Wednesday, October 10, 2012

" Romney says abortion legislation isn't part of his agenda" Can Conservatives Trust "Romney"

"It’s no secret that Romney was once an emphatic supporter of abortion rights. Running for US  Senate in Massachusetts in 1994, Romney declared that he was a “committed” pro-choice advocate, adding, “And you will not see me wavering on that.”

Here's the rub. Conservatives, especially pro-life conservatives, and Republican pro-life Catholics of all leanings, could consider whatever "Romney" they will end up with if he gets elected, in part through their votes.

His record of changing his position on important matters, e.g. health care and abortion, are well know. Conservatives have, to a large degree, now supported his campaign (although they didn't in the primary campaign) based in part on his perceived position on abortion as a pro-life candidate. 

With statements like his latest as reported by the 
DesMoines Iowa Register (below) today conservatives may, once again, have to examine their support for Romney.

There is a difficulty of course. President Obama represents the antithesis of their pro-life values, so abstaining from voting could help re-elect Obama. Whilst voting for Romney, even as a perceived flip-flopper, might bring an administration with a more pro-life lean, and possibly another conservative Supreme Court appointee.

On the other hand, there may be a significant body of conservatives whose personal values are such that they would countenance,  for the short term, a liberal president (by abstaining)  rather than help elect a man whose values are undetermined because they appear flexible, and possibly purely expedient.

It looks to me that Romney's statement is an attempt to "move to the middle" now that the primaries are over, and the Independent voters will determine who is elected. His statement actually delivers nothing, promising, as the article points out, something that already exists (the Hyde amendment) and anti-abortion judicial appointees are not "legislation". 

What defines an "activist"  judge is of course a matter of opinion but it does not imply necessarily the appointment of a pro-life judge.

This may seem like "good politics" or worse,"politics as usual" but does nothing to allay conservatives fears of what Romney would actually do, or worse, not do if elected.

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.
President Barack Obama dropped the policy on his tenth day in office, Romney said.
Romney has said he opposes abortion, except in instances of rape, incest and when the mother’s life is threatened.
The Obama campaign quickly seized on Romney’s abortion comments Tuesday, sending out a news release accusing Romney of contradicting himself because he has said he would appoint Supreme Court justices who would overturn Roe v. Wade.
Read the rest; AT THIS LINK