Romney: I Want Roe Overturned, Will Stop Obama Abortion Funding

  • Thread starter Thread starter juliee
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Romney isn’t totally pro-life. If he was he were, he not only would want Roe vs. Wade overturned but would also support a federal law banning all abortions. Romney is really a moderate on this issue despite what lifenews says.
 
Romney isn’t totally pro-life. If he was he were, he not only would want Roe vs. Wade overturned but would also support a federal law banning all abortions. Romney is really a moderate on this issue despite what lifenews says.
Moderate is not somebody who is personally opposed to 99% of abortion and wants the law that pro lfie groups have been fighting for nearly 40 years, reversal fo roe v wade
 
So which do you think would be worse? Voting for Romney only to find out he is insincere? or not voting for him, only to find out that he was sincere?

Ishii
I am saying we don’t have a choice this election. Both are far left politicians, and both stand for things Catholics are against.

I’m going to have to wear an extra large nose clip while voting this year.
Fantastic! I hope he comes even further and recognizes the Catholic Church’s viewpoint on abortion. For now, I’m happy he’s come this far.
You are assuming he is being sincere, and not playing politics. I’m not convinced he is sincere.
 
Yes. I believe he is sincere. His record as governor was pro-life.
Hard to believe.

nytimes.com/2012/02/12/us/politics/romneys-path-to-pro-life-position-on-abortion.html?pagewanted=all
But by 1994, challenging Senator Edward M. Kennedy, Mr. Romney sought to establish himself as an ardent backer of abortion rights. In a televised debate, Mr. Kennedy lodged a broadside: “I am pro-choice. My opponent is multiple choice.” Mr. Romney shot back with the dramatic story of a relative’s illegal abortion, saying her death had shaped the views of his mother, Lenore, who ran for the Senate in 1970.
“It is since that time that my mother and my family have been committed to the belief that we can believe as we want, but we will not force our beliefs on others on that matter,” Mr. Romney said. “And you will not see me wavering on that.”
In 2002, as a candidate for governor, Mr. Romney filled out a questionnaire for Planned Parenthood declaring that he supported “the substance” of the Supreme Court’s 1973 landmark abortion rights decision, Roe v. Wade. Six weeks before he was elected, he sat for an hourlong interview with state officials of the advocacy group now known as Naral Pro-Choice America.
Mr. Romney promised to maintain the status quo, keeping intact the rights that already existed under state law.
He only changed his pro-abort view because he knew he was running for president later on and he knew the USA is not pro-abort.

He either was BS’ing the pro-abort people then, or he’s BS’ing us now. I say “yes” to both.
 
Hard to believe.

nytimes.com/2012/02/12/us/politics/romneys-path-to-pro-life-position-on-abortion.html?pagewanted=all

He only changed his pro-abort view because he knew he was running for president later on and he knew the USA is not pro-abort.

He either was BS’ing the pro-abort people then, or he’s BS’ing us now. I say “yes” to both.
Read the story of Romney’s conversion, it does not sound like he changed his view on abortion for political purposes

When he was first elected Governor of Massachusetts, it was generally presumed that his position was “pro-choice.” However, about half way into his first term as governor in 2005, Romney announced that he was opposed to embryonic stem cell research and proceeded to veto a bill making the “Morning After,” plan B contraceptive pills available. In the same year, he declared that he was pro-life.

Governor Romney tells us that he changed his mind in November 2004. At that time, he was obviously searching and had questions. He met with Douglas A. Melton, PhD, a scientist from the Harvard Stem Cell Institute on November 9. In that interview the Governor said this researcher told him, “Look, you don’t have to think about this stem cell research as a moral issue because we kill the embryos after fourteen days.” This had a major impact on Romney and his chief of staff, as they saw it recognizing that such embryonic stem cell research in fact was killing what they were convinced were human lives already in existence. Later, through a spokesperson, Dr. Melton disputed that he used the word “kill.”

But Governor Romney, wanting to know more, consulted with one of the best people available in February 2005. This expert was William B. Hurlbut, a physician and professor at Stanford University Medical Center Neuroscience Institute. Dr. Hurlbut is a dedicated pro-lifer.

The two of them met for several hours, discussing the issue in great detail. They went through the dynamics of conception, embryonic development and repercussions of the various research and experimentation that has been going on aimed at exploring the first weeks after fertilization. At that point, Romney was under intense pressure to change a state law that, at the time, still protected human embryos from lethal stem cell research. Some of the pressure came from Harvard, his own alma-mater. After this in-depth consultation, Romney stated that he was pro-life.

Asked about their meeting by columnist Kathleen Parker, Dr. Hurlbut said, “Several things about our conversation still stand out strongly in my mind. First, he clearly recognized the significance of the issue, not just as a current controversy, but as a matter that would define the character of our culture way into the future. Second, it was obvious that he had put in a real effort to understand both the scientific prospects and the broader social implications. Finally, I was impressed by both his clarity of mind and sincerity of heart. He recognized that this was not a matter of purely abstract theory or merely pragmatic governance, but a crucial moment in how we are to regard nascent human life and the broader meaning of medicine in the service of life.”

lifenews.com/2012/06/19/put-the-debate-to-rest-mitt-romney-is-genuinely-pro-life
 
Hard to believe.

nytimes.com/2012/02/12/us/politics/romneys-path-to-pro-life-position-on-abortion.html?pagewanted=all

He only changed his pro-abort view because he knew he was running for president later on and he knew the USA is not pro-abort.

He either was BS’ing the pro-abort people then, or he’s BS’ing us now. I say “yes” to both.
Romney’s conversion on abortion does not sound like it was doen for political reasons

When he was first elected Governor of Massachusetts, it was generally presumed that his position was “pro-choice.” However, about half way into his first term as governor in 2005, Romney announced that he was opposed to embryonic stem cell research and proceeded to veto a bill making the “Morning After,” plan B contraceptive pills available. In the same year, he declared that he was pro-life.

Governor Romney tells us that he changed his mind in November 2004. At that time, he was obviously searching and had questions. He met with Douglas A. Melton, PhD, a scientist from the Harvard Stem Cell Institute on November 9. In that interview the Governor said this researcher told him, “Look, you don’t have to think about this stem cell research as a moral issue because we kill the embryos after fourteen days.” This had a major impact on Romney and his chief of staff, as they saw it recognizing that such embryonic stem cell research in fact was killing what they were convinced were human lives already in existence. Later, through a spokesperson, Dr. Melton disputed that he used the word “kill.”

But Governor Romney, wanting to know more, consulted with one of the best people available in February 2005. This expert was William B. Hurlbut, a physician and professor at Stanford University Medical Center Neuroscience Institute. Dr. Hurlbut is a dedicated pro-lifer.

The two of them met for several hours, discussing the issue in great detail. They went through the dynamics of conception, embryonic development and repercussions of the various research and experimentation that has been going on aimed at exploring the first weeks after fertilization. At that point, Romney was under intense pressure to change a state law that, at the time, still protected human embryos from lethal stem cell research. Some of the pressure came from Harvard, his own alma-mater. After this in-depth consultation, Romney stated that he was pro-life.

Asked about their meeting by columnist Kathleen Parker, Dr. Hurlbut said, “Several things about our conversation still stand out strongly in my mind. First, he clearly recognized the significance of the issue, not just as a current controversy, but as a matter that would define the character of our culture way into the future. Second, it was obvious that he had put in a real effort to understand both the scientific prospects and the broader social implications. Finally, I was impressed by both his clarity of mind and sincerity of heart. He recognized that this was not a matter of purely abstract theory or merely pragmatic governance, but a crucial moment in how we are to regard nascent human life and the broader meaning of medicine in the service of life.”

lifenews.com/2012/06/19/put-the-debate-to-rest-mitt-romney-is-genuinely-pro-life
 
:yawn: I’m glad you are in lockstep with the New York Times. They are a great ally to the conservative cause. 👍 :rolleyes:
Oh please.

We got both political parties going in lockstep on the leftist agenda and nominating leftist candidates.

We have Obamacare vs Romneycare.
We have two statists who like increasing the power of government.
We have two people who had to pander to the left to get elected in their last office.

A leftist republican and a leftist democrat.

Where is the choice for conservatives? Please explain. Either which way a leftist wins. We do not have a two party system in a real sense, just a phony sense. In an ideological sense, there is only one party: Left.
Please understand this article was written recently. That says a lot since this author didn’t bother to think or write about the issue until now. The author could have written this article a lot earlier. For example, for the '08 run. Or even earlier.
 
Oh please.

We got both political parties going in lockstep on the leftist agenda and nominating leftist candidates.

We have Obamacare vs Romneycare.
We have two statists who like increasing the power of government.
We have two people who had to pander to the left to get elected in their last office.

A leftist republican and a leftist democrat.

Where is the choice for conservatives? Please explain. Either which way a leftist wins. We do not have a two party system in a real sense, just a phony sense. In an ideological sense, there is only one party: Left.

Please understand this article was written recently. That says a lot since this author didn’t bother to think or write about the issue until now. The author could have written this article a lot earlier. For example, for the '08 run. Or even earlier.
What utter nonsense. Romney isn’t a leftist - he chose conservative Catholic Paul Ryan as vice president and Robert Bork to advise him on judicial appointments. The choice for conservatives is a no-brainer: Romney/Ryan is the only choice - it will help keep the pro-abortion/statist Obama from screwing up our country further, and it will help bring out country to fiscal sanity. Your analysis is flawed. Obama is the statist. Romney is the pro-business conservative who will nominate constructionist justices to the bench. You need to look at the facts.

Ishii
 
This week. And this week he also said he isn’t going to dismantle Obamacare, which is different from previous stump speeches where he said he would abolish it on the first day in office.

Believe what you want, or whatever LifeNews tells you to believe.
Can we have a source on that, Seeker? I’d seriously be interested.
 
What utter nonsense. Romney isn’t a leftist - he chose conservative
You didn’t bother addressing Romneycare, which he loves and supports. And he can’t complain about Obamacare, he supports the principles since he loves Romneycare. What is more statist than that? And you ignore Romney’s history of pandering to leftist groups in order to get their support to get elected to the governorship.

Conservative Massachusetts Governor? Nope. No such thing.

Yes, he’s better than the president. But conservative? Nope. He only “evolved” like Obama did. Saw that the USA is to the right of Massachusetts, so his left wing politics wouldn’t play in Peoria.

The conservative candidates didn’t make it to nomination.
 
Oh please.

We got both political parties going in lockstep on the leftist agenda and nominating leftist candidates.

We have Obamacare vs Romneycare.
We have two statists who like increasing the power of government.
We have two people who had to pander to the left to get elected in their last office.

A leftist republican and a leftist democrat.

Where is the choice for conservatives? Please explain. Either which way a leftist wins. We do not have a two party system in a real sense, just a phony sense. In an ideological sense, there is only one party: Left.

Please understand this article was written recently. That says a lot since this author didn’t bother to think or write about the issue until now. The author could have written this article a lot earlier. For example, for the '08 run. Or even earlier.
Here we go again…

If you think Romney is a “leftist”, compare his fiscal record as governor to that of Reagen’s or Bush 43’s.

Romney campaigns more center than he governs.

His primary opponents and the left mocked his approval rating when he left MA.

As though having a low approval rating in a socially destructive state like that is a bad thing.

Romney went along with the universal health care because his legislature was 80%+ democrat.

Healthcare should be done at the local or state level. That is Constitutional.
 
Here we go again…

If you think Romney is a “leftist”, compare his fiscal record as governor to that of Reagen’s or Bush 43’s.

Romney campaigns more center than he governs.

His primary opponents and the left mocked his approval rating when he left MA.

As though having a low approval rating in a socially destructive state like that is a bad thing.

Romney went along with the universal health care because his legislature was 80%+ democrat.

Healthcare should be done at the local or state level. That is Constitutional.
That Was Constitutional…remember, the Supreme Court upheld the ACA.

John
 
Romney: I Want Roe Overturned, Will Stop Obama Abortion Funding

Washington, DC – In a weekend interview, presidential candidate Mitt Romney reiterated his pro-life position favoring the reversal of the Roe v. Wade Supreme Court decision that has resulted in 55 million abortions on unborn children since 1973.

lifenews.com/2012/09/10/romney-i-want-roe-overturned-will-stop-obama-abortion-funding/
All Roe v Wade has done is make it illegal for the states to make abortion illegal.

That and over 45 million dead babies.
 
You didn’t bother addressing Romneycare, which he loves and supports. And he can’t complain about Obamacare, he supports the principles since he loves Romneycare. What is more statist than that? And you ignore Romney’s history of pandering to leftist groups in order to get their support to get elected to the governorship.

Conservative Massachusetts Governor? Nope. No such thing.

Yes, he’s better than the president. But conservative? Nope. He only “evolved” like Obama did. Saw that the USA is to the right of Massachusetts, so his left wing politics wouldn’t play in Peoria.

The conservative candidates didn’t make it to nomination.
I stand by my earlier post: Calling Romney a “Republican leftist” is utter nonsense. I don’t think Romney is as far to the right as Obama is far to the left. But I think who he is surrounding himself with is telling - Paul Ryan and Robert Bork, e.g. I think it is much more likely that Romney is actually more conservative than his record as governor of the very liberal state of Massachusetts. Anyway, I am not so much concerned about what happened in Massachusetts in the 90’s and more concerned about what will happen to America in 2013-2016 if Obama is re-elected. The stakes are high. Our values are under attack. This is no time to be a purist. I will take a moderate conservative over a leftist any day.

Ishii
 
So, if he’s elected, nothing in this country concerning abortion will change at all.

Okay.
There will be changes. Ten Republican-controlled state legislatures have voted to defund Planned Parenthood since the 2010 midterm elections, but the clinics affected by the cuts will not have to shut their doors any time soon. The Obama administration so far has awarded hefty new federal family planning grants to Planned Parenthood clinics in three states that have cut the providers’ funding: New Jersey, Tennessee and North Carolina.
A Planned Parenthood clinic in Durham, N.C., was awarded a $426,000 Title X grant on Wednesday, just weeks after the state legislature overrode Gov. Bev Perdue’s (D) veto and cut $343,000 in state money from the provider’s budget. Anti-abortion lawmakers and advocacy groups are furious that the Department of Health and Human Services seems to have circumvented state legislatures to continue funding an organization they oppose.
huffingtonpost.com/2012/07/26/planned-parenthoods-obama-title-x-grants_n_1706303.html
I suspect a prolife /pro family director of HHS & Dept of Education will also have an impact.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top