/10/10/romney-abortion-muddle/r17rZMdK7AyttwRPGmoUeP/story.html?p1=Well_BG_Links

Is he pro-life, pro-choice, or just pro-Mitt?

By Joan Vennochi | Globe Columnist October 11, 2012

 

Never underestimate Mitt Romney’s willingness to reinvent himself — anytime, any place, any issue.

 

He shifted his position on taxes during last week’s debate with a passive President Obama. This week, he tried to soften his stance on abortion, telling the editorial board of the Des Moines Register, “There’s no legislation with regards to abortion that I’m familiar with that would become part of my agenda.”

 

How quickly Romney forgets Roe v. Wade, the Supreme Court decision which struck down laws restricting abortion. Changing the law of the land was definitely part of his agenda — or so he repeatedly said on the presidential campaign trail. As he worked to woo suspicious pro-life voters during the primaries, Romney declared support for overturning the 1973 landmark decision and said he hoped to appoint justices who would reverse it. He also said he would cut federal funding for Planned Parenthood.

 

Writing for The National Review on June 18, 2011, under the headline “My Pro-Life Pledge,” Romney called for the reversal of Roe v. Wade, calling it “a misguided ruling that was a result of a small group of activist federal judges legislating from the bench.” He also said he would “advocate for and support” legislation “to protect unborn children who are capable of feeling pain from abortion.”

 

Romney’s campaign quickly clarified the comments the candidate made to the Des Moines newspaper, stating that “Mitt Romney is proudly pro-life and he will be a pro-life president.” Of course with Romney, being proudly pro-life depends on the meaning of pro-life — or is it the meaning of pro-choice?

 

Shannon O’Brien, the Democrat who lost to Romney in their 2002 race for governor of Massachusetts, said that whenever she hears about his staff “walking him back, the image I have is of this agitated dementia patient walking off in one direction. Then, the staff grabs him and walks him back to where he’s supposed to be.”

 

When it comes to abortion, Romney has been walking around in circles since he first ran for office in Massachusetts against Ted Kennedy.

 

During their iconic 1994 showdown in Faneuil Hall, Romney told voters. “I believe abortion should be safe and legal in this country. I believe that since Roe v. Wade has been the law for 20 years, that we should sustain and support that law and the right of a woman to make that choice.”

 

Kennedy, who didn’t buy Romney’s pro-choice persona then, famously dubbed his opponent “multiple choice” — a line that O’Brien threw back at Romney during their 2002 debate. However, in his effort to sell himself as a moderate to Massachusetts voters, Romney pledged once again to “preserve and protect a woman’s right to choose.” Scolding O’Brien for raising doubts about his pro-choice credentials, he said “Your effort to continue to try and create fear and deception here is unbecoming.”

 

He beat O’Brien and won the governor’s office. Then, when he started running for president, Romney began his well-documented switch to pro-life.

 

It began in 2005, when he told the Globe, “I believe that abortion is the wrong choice except in cases of incest, rape, and to save the life of a mother.” By 2007, he was saying that Roe v. Wade “cheapened the value of human life.” He said he supported an amendment to the Constitution that would legally define personhood beginning at conception. At times, he has also expressed support for constitutional amendments at both the state and federal level that would give constitutional protections to the unborn from the moment of fertilization.

 

If that’s what he believes, that’s what he believes. But is it really what he believes?

 

Paul Ryan, Romney’s vice presidential pick, opposes abortion with no exceptions for rape or incest; Romney supports those exceptions. The platform adopted by Republicans at their national convention explicitly calls for a constitutional ban on abortion, stating that “the unborn child has a fundamental individual right to life which cannot be infringed.” No exceptions are stipulated in the party platform.

 

In Tampa, during the week of the Republican National Convention, Romney’s oldest sister, Jane, told the National Journal that a federal ban on abortion is “never going to happen” on her brother’s watch if he is elected president.

 

“He’s not going to be touching any of that,” Jane Romney said after a “Women for Mitt” event.

 

That’s easy for her to say and hard for anyone else to trust.

[Reality 3,121]

It's a dumb issue. Just flat out dumb. The topic surfaces in every campaign, people on both sides get incensed, and after the election whoever wins does absolutely nothing about it for the next 4 years. Nothing. Anybody that casts a vote based solely on abortion is a stupid motherfocker.

 

Truth

 

/Thread

[Recliner Pilot 61]

What is Obama's stance on infanticide?

 

 

He gives it a

 

 

 

 

 

When Obama Voted For Infanticide

 

 

By Andrew C. McCarthy

February 9, 2012 5:20 P.M. Comments33

 

Peter has beaten me to the punch. What I personally find most offensive about the HHS mandate is the shock with which it has been met. Why? This is who Barack Obama is. There is no reason to be surprised by this. He is not being pulled to extremes by his base — he is the one doing the pulling.

 

Obama’s abortion extremism is such that, as a state legislator, he opposed protection for — I’ll use his words here — “that fetus, or child — however way you want to say describe it” when, contrary to the wishes of the women involved and their abortionists, there was “movement or some indication that, in fact, they’re not just coming out limp and dead.” Babies were inconveniently being born alive, self-styled health-care providers carted them off to utility rooms where they would be left to die. That is infanticide, plain and simple. In Illinois, people tried to stop this barbarism by supporting “born alive” legislation. Barack Obama fought them all the way.

 

That is not a secret. The Obamedia, of course, refused to cover it while they were running down Sarah Palin’s third-grade report card. The clueless John McCain failed to bring any attention to it. But it was far from unknown. I wrote about it in August 2008, and I was far from alone — at least among conservatives. My column was called, “Why Obama Really Voted For Infanticide: More important to protect abortion doctors than ‘that fetus, or child — however way you want to describe it’”:

There wasn’t any question about what was happening. The abortions were going wrong. The babies weren’t cooperating. They wouldn’t die as planned. Or, as Illinois state senator Barack Obama so touchingly put it, there was “movement or some indication that, in fact, they’re not just coming out limp and dead.”

 

No, Senator. They wouldn’t go along with the program. They wouldn’t just come out limp and dead.

 

They were coming out alive. Born alive. Babies. Vulnerable human beings Obama, in his detached pomposity, might otherwise include among “the least of my brothers.” But of course, an abortion extremist can’t very well be invoking Saint Matthew, can he? So, for Obama, the shunning of these least of our brothers and sisters — millions of them — is somehow not among America’s greatest moral failings.

 

No. In Obama’s hardball, hard-Left world, these least become “that fetus, or child — however you want to describe it.”

 

Most of us, of course, opt for “child,” particularly when the “it” is born and living and breathing and in need of our help. Particularly when the “it” is clinging not to guns or religion but to life.

 

But not Barack Obama. As an Illinois state senator, he voted to permit infanticide. And now, running for president, he banks on media adulation to insulate him from his past.

 

The record, however, doesn’t lie.

 

Infanticide is a bracing word. But in this context, it’s the only word that fits. Obama heard the testimony of a nurse, Jill Stanek. She recounted how she’d spent 45 minutes holding a living baby left to die.

 

The child had lacked the good grace to expire as planned in an induced-labor abortion — one in which an abortionist artificially induces labor with the expectation that the underdeveloped “fetus, or child — however you want to describe it” will not survive the delivery.

 

Stanek encountered another nurse carrying the child to a “soiled utility room” where it would be left to die. It wasn’t that unusual. The induced-labor method was used for late-term abortions. Many of the babies were strong enough to survive the delivery. At least for a time.

 

So something had to be done with them. They couldn’t be left out in the open, struggling in the presence of fellow human beings. After all, those fellow human beings — health-care providers— would then be forced to confront the inconvenient question of why they were standing idly by. That would hold a mirror up to the whole grisly business.

 

Better the utility room. Alone, out of sight and out of mind. Next case.

 

Stanek’s account enraged the public and shamed into silence most of the country’s staunchest pro-abortion activists. Most, not all. Not Barack Obama.

 

My friend Hadley Arkes ingeniously argued that legislatures, including Congress, should take up “Born Alive” legislation: laws making explicit what decency already made undeniable: that from the moment of birth — from the moment one is expelled or extracted alive from the birth canal — a human being is entitled to all the protections the law accords to living persons.

 

Such laws were enacted by overwhelming margins. In the United States Congress, even such pro-abortion activists as Sen. Barbara Boxer went along.

 

But not Barack Obama. In the Illinois senate, he opposed Born-Alive tooth and nail.

 

The shocking extremism of that position — giving infanticide the nod over compassion and life — is profoundly embarrassing to him now. So he has lied about what he did. He has offered various conflicting explanations . . .

 

There is more here, including the relevant portion of the legislative record, in which Obama makes his position, and his extremism, crystal clear.

 

Again, this is not new news. The transcript is from ten years ago. He has done nothing since but confirm — by his positions, speeches, associations, and presidential appointments — that he is still exactly the same guy. Obama’s horrifying stance in favor not only of abortion but of infanticide was known when 54 percent of Catholics and 53 percent of Protestants supported him for election in 2008, and when such leading Catholic institutions as Notre Dame and Georgetown welcomed him with open arms.

 

That is what we ought to find shocking. Obama, by contrast, should no longer shock anyone. Obama is simply doing what he came to do; what he said he was going to do when he promised to “fundamentally transform the United States”; and what anyone with a shred of common sense would have predicted he’d do upon scrutinizing his record.

 

 

http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/290707/when-obama-voted-infanticide-andrew-c-mccarthy

[MDC 7,590]

What is Obama's stance on infanticide?

 

 

He gives it a

 

 

 

 

 

 

http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/290707/when-obama-voted-infanticide-andrew-c-mccarthy

 

I can't even tell WTF this article or whatever legislation Obummer opposed is about.

[Casual Observer 597]

So here is Mitt's stance on abortion as he told the Des Moines Register yesterday:

 

 

 

 

Here's what Mitt Romney's campaign then told the National Review Online a mere two hours later:

 

 

 

 

And here's what Mitt Romney himself said today:

 

 

 

 

So in the span of a mere 24 hours, Mitt Romney goes from being a hardcore pro-life firebrand (his persona during the Republican primary) to a moderate guy who doesn't really intend to legislate on any of this stuff, and then back to a staunch pro-life guy who will immediately move to defund Planned Parenthood.

 

Which one is it? What could we expect from Romney if he's elected president? Is he blowing smoke up the hard right's ass, or is he blowing smoke up the ass of centrists?

 

 

Governor of Massachusetts: pro choice

Running for Republican nomination: pro life

Running for President: not really all that pro life...no, wait, meant what he said about being pro life

 

 

You've been watching too much Maddow.

[remote controller 143]

What's Barrack's??

[Recliner Pilot 61]

I can't even tell WTF this article or whatever legislation Obummer opposed is about.

I'm not shocked by this.

[MDC 7,590]

I'm not shocked by this.

 

Me neither. The National Review has really become a hack rag over the past ten years or so. I used to like the NR but now they exist to rile up the retard wing of the party.

 

Anyway, I read about this legislation and I'd have opposed it too.

[jerryskids 6,926]

If I were Mitt I'd put on my Iverson voice and say "abortion? We're talking about abortion?"

[Voice_Of_Reason 0]

Nope, just curious what he believes. Is a pro-choice guy pretending to be pro-life so that fundies will like him? Is a hardcore pro-life guy pretending to be middle of the road so independents won't be totally turned off? Or is he just a well lubricated weather vane twisting with the political winds of the moment?

Tip...He's neither for or against it. He's a politician 1st, everything else 2nd. He's the republican sides answer for Clinton. Which way is the wind blowing today? Yeah, I'm for that.

[Recliner Pilot 61]

Me neither. The National Review has really become a hack rag over the past ten years or so. I used to like the NR but now they exist to rile up the retard wing of the party.

 

Anyway, I read about this legislation and I'd have opposed it too.

 

Your lefty opinion of NR doesn't change the fact Obama voted against legislation that would prevent Drs from killing babies that survived an attempted abortion.

 

HTH

[IGotWorms 4,060]

It's a dumb issue. Just flat out dumb. The topic surfaces in every campaign, people on both sides get incensed, and after the election whoever wins does absolutely nothing about it for the next 4 years. Nothing. Anybody that casts a vote based solely on abortion is a stupid motherfocker.

 

This is a pretty decent point, though I think there's a chance the supreme court really would strike down Roe v. Wade if it was stacked with a couple more conservatives.

 

But really there's a broader point here: you can't believe a single thing Mitt says because he's liable to change his answer within days or even hours. The man holds no core beliefs whatsoever and will say anything to anyone to get elected. That's certainly nothing new in the world of politicians, but ol' Mitt really takes the cake.

 

How you can vote for someone without a single core conviction is beyond me. How would his decisions as president be guided without any real center?

[Recliner Pilot 61]

 

 

How you can vote for someone without a single core conviction is beyond me. How would his decisions as president be guided without any real center?

You voted for Obama, Clown.

[IGotWorms 4,060]

You voted for Obama, Clown.

 

You've been b!tching for years that Obama is a radical Maoist hell bent on turning the US into a Communist state. And now you're saying he has no core convictions? Christ, you're a bigger fraud than the Mittster.

[MDC 7,590]

Your lefty opinion of NR doesn't change the fact Obama voted against legislation that would prevent Drs from killing babies that survived an attempted abortion.

 

HTH

 

Like I said, I used to enjoy National Review until it became a step up from Breibart and other right-wing carny barkers. I still read the American Conservative. I guess I'm more of a William Buckley / George Will type centrist Republican. And you're more of a Limbaugh / Palin type. It takes all kinds I guess.

 

Can you link me to one case of a baby surviving an induced abortion and then murdered by a doctor? I'd be fascinated to learn more about this problem.

[Recliner Pilot 61]

You've been b!tching for years that Obama is a radical Maoist hell bent on turning the US into a Communist state. And now you're saying he has no core convictions? Christ, you're a bigger fraud than the Mittster.

Link to me saying he is "hell bent on turning the US into a communist state"?

 

I've said all along he wasn't qualified, would be in over his head, and be a disaster. I was correct on all 3.

 

I don't recall ever saying what you claim, so feel free to bring where I did or admit you are a lying sack.

[Recliner Pilot 61]

 

 

Can you link me to one case of a baby surviving an induced abortion and then murdered by a doctor? I'd be fascinated to learn more about this problem.

 

Take your fascination to Google, Corky.

[MDC 7,590]

Take your fascination to Google, Corky.

 

I did. I couldn't find any examples. I guess this is just another fishing expedition by the American Taliban wing of the GOP.

[Recliner Pilot 61]

I did. I couldn't find any examples.

 

I'm not shocked by this. You got confused just reading an article.

[MDC 7,590]

I'm not shocked by this. You got confused just reading an article.

 

Anytime you want to post that link would be super. I'll check back later.

[Recliner Pilot 61]

Anytime you want to post that link would be super. I'll check back later.

I'm not here to hold the hands of morons who can't use the innerwebs properly.

[MDC 7,590]

I'm not here to hold the hands of morons who can't use the innerwebs properly.

 

Not a single instance of this ever happening? Sort of reminds me of your thread about voter fraud.

 

You sad little hack.

[Recliner Pilot 61]

Not a single instance of this ever happening? Sort of reminds me of your thread about voter fraud.

 

You sad little hack.

If I was to bring one you would immediately crow "Made ya fetch.....pwned....."

 

Your fishing expeditions are on par with that Benedict alias. :lol: