Many long time pro-lifers such as Dale Alquist of EWTN, Lesfemmes and I have our problems with Mitt’s speaking with fork tongue . For example on Aug 28 Jed LewisonFollow for Daily Kos wrote:
That's not true—Romney was against all abortion until last Monday, when he decided to support abortion in cases of rape, incest, or when the woman's life was in danger. But he didn't support abortion in cases "merely" involving health—that exception was entirely new. Never fear, though, Greg Sargent reports Romneyland has already walked that back.
But there is no shift, Romney spokesperson Andrea Saul tells me. She emails:
“Gov. Romney’s position is clear: he opposes abortion except for cases of rape, incest and where the life of the mother is threatened.”
That means no health exception.
I wrote to Steven Ertelt of LifeNews: “ It appears to me that many pro-lifer are saying Obama is really bad so vote for Romney because he is a bit better and will defeat our present enemy. Might this not be like the USA alliance with Stalin to defeat Hitler.”
Steve truly trusts that Romney will appoint pro-life judge and Romney's top judicial advisors include pro-life stalwarts.
Finally, Newsmax.com said:
"I feel that all people should be allowed to participate in the Boy Scouts, regardless of their sexual orientation," Romney says in the video, prefacing his support for gays and lesbians by stating his belief "that the Boy Scouts of America does a wonderful service for this country. I support the right of the Boy Scouts of America to decide what it wants to do on that issue."
Romney again is talk with a fork mouth that is trying to appeal to both sides. Maybe he will be able to be true to the last quote and support the right Americans to decide what it wants to do on that issue and overturn Roe so states can decide for themselves.
I don’t trust Mitt, but I do trust Steven Ertelt of LifeNews and will vote for Romney.
Fred Martinez
Election Could Decide Fate of Abortion for 40 More Years
Dear LifeNews.com Readers,
While the economy dominates the election, for those of us who long for the day unborn children are protected by law from the violence of abortion, there is much at stake in this election.
Next January, our nation marks 40 years of virtually unlimited abortion under Roe v. Wade and more than 55 million unborn babies have lost their lives in this national travesty ever since. The next president will have an opportunity during the four-year term to leave an indelible mark on the nation's high court.
Consider this: the average age of retirement from our nation's highest court is 71.
Justice Ruth Bader Ginsberg is 79
Justice Antonin Scalia is 76
Justice Anthony Kennedy is 76
Justice Stephen Breyer is 74
We already know where Obama stands on Roe and four decades of killing children and hurting women -- he's appointed two pro-abortion Supreme Court justices in Elana Kagan and Sonia Sotomayor. They will keep Roe in place for another generation.
With Mitt Romney, he has repeatedly called for overturning Roe v. Wade. He has said he would appoint the kinds of judges who would not make law from the bench as they did in 1973 with Roe, but who would strictly interpret the Constitution.
Romney's top judicial advisors include pro-life stalwarts like former Supreme Court nominee Robert Bork and pro-life Harvard professor Mary Ann Glendon. Leading pro-life attorneys like Jordan Sekulow, David French, and James Bopp have confirmed they trust Romney as president when it comes to judges.
LifeNews is continuing to work seven days a week to inform pro-life voters about the important implications of the presidential race like this. We're informing hundreds of thousands of pro-life people about what is at stake.
LifeNews needs your help to continue our pro-life Election 2012 efforts. As you can see, the fate of millions of unborn children rests on the results of this election.
Please make an online donation NOW to support LifeNews.com as we promote pro-life values this election. We have just days left until Election Day!
Sincerely,
Steven Ertelt, Editor
LifeNews.com
Romney or Obama will be the next President.
Romney agrees with you 85% of the time, Obama agrees with you 0%
NOTHING in life is ever perfect. Certainly nothing in politics ever is. Back in the 1980s people like you were ranting how Reagan had betrayed the Conservative movement. Now you all want to claim him as your political god father.
A rational adult accepts that 85% of something is better then 100% of what you stand against. Romney will work with you, Obama will work against you. A rational adult mind would accept 85% of something is better then 100% of nothing.
And spare me the self serving rhetoric about waiting for 2016. I am been hearing the same thing from you die harders since 1988. You always want to excuse your inaction this election by claiming you will get them next election. Well we are at the last ditch now. There is no more falling back. You either stand here or there will be no place left to stand.
So just strip away the self serving rationalizations and admit sour grapes that your candidate lost the 2012 GOP nomination is the motivating factor here.
Mitt Romney Kinda Sorta Maybe Supports Gay Rights
•
During a cozy getaway with the Log Cabin Republicans at a Virginia farmhouse last week, Mitt Romney allegedly came around on some important LGBT issues. Of course, he was riding a carousel at the time, so where he’ll stop nobody knows.
Log Cabin Executive Director R. Clarke Cooper told The Nation‘s Ben Adler that the governor not only supports ending workplace discrimination – though not necessarily the “current form“of the Employee Non-Discrimination Act – but also gay adoption, hospital visitation rights for same sex couples and the repeal of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.”
Adler then points out that “the Romney campaign has undermined Cooper’s claims on two of those”:
Back in May, Romney told Fox News that “[gay couples] have a right,” to adopt children. But the very next day he told CBS affiliate WBTV in Charlotte, North Carolina, that he was observing a national consensus, not asserting a belief of his own. “That’s a position which has been decided by most of the state legislatures,” said Romney. “So I simply acknowledge the fact that gay adoption is legal in all states but one.”
Regarding hospital visitation rights, Romney surrogate Bay Buchanan said after Monday’s presidential debate that Romney believes decisions on gay marriage and related issues such as hospital visitation and adoption should be left up to the states. This was off-message to both the right and the left. It blatantly contradicts Romney’s pledge to support a federal ban on gay marriage. But it also implies that Romney would reverse the Obama administration’s 2010 executive order requiring hospitals participating in Medicare and Medicaid to recognize the visitation rights of gay couples.
Buchanan later clarified her statements, insisting that she had “referred to the Tenth Amendment only when speaking about these kinds of benefits – not marriage.” Romney does support a federal ban on same-sex marriage but believes the issues of hospital visitation rights and gay adoption should be left up to the state.
This wavering between “ultra-conservative” and “relatively moderate,” however, threatens to alienate the ultra conservatives, like American Family Association nut-job Bryan Fischer. Adler rang up Fischer, who had this to say about a possible deal with LCR:
“If Governor Romney gives up any ground on ENDA that is a huge problem for social conservatives. ENDA will do to every Christian businessman in America what Obama’s abortion mandate does to hospitals, which is robs them of religious freedom and freedom of conscience and their constitutional right to freedom of association. I think if a President Romney were to give an impetus to an ENDA-like bill that would create a firestorm in his conservative base. It would not be smart politics for him to do that, as well as being wrong.”
Fischer later tweeted that “we need a clear, unambiguous, no loophole denial from Gov. Romney that he will support ENDA as president.” But, hey, if Bryan Fischer wants a “flat emphatic, unambiguous denial from Romney himself,” Romney should just give it to him, then take it back when R. Clarke Cooper is looking. It’s not cheating if you don’t get caught…or if you’re a Mormon. So if Mitt Romney continues to get in bed with both of them, he should really put a ring on it.
Full story here: http://www.queerty.com/mitt-romney-kinda-sorta-maybe-supports-gay-rights-20121025/#ixzz2AfSUjKn6
Mon Aug 27, 2012 at 05:03 PM PDT
Romney campaign denies Romney's claim that he supports health exception for abortion
by Jed LewisonFollow for Daily Kos
Tweet
permalink
99 Comments
Mitt Romney in an interview released by CBS News this afternoon:
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.
That's not true—Romney was against all abortion until last Monday, when he decided to support abortion in cases of rape, incest, or when the woman's life was in danger. But he didn't support abortion in cases "merely" involving health—that exception was entirely new. Never fear, though, Greg Sargent reports Romneyland has already walked that back.
But there is no shift, Romney spokesperson Andrea Saul tells me. She emails:
“Gov. Romney’s position is clear: he opposes abortion except for cases of rape, incest and where the life of the mother is threatened.”
That means no health exception.
So now the question is which side is telling the truth: Mitt Romney ... or his campaign?
And there lingers another important question. In the interview, Romney said that he believed the legality of abortion was a settled issue and shouldn't be a political topic. "The Democrats try and make this a political issue every four years," he said, "but this is a matter in the courts. It's been settled for some time in the courts."
Romney's claim that the legality of abortion is "settled" is a huge deal. If he sticks to that position, he'll basically be coming full circle to his 1994 position, which was that Roe v. Wade was the law of the land and that it was time to move on to other issues. It would be great if Republicans were actually willing to do that, but they're not. That's why time and time again Mitt Romney has pledged to overturn Roe v. Wade, a position utterly in conflict with his claim that Roe v. Wade is "settled" and shouldn't be an issue in elections.
Romney should be getting pounded by all sides on this: by pro-choice people to make sure he doesn't try to wiggle out of his abortion position all over again; by Democrats who should point out that this is yet another flip-flop—at least for however long it lasts; by "pro-life" people who clearly don't think there is anything "settled" about Roe v. Wade; and by the media, to illuminate what, if anything, Romney really believes.
Is he pro-life, pro-choice, or just pro-Mitt?
By Joan Vennochi
Boston 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.”
Continue reading below
Related
• Special section: Romney's record
• Biden, Ryan face high stakes in vice presidential debate
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.
Try BostonGlobe.com today and get two weeks FREE. Joan Vennochi can be reached at vennochi@globe.com. Follow her on Twitter
Comments