Mitt Romney, as expected, seems to be tacking towards the center in an effort to woo Independents and to counter the “war against women” allegations. This is what he told the Des Moines Register:
“There’s no legislation with regards to abortion that I’m familiar with that would become part of my agenda.”
Among his long history of different opinions on life issues, Romney’s stated position today is that he is pro-life with exceptions (for rape, incest, and the life of the mother). Does this sound like he is saying, yes, I’m mostly pro-life, but if I’m elected, don’t worry, I’m not going to do anything about it?
How should pro-life voters take this? A Romney administration, however unenthusiastic about the issue, would surely be better for the pro-life cause than Obama’s. He says he’ll end the Obamacare abortifacient mandate, cut funding for Planned Parenthood, and stop tax money from going to international abortion providers. He also says he will appoint conservative judges. After all, given Roe vs. Wade, abortion law is in the hands of the courts rather than legislators.
In addition to those pro-abortion measures implemented by the Obama administration, the Democrats in their convention came across as not just pro-choice but as positively pro-abortion. Bill Clinton’s Democratic party wanted abortion to be “safe, legal, and rare.” But at this convention, speaker after speaker displayed, to thunderous applause, an untroubled, fanatical, and outright evil embrace of abortion.
But still. . . .Though Romney is now trying to placate pro-lifers, they should be excused for being cynical, for thinking Republicans once again are trying to use them for their votes and activism, while giving them as little as possible.
Is this too harsh an assessment? If you are pro-life, do Romney’s words make you reconsider supporting him? Do pro-lifers have any other options?