A
_Abyssinia
Guest
Romney: “Two Lives at Stake in Abortion, I Care About Both”
lifenews.com/2012/08/26/romney-two-lives-at-stake-in-abortion-i-care-about-both
- Status
A
_Abyssinia
Guest
Matalin: War on women ‘ridiculous,’ Dem gender gap with men as great as GOP with women
dailycaller.com/2012/08/26/matalin-war-on-women-ridiculous-dem-gender-gap-with-men-as-great-as-gop-with-women
A
_Abyssinia
Guest
Romney Revealed: CNN’s documentary on Mitt Romney
Full interview: Mitt Romney on Fox News Sunday
therightscoop.com/romney-revealed-cnns-documentary-on-mitt-romney
Full interview: Mitt Romney on Fox News Sunday
therightscoop.com/full-interviews-mitt-romney-on-fox-news-sunday
meltzerboy
New member
Yes, Romney is much more pro-life than Obama. But if he believes in choice with regard to contraception, is he totally pro-life according to Catholic teaching?
I
ishii
Guest
Doesn’t matter. If he chooses justices who don’t believe the constitution has a right to abortion then he is plenty right to life. All else is academic - if Roe V Wade is overturned, then the states and legislatures will decide. All this talk about Romney being 80% pro-life or 85% pro-life - “not totally pro-life according to Catholic teaching” is to miss the point - he would try to appoint justices who share his belief that Roe V Wade was a bad decision and should be overturned.
Ishii
R
rlg94086
Guest
Seriously? Please name a candidate from either major party in the last 30 years who was anti-contraception. You people are starting to get desperate in this campaign.
O
oldcelt
Guest
I was thinking the same thing, but about an entirely different group.
John
M
markomalley
Guest
Partial transcript of an interview on Fox News Sunday, yesterday:WALLACE: In the wake of Congressman Todd Akin’s comments last Sunday, the Obama campaign is once again attacking Republicans for what they call the so-called war on women. Now, I know that you have an economic argument about jobs and opportunity, but I’d like you to deal with the social issues aspect of this specifically.
How do you answer the Obama charge that they offer more support, more choice to women when it comes to abortion or rape or birth control or women’s health care?
ROMNEY: Well, first of all, with regards to women’s health care, look, I’m the guy that was able to get health care for all of the women and men in my state. They’re just talking about it at the federal level. We actually did something and we did it without cutting Medicare and without raising taxes, number one.
Number two –
WALLACE: So you’re saying –
ROMNEY: – with regard –
WALLACE: – look at RomneyCare?
ROMNEY: Well – I’m very proud of what we did and – and the fact that we helped women and men and children in our state.
Number two – and we did it without cutting Medicare, which obviously affects a lot of women.
The – the way the president cut Medicare, $716 billion for current retirees, that’s a real problem.
And then with regards to contraceptives, of course, Republicans, and myself in particular, recognize that people should have a right to use contraceptives. There’s absolutely no validity whatsoever to the Obama effort to try and bring that up.
And with regards to the issue of abortion, that is something where men and women have alternative views on that or different views. We look at an issue like that with great seriousness and sobriety and recognize that different people have reached different conclusions.
But it’s not just men who think one way. Women also, in many cases, are pro-life. There are two lives at stake, the child, the unborn child, and the mom. And I care for both of them.
(NB: the red highlight is my emphasis)
I am not thrilled at all that he still lauds his Romneycare initiative.
From an ABC News piece a couple of months ago:The system is not without its flaws. Premiums remain high in Massachusetts. In fact the state has the highest individual market premiums in the country, according to the non-partisan Kaiser Foundation. Currently, per capita health care spending in the state is expected to nearly double between now and 2020- from between $10,000 and $12,000 (the current cost) to $17,872- if there is no intervention, according to figures provided by Blue Cross Blue Shield Massachusetts.
The CATO Institute (libertarian leaning) had the following to say back in '08 (and is still relevant today):A Double Failure
There’s good reason for his change of position. The Massachusetts plan was supposed to accomplish two things-achieve universal health insurance coverage while controlling costs. As Romney wrote in the Wall Street Journal, “Every uninsured citizen in Massachusetts will soon have affordable health insurance and the costs of health care will be reduced.” In reality, the plan has done neither.
Perhaps the most publicized aspect of the Massachusetts reform is its mandate that every resident have health insurance, whether provided by an employer or the government or purchased individually. “I like mandates,” Romney said during a debate in New Hampshire. “The mandate works.” But did it?
Technically the last day to sign up for insurance in compliance with that mandate was November 15, though as a practical measure Massachusetts residents actually had until January 1, 2008. Those without insurance as of that date will lose their personal exemption for the state income tax when they file this spring. In 2009, the penalty will increase to 50 percent of the cost of a standard insurance policy.
Such a mandate was, of course, a significant infringement on individual choice and liberty. As the Congressional Budget Office noted, the mandate was “unprecedented,” and represented the first time that a state has required that an individual, simply because they live in a state and for no other reason, must purchase a specific government- designated product.
It was also a failure.
When the bill was signed, Governor Romney, the media, state lawmakers, and health care reform advocates hailed the mandate as achieving universal coverage. “All Massachusetts citizens will have health insurance. It’s a goal Democrats and Republicans share, and it has been achieved by a bipartisan effort,” Romney wrote.
Don’t get me wrong: universal *access *to health care is a good thing. But the fact of the matter is that universal health coverage has never, in this country, provided decreased costs…when you look at health care as a system. We see that through Medicare. We see that through Romneycare. And we are about to see that through Obamacare.
The reason for this is that individuals, when not confronted with actual costs, do not keep economic realities in mind when making their decisions. Face it: if all cars cost the same, would you rather have a Lamborghini or a KIA?
Providers recognize this and don’t worry about economic factors when prescribing treatments.
The only way you can control costs in a system like this is to a) impose price controls and b) administratively ration care
I certainly hope Romney’s “pride” in Romneycare does not translate to making compromises and “tweaking” Obamacare if and when Romney gets into office.
Scrap the whole blasted thing.
How do you answer the Obama charge that they offer more support, more choice to women when it comes to abortion or rape or birth control or women’s health care?
ROMNEY: Well, first of all, with regards to women’s health care, look, I’m the guy that was able to get health care for all of the women and men in my state. They’re just talking about it at the federal level. We actually did something and we did it without cutting Medicare and without raising taxes, number one.
Number two –
WALLACE: So you’re saying –
ROMNEY: – with regard –
WALLACE: – look at RomneyCare?
ROMNEY: Well – I’m very proud of what we did and – and the fact that we helped women and men and children in our state.
Number two – and we did it without cutting Medicare, which obviously affects a lot of women.
The – the way the president cut Medicare, $716 billion for current retirees, that’s a real problem.
And then with regards to contraceptives, of course, Republicans, and myself in particular, recognize that people should have a right to use contraceptives. There’s absolutely no validity whatsoever to the Obama effort to try and bring that up.
And with regards to the issue of abortion, that is something where men and women have alternative views on that or different views. We look at an issue like that with great seriousness and sobriety and recognize that different people have reached different conclusions.
But it’s not just men who think one way. Women also, in many cases, are pro-life. There are two lives at stake, the child, the unborn child, and the mom. And I care for both of them.
(NB: the red highlight is my emphasis)
I am not thrilled at all that he still lauds his Romneycare initiative.
From an ABC News piece a couple of months ago:The system is not without its flaws. Premiums remain high in Massachusetts. In fact the state has the highest individual market premiums in the country, according to the non-partisan Kaiser Foundation. Currently, per capita health care spending in the state is expected to nearly double between now and 2020- from between $10,000 and $12,000 (the current cost) to $17,872- if there is no intervention, according to figures provided by Blue Cross Blue Shield Massachusetts.
The CATO Institute (libertarian leaning) had the following to say back in '08 (and is still relevant today):A Double Failure
There’s good reason for his change of position. The Massachusetts plan was supposed to accomplish two things-achieve universal health insurance coverage while controlling costs. As Romney wrote in the Wall Street Journal, “Every uninsured citizen in Massachusetts will soon have affordable health insurance and the costs of health care will be reduced.” In reality, the plan has done neither.
Perhaps the most publicized aspect of the Massachusetts reform is its mandate that every resident have health insurance, whether provided by an employer or the government or purchased individually. “I like mandates,” Romney said during a debate in New Hampshire. “The mandate works.” But did it?
Technically the last day to sign up for insurance in compliance with that mandate was November 15, though as a practical measure Massachusetts residents actually had until January 1, 2008. Those without insurance as of that date will lose their personal exemption for the state income tax when they file this spring. In 2009, the penalty will increase to 50 percent of the cost of a standard insurance policy.
Such a mandate was, of course, a significant infringement on individual choice and liberty. As the Congressional Budget Office noted, the mandate was “unprecedented,” and represented the first time that a state has required that an individual, simply because they live in a state and for no other reason, must purchase a specific government- designated product.
It was also a failure.
When the bill was signed, Governor Romney, the media, state lawmakers, and health care reform advocates hailed the mandate as achieving universal coverage. “All Massachusetts citizens will have health insurance. It’s a goal Democrats and Republicans share, and it has been achieved by a bipartisan effort,” Romney wrote.
Don’t get me wrong: universal *access *to health care is a good thing. But the fact of the matter is that universal health coverage has never, in this country, provided decreased costs…when you look at health care as a system. We see that through Medicare. We see that through Romneycare. And we are about to see that through Obamacare.
The reason for this is that individuals, when not confronted with actual costs, do not keep economic realities in mind when making their decisions. Face it: if all cars cost the same, would you rather have a Lamborghini or a KIA?
Providers recognize this and don’t worry about economic factors when prescribing treatments.
The only way you can control costs in a system like this is to a) impose price controls and b) administratively ration care
I certainly hope Romney’s “pride” in Romneycare does not translate to making compromises and “tweaking” Obamacare if and when Romney gets into office.
Scrap the whole blasted thing.
P
pete_29
Guest
You have a nice signature.
R
rlg94086
Guest
Thank you, PeeWee (“I know you are but what am I?”) Herman.
O
oldcelt
Guest
Clever as always Robert,
John
R
rlg94086
Guest
:tiphat:
T
The_Holy_War_11
Guest
youtube.com/watch?v=SjLyAY17SFw&feature=youtube_gdata_player
Hey guys I’m up late and I saw this video on YouTube and thought maybe you all would like it if you hadn’t seen it already.
Hey guys I’m up late and I saw this video on YouTube and thought maybe you all would like it if you hadn’t seen it already.
A
_Abyssinia
Guest
Planned Parenthood to Spend $3 Million to Attack Mitt Romney
lifenews.com/2012/08/27/planned-parenthood-to-spend-3-million-to-attack-mitt-romney
lifenews.com/2012/08/27/planned-parenthood-to-spend-3-million-to-attack-mitt-romney
A
_Abyssinia
Guest
Washington Post/ABC poll
Q: Regardless of who you support, which candidate do you trust to do a better job handling Medicare, the government health insurance program for seniors - (Obama) or (Romney)? (Half sample)
washingtonpost.com/page/2010-2019/WashingtonPost/2012/08/27/National-Politics/Polling/question_6538.xml?uuid=dtXrUu_8EeG3TITtVeAwCw#
Romney 45% Obama 42%
War on Women Rhetoric Fails, Romney Leads Obama With Married Women
lifenews.com/2012/08/27/war-on-women-rhetoric-fails-romney-leads-obama-with-married-women
In his own words: Romney crafting his own convention speech
reuters.com/article/2012/08/27/us-usa-campaign-romney-idUSBRE87Q17E20120827
Q: Regardless of who you support, which candidate do you trust to do a better job handling Medicare, the government health insurance program for seniors - (Obama) or (Romney)? (Half sample)
washingtonpost.com/page/2010-2019/WashingtonPost/2012/08/27/National-Politics/Polling/question_6538.xml?uuid=dtXrUu_8EeG3TITtVeAwCw#
Romney 45% Obama 42%
War on Women Rhetoric Fails, Romney Leads Obama With Married Women
lifenews.com/2012/08/27/war-on-women-rhetoric-fails-romney-leads-obama-with-married-women
In his own words: Romney crafting his own convention speech
reuters.com/article/2012/08/27/us-usa-campaign-romney-idUSBRE87Q17E20120827
M
markomalley
Guest
This subtle little shift is reported from the AP:Romney says abortion legal for mother’s health
Republican Mitt Romney says he is in favor of abortion in cases of rape, incest and the health and life of the mother.
The presidential candidate’s addition of the health of the mother is certain to raise questions about Romney’s position among conservatives. Health can be broadly defined and, in fact, running mate Paul Ryan has challenged the health exception as a major loophole.
(snip)
Romney’s position on abortion rights has evolved. When he ran for the U.S. Senate in Massachusetts, he backed abortion rights. As a presidential candidate, he has opposed abortion rights and says the Supreme Court should reverse the landmark Roe v. Wade decision that legalized abortion.
This is why I have an objection to people who say Mitt Romney is firmly and solidly pro-life.
I keep going back to the book, “Mitt Romney: An Inside Look at the Man and His Politics,” which talks about his evolution. Byron York reported on this a while ago:(snip)
According to Scott, Romney revealed that polling from Richard Wirthlin, Ronald Reagan’s former pollster whom Romney had hired for the '94 campaign, showed it would be impossible for a pro-life candidate to win statewide office in Massachusetts. In light of that, Romney decided to run as a pro-choice candidate, pledging to support Roe v. Wade, while remaining personally pro-life.
(snip)
If a person can switch from being pro-life to pro-abortion for political expediency, how can we be 100% certain that his “reversion” to pro-life is genuine? (“Health” is a major cop-out in my opinion. Health can be defined to mean anything. Just look at the “medical marijuana” dispensaries in California…for a definition of what constitutes “health”)
Regardless, there is a moral imperative to remove Mr. Obama’s regime from power, so, in my opinion, we have to take our chances, but, still…
Republican Mitt Romney says he is in favor of abortion in cases of rape, incest and the health and life of the mother.
The presidential candidate’s addition of the health of the mother is certain to raise questions about Romney’s position among conservatives. Health can be broadly defined and, in fact, running mate Paul Ryan has challenged the health exception as a major loophole.
(snip)
Romney’s position on abortion rights has evolved. When he ran for the U.S. Senate in Massachusetts, he backed abortion rights. As a presidential candidate, he has opposed abortion rights and says the Supreme Court should reverse the landmark Roe v. Wade decision that legalized abortion.
This is why I have an objection to people who say Mitt Romney is firmly and solidly pro-life.
I keep going back to the book, “Mitt Romney: An Inside Look at the Man and His Politics,” which talks about his evolution. Byron York reported on this a while ago:(snip)
According to Scott, Romney revealed that polling from Richard Wirthlin, Ronald Reagan’s former pollster whom Romney had hired for the '94 campaign, showed it would be impossible for a pro-life candidate to win statewide office in Massachusetts. In light of that, Romney decided to run as a pro-choice candidate, pledging to support Roe v. Wade, while remaining personally pro-life.
(snip)
If a person can switch from being pro-life to pro-abortion for political expediency, how can we be 100% certain that his “reversion” to pro-life is genuine? (“Health” is a major cop-out in my opinion. Health can be defined to mean anything. Just look at the “medical marijuana” dispensaries in California…for a definition of what constitutes “health”)
Regardless, there is a moral imperative to remove Mr. Obama’s regime from power, so, in my opinion, we have to take our chances, but, still…
M
mary_bobo
Guest
Bay Buchanan is a senior advisor to Romney and that is good enough for me about the abortion issue. She is staunchly pro-life and I don’t think she would back someone who was not pro-life. Yes, he may have exceptions, but Paul Ryan doesn’t and both are ultimately better on that issue than Obama.
M
markomalley
Guest
True, both are not nearly as radical as the current regime. Neither have ever supported infanticide. And I have no reason whatsoever to question Mr. Ryan’s position at all. I suppose that I will have to wait and see the real Romney once he’s in office.
C
Catherine_S
Guest
Thank you for sharing! Good interview!
C
cornbread_r2
Guest
Some take aways from the interview:
Romney hasn’t read the GOP platform?
A 14+ minute interview and Romney’s not asked about his current or past position on abortion – the issue that overrides all others for many US Catholics?
Romney hasn’t read the GOP platform?
A 14+ minute interview and Romney’s not asked about his current or past position on abortion – the issue that overrides all others for many US Catholics?
- Status