Don’t Believe Misleading Attacks About Mitt’s Record on Abortion

It’s correct-the-record day here regarding Mitts’ record on life and marriage.  First, we all know Mitt Romney is a convert on the life issue, so his record prior to that conversion is checkered, at best.  Second, it’s beyond dispute that Mitt’s record in office on life issues was far, far better than, say, Ronald Reagan’s before he became president.  (Mitt vetoed pro-abortion legislation and won an award from his state’s most prominent pro-life advocacy group; Governor Reagan signed into law one of the nation’s most liberal abortion laws pre-Roe).  Third, Mitt has issued a very specific pro-life pledge that addresses every single major plank of the pro-life platform.  Fourth, it’s clear that the Left views Mitt’s conversion as genuine: NARAL has targeted him above other Republican presidential candidates.  Mitt is pro-life, and he’ll be a pro-life president.

The stop-Mitt movement, however, is now in full-on crisis mode.  With Mitt surging in Iowa, maintaining a huge lead in New Hampshire, and with various Mitt alternatives struggling, it’s apparently time to take the gloves off.  Erick “not even Rick Santorum is conservative enough for me” Erickson is the latest to unleash a recycled and obscure attack.

Channeling his inner Fred Thompson (himself a former pro-choice politician), Erickson’s broadside begins:

You should be quite familiar by now with the fact that Mitt Romney gave $150.00 to Planned Parenthood in 1994 when claiming he had always been pro-abortion.

You should also know that in 2004, Mitt Romney says he personally converted to the pro-life position. In fact, according to ABC News on June 14, 2007, “Former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney has long cited a November 2004 meeting with a Harvard stem-cell researcher as the moment that changed his long-held stance of supporting abortion rights to his current ‘pro-life’ position opposing legal abortion. But several actions Romney took mere months after that meeting call into question how deep-seated his conversion truly was.”

He then charges Mitt with three specific post-conversion offenses: nominating a pro-abortion judge to a Massachusetts state-court seat, signing a bill that “could” expand access to the morning-after pill, and that Romneycare not only expanded access to abortion, it “gave Planned Parenthood new rights under state law.”  Let’s take these issues in turn.

First, the judges.  Yes, Mitt nominated a pro-abortion judge . . . to a state court position that has no authority over abortion law.  I addressed this issue in an Evangelicals for Mitt post dated all the way back to January, 2007 (yes, folks, that’s how old this charge is):

Regarding judges, here I think [critics blur] the difference between federal and state court judges and the federal and state (in this case, Massachusetts) systems of judicial nominations and approvals. First, when we talk about the Governor’s allegedly “liberal” judicial appointments, we are talking about judges who deal primarily with criminal matters–not the constitutional issues that can dominate the federal judicial debate. Given this reality, Governor Romney did not nominate judges who were “liberal” or “leftist” within their job description. The Governor wanted individuals who were tough on crime. As he said, “With regard to those at the district court and clerk magistrate level, their political views aren’t really going to come into play unless their views indicate they will be soft on crime.” So the reality is that the Governor nominated judges who were tough on crime to fill spots that dealt primarily with crime. State court judges at this level have absolutely no say over abortion rights. None. Abortion is primarily a matter of federal–not state–constitutional law.

Second, every one of Governor Romney’s judicial nominees has to be approved by the “Governor’s Council”, a popularly-elected, eight member board that is dominated by Democrats (as is most of Massachusetts state government). Imagine a situation where the President of the United States had to run all of his judicial nominees by a Senate that contained 85% Democrats–most of them of the radical sort. That would change the picture a bit, wouldn’t it? I think the best way to think of Governor Romney’s track record in nominating judges is that he did the best that he could have done.

So what does a state District Court appointment mean for abortion law?  Nothing.  And did Mitt succeed in nominating a tough-on-crime judge?  Well, yes.  Lawyers have nicknamed him “The Hammer” for his sentencing practices.

Next, what about Mitt’s allegedly inconsistent position on the morning-after pill?  Once again, when you look at the details, the picture is different than that painted by Erickson. Mitt vetoed a bill that would have mandated access without a prescription, a move wholeheartedly endorsed by the pro-life movement.  The bill Mitt actually signed — and Erickson condemned — was merely a request for Massachusetts to get federal reimbursement for services it was already providing at cost (roughly $5 million) to the state.  The bill wasn’t expanding access to abortions but instead cost-shifting contraceptive services to the federal government.  In fact, even Mitt’s critics said it “could” expand access to the morning-after pill, not that it would.

Finally, let’s deal with the Romneycare attack.  Let’s make one thing perfectly clear, any abortion coverage contained in Massachusetts insurance plans is required by Massachusetts legal precedent that Mitt could not alter.  The Weekly Standard raised this issue in a recent piece by John McCormack:

Some social conservatives don’t buy Romney’s defense that it’s all the fault of the judges. “You know what I would think if I were a pro-lifer? That’s a pretty darn good reason not to have the government take over the health care system,” says Steve Deace, a Christian conservative Iowa radio host and longtime Romney antagonist. “Forget the mandate, which is wrong to begin with. The first moral principle is don’t murder.”

Why would Romney expand access to government-subsidized health care if those plans would cover elective abortions? David French of Evangelicals for Mitt says that argument is a “classic example of not understanding what an actual governor of an actual blue state has to face.”

French argues that by going to the Heritage Foundation for advice and using what leverage he had, Romney got the best deal he could in Massachusetts. “Doing nothing wasn’t a realistic alternative,” he says. “People need to get over the idea that he’s coming out of Texas. He’s coming out of Massachusetts.”

“Mitt Romney did not have the option of saying .  .  . that there won’t be government involvement in Massachusetts health care,” says French. “He was a conservative governor facing a veto-proof [Democratic] supermajority in both houses dead-set on a particular kind of health care reform.”

Regarding Planned Parenthood’s presence on a state panel, yes they apparently have a reserved slot (along with 13 other representatives) on something called the MassHealth Payment Policy Advisory Board (not on the “planning board for the health care plan” as some have claimed).  This Board has no authority over abortion policy and in fact has no real power except to compile reports and make recommendations).

So, where does this leave us?  Mitt’s actions as governor were worthy of his pro-life award.  Even the worst action (allowing Planned Parenthood access to a payment advisory board — something I definitely don’t agree with) had zero impact on abortions in Massachusetts.  When he could have an impact, he vetoed expanded access to the morning-after pill and vetoed expanded stem cell research.  Crucially, he also became an advocate for life in a state that badly needs such advocates.  Writing in the Boston Globe on July 26, 2005, Mitt said this:

You can’t be a prolife governor in a prochoice state without understanding that there are heartfelt and thoughtful arguments on both sides of the question. Many women considering abortions face terrible pressures, hurts, and fears; we should come to their aid with all the resourcefulness and empathy we can offer. At the same time, the starting point should be the innocence and vulnerability of the child waiting to be born.

In some respects, these convictions have evolved and deepened during my time as governor. In considering the issue of embryo cloning and embryo farming, I saw where the harsh logic of abortion can lead — to the view of innocent new life as nothing more than research material or a commodity to be exploited.

If we’re going to win the battle for life, we need converts — like Ronald Reagan and like Mitt Romney.  If I had the slightest doubt that Mitt Romney would govern as a pro-life president, I wouldn’t be an “evangelical for Mitt.”

  • Mark in Cali

    Great article. Amazing how the truth is distorted both by misinformation and perhaps deliberately. Either way, thank you for setting the record straight!

  • Julie

    Mitt Romney signed in to law under his signature MA Health Care bill $50.00 co pay tax funded abortions on demand as a part of a healthcare benefit. Everyone needs to read the book CAN MITT ROMNEY SERVE TWO MASTERS to get the truth on this talk-out-of-both-sides-of-his-mouth “political” candidate the GOP is serving up to Republicans. Mitt Romney is NOT A CONSERVATIVE OR A REPUBLICAN. Will say and do anything to obtain POTUS.

    • DougH

      So the governor that received an award for his service from his state’s most prominent pro-life group is pro-abortion, and the candidate calling for reducing government spending to 20% of GDP, reducing the number of people employed by Washington by 10%, reforming the tax code and a balanced budget amendment isn’t conservative?

      Also, the charge that he “will say and do anything to obtain POTUS” implies that once elected he will not stand by his promises once elected. Just what evidence do you have that that will be the case from his race for and time as governor?

      • Julie

        You cannot go on “what he says”. You have the record of “what he does/did” to go on. Most leapards do not change their spots. His history is proof that he cannot be trusted. He does everything for pure political expediency..nothing more. Read the book Can Mitt Romney Serve Two Masters?. It is documented well and will give you the FACTS, versus, Romney’s rhetoric to win the office.

        • DougH

          I notice you ignored my question, so let’s try again. What campaign promises did he make running for governor and subsequently ignore once elected? No need to point me at a book, thumbnail descriptions will do.

        • americanfirst

          Julie – you obviously did not read the article that explains in detail Romney’s social conservative efforts/record.
          Romney is very conservative on the matter of abortion and it seems to me, you’d rather stick to your talking point than to reason through the truth of the matter.
          Read the damn article!

    • Jake

      Ugh… I directly challenge the above comment for some proof. As always, there is no. It is so disgusting how people distort the truth for their own personal gain. Great article.

    • Terry

      Julie…have you ever considered that the book might be in error? Obviously, the writer has no love for Mitt. Mitt’s legislature while he was governor was 85% Democrat. That means they had total control, and could refuse to pass any bill Mitt presented to them. In return, Mitt used his veto power over 800 times as governor. Mitt himself has said that the Dems added things to the healthcare bill–and other bills–that he would not have put in.

      I know Mitt’s values–he’s a conservative and a republican, and the best person for the job of president.

  • JshYo

    Respect the distinction: “Mitt’s conversion” versus “Mitt’s politically motivated claim of conversion.”

    • Terry

      JshYo…which side are you on?

      • JshYo

        Let me put it this way: I somewhat like Romney insofar as I know he doesn’t actually believe half the things he’s been saying. He is not really dedicated to repealing the Affordable Health Care Act; he is not really opposed to gay rights; he doesn’t actually believe that killing a human zygote is an act of murder; he isn’t entirely opposed to raising taxes to help address our budget problems.

        Romney’s willingness to mislead people, however, is also one of the reasons why I dislike him.

        Let’s be clear. Romney is misleading the American people to win the Republican primaries. This is only partially excusable insofar as the Republican primaries are currently at the mercy of unreasonable people. But that doesn’t justify Romney’s behavior; I do not want his deception and pandering to work.

        • Eichendorff

          What a load of pathetic nonsense. You can’t read minds.

          Romney doesn’t mislead anybody. You’re just incapable of comprehending anything he has to say.

          • JshYo

            Wait and see. If Romney wins the general election, you’ll be eating your words.

          • americanfirst

            I disagree JshYo!

            If anything, I am convinced Mitt Romney is going to make a lot of people (including you) redefine your terms.
            I believe that we are literally in the battle for the soul of America and that Mitt Romney has the potential to be one of the very best leaders this country has ever produced!
            A vote for Mitt Romney is a vote for principled-centered leadership!
            I believe…

  • Steve Bigelow

    Julie & Jshyo,

    Your hate for Romney is so apparent. You see no good in him but rather just bad. And he’s just not bad but he is evil according to your beliefs as set forth in your Damning statements in reference to him. Its pretty clear that you judge him with the kind of fanaticism that only comes from religious intolerance. Why not open your mind and heart and understand that in spite of the intolerant hatred coming from a radical minority, he will probably be our candidate against Obama. Then, you will really be stuck having to choose which man will be best for our country? A Liberal who is bankrupting our country or Romney a man whom myopic religious dogmatic views will not allow you to even consider a different point of view. So who will it be Obama or Romney. You’ll probably be so disappointed that Romney is chosen by the majority of Replublicans to face Obama and to turn our economic meltdown around that you will just stay home and by not voting, you will be helping Obama get another four years to complete what he has started. Think man, think! Please take off your blinders!! If your preferred candidate got the republican nomination instead of Romney, wouldn’t you expect the rest of us Republicans to vote for him instead of Obama? All I am saying is that your criticism of Romney is way over the top. He may not be your perfect candidate but please be a little more rational in your criticism. You’re painting yourself into a corner!

    • DKS~

      I’m no Obama supporter, but what the hell are you on about? Give him some credit, Obama was handed a crisis, and despite what you say the economy is better than it was three years ago. Considering when he came into office the financial market was about to implode, nobody was lending anybody money and the American Auto industry was going bankrupt.. Maybe it’s not by much, but it is better. Not to mention, Congress worked against him the entire time with filibustering.

      As for you voting for any Republican candidate even if it’s not Romney.. is that really true? If Ron Paul got the nomination, would you really vote for him? I think not, because you don’t BELIEVE he will, so it’s not an issue to even worry about. You think you already have it in the bag.

      The majority of people who launch attacks on Romney base none of it on his religion. Trust me, there is much more shady, underhanded, flipflopping tendencies to worry about than his religion..

  • Larry

    Reposted from “A Letter to Iowa Evangelicals” …

    Nancy, I quite agree that Mitt’s faith simply does not disqualify him … nor do most evangelicals that I know. Nor did it ever, unlike you, give me pause.

    His record, his speeches and his unethical and dishonorable approach to campaigning does trouble me deeply though. I read the attempts to qualify his record and speeches and justify his campaign methods … they all enjoy the same facile and frankly, unbelievable arguments.

    Worse, you offer the same approach in characterizing his opponents. That Mitt continues to attract less than 25% of the Republican vote ought to be cause for real concern … unless you’re willing to write us all off as boobs.

    Worse, now, just as he did in Massachusetts against his Democratic opponent when, after a long campaign, he was likewise unable to attract a majority, Mitt has gone negative.

    The absence of substance left the electorate unenthused, Mitt went negative. Consider the implications of such actions. This is a man who when rejected by potential voters simply gamed the system. He considers his own judgement superior to his fellow citizens. “Don’t want me?” he seems to say … “Well, I’m simply going to remove your other choices … to hell with principles … I want that office”. And he’s at it again. Nice.

    Never-the-less, we are treated to the worn narrative … “Mitt is an honorable, principled man”. Hmm, by whose measure? Certainly not mine. Serial flip flopping is hardly representative of principle. Negative and dishonest campaigning is hardly honorable … heck, its not even manly.

    The dismal record he left behind during his single term as governor of Massachusetts is evidence enough that a man who lacks conviction is almost certainly incapable of successful leadership. Again, his record … his actual record is a losing scorecard. Only through the extraordinary efforts of his apologists does his record offer anything but a warning to potential supporters.

    Mitt would be an unacceptable nominee in the best of times … in times such as these, however, his brand of conservatism would prove disastrous.

  • americanfirst

    Larry – either you don’t do your own thinking and due diligence or you’re dangerously naive!
    One thing is for sure… it get’s really old to explain what should be obvious to the typical objective critic.
    You are here (in this website). Digest the data – objectively, if possible.
    Idiotic statements such as, “That Mitt continues to attract less than 25% of the Republican vote ought to be cause for real concern … unless you’re willing to write us all off as boobs”, have no merit in rational thinking at all when you consider that by process of elimination everyone (inlcuding Obama) attracts, by that measure, even less. So can we dispense with the nonsense and get to the real substantial part of selecting someone capable of presiding honorably. Honorably being the operative word.
    Your so-called apologist are not trying to sway people from the truth (liberal tactic) but rather point them towards the truth (for those who can handle the truth).
    This article alone cites several examples of how critics blatantly distort the truth and then explains in detail where the truth, not readily available in your sources apparently, actually resides – so do us a favor and dispense with the bullocks cause it’s stale already!!

    • Larry

      Americanfirst, you’ve aptly presented the fact free perspective of Mitt Romney boosters. I began reviewing the candidates objectively. I viewed Mitt very favorably … until I began to examine his record closely. Review his previous campaigns closely. Listen to his present campaign speeches closely. Then my attitude about Romney changed dramatically.

      Worse, he continues to defend RomneyCare … a dreadful piece of legislation. I understand why. In its absence he has nothing to show for his single term. But it was mistake … just as ObamaCare is. Mitt Romney is not a conservative.

      I began my political life as an ardent socialist. I began to note its contradictions in principle, praxis and outcomes. I began the journey of exploration that led me, eventually, to Burkean Conservatism. That was 26 years ago.

      I know the difference between an authentic conservative and a salesman. A pretender. A man willing to present himself as a reflection of his audience’s yearnings … with no intention or ability to govern as he’s promised.

      So spare me the adolescent insults and sputtering apologetics. You’ve clearly found comfort in something quite different from the truth … you have embraced a clever and baseless myth. An eyes-wide-open review of the actual Romney record would make that fact plain.

      Give it a try … unless, of course, you’re frightened of where the truth might carry you.

      • Kay Shannon

        Larry…you come across as a self-appointed authority on everything conservative. Who elected you to be the guardian of “true” conservative values? I’m a true conservative and I’m appalled at the treatment of Mitt Romney. He is by far the most accomplished politician to come along in many years…Harvard Business School, BCG, Bain Capital, the SLC Winter Olympics. Maybe he didn’t tow the far right conservative line…but he knows how to reengineer organizations to make them fiscally healthy and productive (which the government could certainly use). He is a true executive leader and they are hard to come by in politics.

  • Larry

    Tonight in Iowa Romney demonstrates his continued inability to attract more than 23% – 25% of the Republican vote. This after 7 years of continual campaigning.

    His hope? That 4 actual conservatives remain, battling for the conservative vote (75% – 77% of the Republican base) leaving him with a constant 23% (The McCain strategy).

    His worst nightmare? Two, and finally one conservatives compete for the conservative vote (Gingrich and Santorum) turning their attention on his record … and soundly thrash him in state after state. Romney suckered punched Newt in Iowa. He’s likely, now, to catch a solid right to the jaw as the gloves have now come off.

    Bear this in mind … Romney can’t break 23% in the absence of a robust examination of his record. His numbers aren’t going to be helped as candidates begin dissecting his actual record. South Carolina and Florida are quite likely to prove a most unfriendly place for Mitt.