Perhaps if Romney hired a skywriter…

and had him write, “I don’t care about you, prolifers.  Thanks for the votes, suckers!” things would be clearer:

Tampa, Fla. • Mitt Romney’s sister promised that a ban on abortion was “never going to happen” under her brother’s presidency, a reassurance to women that is at odds with the nominee’s stated position on the issue.

“It’s not his focus,” Jane Romney said at a talk here Wednesday. “He’s not going to be touching any of that.”

Her remarks seemed to revive uncertainty about Romney’s stance on abortion just 24 hours before he was scheduled to accept his party’s presidential nomination.

Few issues have bedeviled Romney as much as abortion has. When he first ran for the Senate from Massachusetts in 1994, he said he supported abortion rights, a position he reversed in 2006 as he prepared to make his first run for president.

Today, Romney says he favors overturning Roe v. Wade, the 1973 Supreme Court decision that legalized abortion.

Jane Romney challenged Democrats’ assertions that abortion rights would be in danger under Romney and his running mate, Paul D. Ryan.

“That’s what women are afraid of, but that’s conjured,” she said in remarks that were first reported in The National Journal. “Personally, I don’t think abortion should be used as a football in the political arena.”

A spokeswoman for Romney declined to comment.

Jane Romney, an actress who lives in California, said her brother understood that if there were a federal ban on abortion, “women would take to the streets.”

“Women fought for our choice,” she said. “We’re not going to go back.”

Prolifers should–right now–be putting enormous pressure on Romney not to betray them. Instead they are putting enormous pressure on skeptical prolifers not to point to the giant skywriting. Folly.

Phil Lawler gets it. It’s not hard to get.

  • Crisler

    Mark, a ban on abortion is not going to happen under any president in the near future. It’s not even constitutionally possible without an amendment– and there is no appetite nationally for such an amendment. We’re not going to end abortion. We’re trying to limit abortion and end Roe. In this attempt, cutting down Romney isn’t going to help one bit. What it will do is get Obama reelected and secure abortion-on-demand for another generation.

    • Rosemarie

      +J.M.J+

      That’s what I’ve been saying. Any pro-lifer who really thinks any president will ban abortion is uninformed at best. By all means, put pressure on him to do as much as he can for the pro-life cause but don’t expect him to do more than any POTUS can do. It’s called separation of powers. Again, we’re electing a president, not a despot.

      • Peggy R

        I agree with you Rosemarie. Furthermore, I mostly think this is a state issue. We should be very attentive to voting in pro-life legislators and governors. Progress is being made in limiting abortion. I believe abortion mills have been closed in Mississippi and in Tennessee recently b/c of state laws on safety and cleanliness.

        That said, if Romney’s not going to run primarily on social issues, it would still be wise to say little and make sure the base is respected. The GOP platform is strongly pro-life. Is he not aware? I was disappointed that Ryan only vaguely talked about protecting the “weakest” and said nothing about the HHS mandate, whether in the context of Ocare critique or his broad discussion of freedom, which was good. Susana Martinez, a Roman Catholic Latino governor, did not discuss abortion either as part of her conversion to GOP from Dem. She is reportedly pro-life. Why not talk about it?

        I think the Mitch Daniels Truce has been adopted anyway. Argghhh.

        I’m not a Huck fan, but I thank him for talking about abortion and the HHS mandate. He’s the only one who did.

        • Scott W.

          I’m am unaware of any pro-lifer under any delusion about the likelihood of banning abortion in the future. What we have been saying that just because Obama is the worst pro-abortionist out there, that doesn’t mean Romney owns pro-life votes. A consequentialist is a consequentialist is a consequentialist.

        • Rosemarie

          +J.M.J+

          During one of the speeches given by two state Attorneys General, one of them alluded to the HHS mandate and how it violates freedom of conscience.

          • Peggy R

            Oh, good. I missed those folks the other day.

    • Ted Seeber

      It’s actually possible with only an executive order requiring a definition of a single word.

      • Blog Goliard

        Sorry, Ted, but that’s just flat wrong. There is literally nothing the President can do by himself to disturb the Roe regime.

        • Ted Seeber

          It would not be permanent, but an executive order to the Judicial Department defining the word “person” as starting at conception would go a long way. I just doubt the Republicans have the same level of commitment that Obama has shown in his support of Planned Parenthood.

          • http://chicagoboyz.net TMLutas

            It really would be helpful if you would study up on the mechanics. This would perhaps lead to an order that would not be grounds for impeachment and certainly would lead to a more interesting conversation.

            A legitimate order would be to the executive, not the judiciary, which is a branch, not a department. The order would require all federal employees in the executive to cease any enforcement of any judicial decision that depends on a definition of life inconsistent with life beginning at the moment of conception.

            This would immediately engender a constitutional crisis which might, or might not be, wise. I leave that for other commenters. I have to go pick up my kids right now.

            • Blog Goliard

              Lawlessness and executive diktat are not the answer. (I would hope that if folks learn nothing else from Robert Bolt’s presentation of Thomas More in A Man For All Seasons, they would at least learn this.)

              • http://chicagoboyz.net TMLutas

                I tend to agree that an executive order is not the answer. My beef with Ted Seeber in this case is that when the executive order option’s raised in such a clown car fashion as to talk about the executive ordering a coequal branch, you can’t even properly get to any conclusion, the incompetence of the pitch on the other side stands in the way of a definitive win.

                • Ted Seeber

                  From the way the Obama Administration has acted, we no longer have co-equal branches of government to begin with.

                  • http://chicagoboyz.net TMLutas

                    And your assertion justifies your own advocacy of tearing up the US Constitution because…?

            • Ted Seeber

              A courageous leader would face impeachment for such a cause. Obama has proven that the President *can* be a dictator, would be nice if the other side had the courage to do so also.

              • Rosemarie

                +J.M.J+

                I must disagree. We don’t want POTUS to become a dictator. That’s one reason why Obama should be voted OUT.

              • http://chicagoboyz.net TMLutas

                I’m reminded of A Man for All Seasons where it’s explained why the Devil should gain the benefit of law. In this case, the anti-life crowd should gain the benefit of the US’ federalist system because the next Obama will someday be elected and the principle of rule via executive order will be established to aid in his fight against the Church.

          • Blog Goliard

            Um…no. That wouldn’t go any way at all towards anything.

            The Justice Department can argue however it wants in its briefs and oral arguments, with or without an executive order. Those arguments won’t do any good unless five Justices vote to overturn Roe.

            • http://chicagoboyz.net TMLutas

              I believe that Ted Seeber envisions something akin to Andrew Jackson style defiance. In that case no briefs and oral arguments are necessary. Stroke of a pen, law of the land.

              • Kristen inDallas

                Only works in the case of a law the pres doesn’t like, and chooses not to enforce. Not in cases where one is trying to stop people from doing something the court has said they have a right to do… will take more than an exec order and a blind justice department in this case. They COULD however turn a blind eye to rules that require states to prop. up easy-access abortions to recieve federal funding.

                • http://chicagoboyz.net TMLutas

                  The federal government could simply let pro-life state governments proceed with state charges and decline to enforce any punishments while the state courts proceed with legal action that would make abortion provision very difficult.

                  But like I said, instant constitutional crisis and immediately undone the next time a president from the other side gets elected.

              • Ted Seeber

                Exactly right. The idea would be to *force* the pro-choice side, in the impeachment trial, to defend murder.

                • Blog Goliard

                  Sounds to me like a good way to drive the “pro-choice” numbers in the polls up to 70%, while wrecking the rule of law in the Judiciary…but good luck with that anyhow.

                  • Ted Seeber

                    Sometimes the best way to show that something is immoral, is to make it quite plain that it is immoral. Democracy doesn’t define truth.

                    • http://chicagoboyz.net TMLutas

                      How you imagine politicians bloviating in Congress is more clear than the photographs used for decades now is the only thing puzzling. Look at the reaction. You’re objectively wedging the pro-life movement. In soccer they call that an “own goal”.

  • http://decentfilms.com SDG

    “Prolifers should–right now–be putting enormous pressure on Romney not to betray them. Instead they are putting enormous pressure on skeptical prolifers not to point to the giant skywriting. Folly.”

    Agreed.

    But I also agree with Lawler when he writes, in the article linked above:

    “Barack Obama is an implacable foe of the pro-life cause. But Mitt Romney is at best an unreliable ally. I am not suggesting that pro-lifers should not vote for Romney. I am, however, insisting that pro-lifers should not see Romney as the solution to the problem. Put not your faith in princes.”

    “Put not your faith in princes” is a principle that we should all agree on — and if Romney is anything, he’s a prince. Whether, without putting your faith in him, it can be reasonable to vote for an ‘unreliable ally at best” over an “implacable foe” is another question, one I am prepared to answer differently than Mark.

    As I mentioned earlier, I harbor some hope — not faith, but hope, of a decidedly non-theological sort — for Ryan’s future. I think it’s reasonable to hope that Ryan will continue to be a reliable ally to pro-lifers, and, contra Mark, I don’t see his willingness to join the Romney ticket as proof of the opposite.

    • Jarnor23

      I’m in agreement there. While Romney was very near my dead last choice in the primaries look at what the alternative is.

      There’s at least a chance that Ryan and many committed registered voters can influence Romney somewhat. The chances of that with Obama are a snowball’s in hell. You may as well talk to a brick wall as Obama.

      I would not fault Ryan for wanting to bring his morals and experience into this campaign.

  • Geoff

    While I applaud your persistence in notifying us that the “weathervane” is not truly pro-life (I grew up in Massachusetts so it is not a surprise to me), I must wonder what the motivation is for the constancy of the protests.

    Are you attempting to fight the political rhetoric that says he is more pro life than the pope?

    Are you attempting to clarify the situation so voters can be well informed going into the booth?

    Are you trying to tear him down and sling mud so the libertarian looks better?

    Are you just frustrated with the lack of full disclosure?

    The only reason I even wonder is because some of the rhetoric makes it sound like you despise him and what he stands for (not that what he stands for is evident, or that he even truly has a political stance other than “I am whatever you want me to be’) and that puts you on par with, say, Matthews et al.

    If the rhetoric comes from frustration over the smoke screens that are thrown up to protect his image then I can agree with you.

    Anyway, just a reservation I have…

    Geoff

    • Mark Shea

      I am attempt to get prolifers to assert themselves and tell RR they work for us, not we for them and they had damn well better not betray us.

      • Geoff

        Ah. Then I am 100% behind you on that!!

      • http://chicagoboyz.net TMLutas

        It would probably be helpful in the furtherance of your stated goal to lay out where the red lines are and where should the line be drawn between faithful to the pro-life cause in a moderate way (the best case I can see happening with the election of Romney) through to betrayal.

        My first stab at such an exercise would be the failure to re-establish the Mexico City policy, failure to reimpose the ban on public funding of abortions at federal facilities, those two should be in the thick stack of executive orders for early in the Romney administration. What would you add?

  • Crisler

    I think Mark and others are making the fallacious argument that if you can’t save everyone you shouldn’t bother saving anyone. No one believes Romney is a great pro-lifer, but if his presidency saves even one child with restrictions to abortion or judges that aren’t gimme votes for Roe than isn’t one life worth a vote in November?

    If you want to diabuse people of the notion that Romney is a pro-life absolutist, fine. Mission accomplished already. How many blog reminders do people need of that? We get it. Now how about we point out the barbarity of Obama’s beliefs and record…

    • Mark Shea

      No. I’m making the argument that “I favor killing some innocents” is not a prolife position and that it is folly to think for one minute that Romney intends to do anything serious about abortion. I further argue that prolifers, instead of wasting all their energy telling other prolifers to get in line and shut up about Romney’s obvious perfidy, should instead devote their energies to telling Romney to get in line or face hell from them.

      • Blog Goliard

        Mark, is there something that Romney could be realistically expected to do, between now and Election Day, that would cause you to stop giving him hell?

        If not, then I see no reason for him to care whether you’re happy with him or not.

        • Ted Seeber

          An interesting challenge. How about have dinner with somebody who has survived an abortion, somebody who was conceived in rape, and somebody who professes to be a Muwahiddun Islamic? Not necessarily the same person, of course, and three separate dinners.

          And invite his sister along.

          • http://chicagoboyz.net TMLutas

            Have you followed Romney’s dinner schedule and has he, in fact, not done this already? Has anybody done this in the past, establishing this as a reasonable course for demonstrating pro-life bonafides? Every minute of a candidate’s time is precious. Setting up such an event just to have it blow up in your face as inauthentic and a photo-op potemkin event is reasonably not going to be acceptable.

            So how is this solution going to play out?

            • Ted Seeber

              I’m hoping it does blow up in his face, and cause a sea change in thinking that brings up pro-life as a priority somewhat above tax breaks for billionaires.

              Because the way I see it right now- the Democrat’s #1 priority is eugenics based contraception to reduce the number of people getting entitlements while increasing the subjective value of those entitlements.

              Pro-life doesn’t even make the top 10 priorities for Republicans right now.

              • http://chicagoboyz.net TMLutas

                I think that with this post, you’ve definitively established yourself as a political arsonist. Welcome to irrelevance. From there, you’re only going to be able to do harm to the pro-life movement as you get more shrill in an attempt to gain relevance.

        • Richard Johnson

          I’m not sure about Mark, but for me it would help if he would just be honest and say that he was pro-choice in Massachusetts, and that while he has changed his position he realizes that allowing exceptions to any abortion ban is not a final goal, but is simply a step towards the final goal of ending abortion. At least he would be speaking words that were true, rather than lying about his past actions and his current position.

          But truth seems to be the simple one of many collateral damage items in today’s politics.

      • http://chicagoboyz.net TMLutas

        You are correct that I favor killing 2% of those who are currently being killed is not legitimately pro-life. It is a fellow traveller position in my opinion and should be treated as such. So what is the proper treatment of pro-life fellow travelers?

  • B.E. Ward

    The problem with this ticket is twofold..

    1) Romney is apparently lying when he says he wants Roe overturned, if you believe his sister, and the “no comment” from his campaign. So.. Just acknowledge you support a liar when you support him.

    2) Ryan is putting his (Catholic) principles aside by being a part of a ticket that thinks its ok to create another victim in a rape.

    It’s not just a matter of “getting things done”, it’s a matter of (vanishing) principles.

    • http://decentfilms.com SDG

      “Ryan is putting his (Catholic) principles aside by being a part of a ticket that thinks its ok to create another victim in a rape.”

      Tickets, of course, don’t “think” anything, and while we all use this kind of language from time to time, when leveling charges at people it behooves us to consider the reality behind our words.

      As far as I know, the most pertinent statement we have so far is the statement of a campaign spokeswoman that “a Romney-Ryan administration would not oppose abortion in instances of rape.”

      Assuming that Ryan agrees with this statement, which seems carefully worded to me, Ryan has agreed in principle to belong to an administration that would not have a policy of opposing abortion.

      Note that “not opposing” is not the same as “supporting” (or “thinking it’s ok”). From a moral theology perspective, it is not morally permissible not to oppose injustice such as abortion. However, it can be permissible to, for example, vote for a law that restricts some abortions but not others. It can also be permissible to belong to an administration that opposes some abortions and not others.

      Note that Romney himself, in his own language, “supports” abortion rights in cases of rape. Obviously a Catholic could not be party to a statement like that. But “not opposing” is not the same thing as “supporting,” and I don’t see that a Catholic necessarily violates his conscience by agreeing to belong to a ticket or an administration that, as a matter of policy, opposes most abortions but not all.

      • http://decentfilms.com SDG

        The following excerpt from Ross Douthat’s blog post on Ryan’s convention speech is discussing liberal critics of Ryan’s economic policies, but similar logic seems to me to apply to the current discussion:

        “To Ryan’s many liberal critics, his willingness to go along with this strategy — to use his reputation as a truthteller to help sell an opportunistic and less-than-substantive presidential campaign — is proof that they’ve been right about him all along. I don’t buy this argument, which like many liberal attacks holds the Wisconsin congressman to a standard that no effective politician can live up to, but I’ll allow that they’re right about this much: Ryan is a practical and highly-ambitious politician, not some starry-eyed policy idealist, and conservatives tempted to hero-worship him need to recognize the ease with which the necessary compromises of politics can shade into something more corrosive.

        “What we’re watching in this campaign could be Paul Ryan taking the steps required to bring his ideas to fruition. Or it could be Paul Ryan taking the steps required to help his party and his political career, while compromising his best reform ideas more profoundly than he should. But this is something that can’t be settled at a political convention, or in the heat of a campaign. We’ll have to wait and see if Romney-Ryan wins, in which case the proof will be in the policy.”

        • B.E. Ward

          So.. “compromise to get elected, then hopefully, maybe, someday, perhaps he can return to his principles and make an impact for the pro-life cause.”

          The difference between “supporting” and “not opposing” in this matter is extraordinarily tenuous. It’s one thing to “not oppose” welfare reform. It’s another thing entirely to “not oppose” infanticide because the child was the product of a rape.

          • http://decentfilms.com SDG

            B. E. Ward: You write:

            “The difference between ‘supporting’ and ‘not opposing’ in this matter is extraordinarily tenuous.”

            When we are talking about laws, policies, platforms and the like, i.e., consensus statements on matters of policy, the distinction is crucial.

            For example, could a Catholic in our society today legitimately support and sign a law saying, for example, that a teenager cannot procure an abortion without parental consent? After all, such a law doesn’t oppose abortions for teenagers with parental consent. Nevertheless, applying the principles of Evangelium Vitae, it could be acceptable to support and sign such a law.

            A similar principle applies here. That an R/R administration wouldn’t oppose abortion in cases of rape is of course not a good thing — but it would seem that’s on Romney, not Ryan. Ryan can sign up for an administration that doesn’t oppose abortion in cases of rape as long as a) he can’t get a better administration policy, b) he isn’t required to support abortion and c) his own position is sufficiently clear as to avoid the impression that he actually favors abortion rights.

            • B.E. Ward

              My point, though, is that sometimes we have to sacrifice our ambitions (or more) to do the right thing. You’re saying Ryan can have his cake and eat it, too. I’m saying he should have said “I can’t put my name on anything that violates my Catholic beliefs.”

              I’m against the death penalty. If I was a prominent politician and someone’s presidential campaign called me up saying “we want you to be Veep!”, and I know that candidate is a supporter of the death penalty, I’ve got a problem. If I say yes, then I’ve a) sacrificed my principles to get ahead in politics, b) shown the world that my principles on the death penalty *reeeeallly* don’t matter so much when it comes down to it, and c) sailed my cause’s compatriots down the river.

              • http://decentfilms.com SDG

                ” I’m saying he should have said ‘I can’t put my name on anything that violates my Catholic beliefs.’”

                And I’m saying that it is very clear in Catholic moral theology and teaching (for example, Evangelium Vitae) that it can be permissible for Catholic politicians to support and accept imperfect policies and laws that exclude some but not all abortions, and that doing so need not violate their Catholic beliefs.

                • Richard Johnson

                  I presume you mean section 73, which reads as follows:

                  “73. Abortion and euthanasia are thus crimes which no human law can claim to legitimize. There is no obligation in conscience to obey such laws; instead there is a grave and clear obligation to oppose them by conscientious objection. From the very beginnings of the Church, the apostolic preaching reminded Christians of their duty to obey legitimately constituted public authorities (cf. Rom 13:1-7; 1 Pet 2:13-14), but at the same time it firmly warned that “we must obey God rather than men” (Acts 5:29). In the Old Testament, precisely in regard to threats against life, we find a significant example of resistance to the unjust command of those in authority. After Pharaoh ordered the killing of all newborn males, the Hebrew midwives refused. “They did not do as the king of Egypt commanded them, but let the male children live” (Ex 1:17). But the ultimate reason for their action should be noted: “the midwives feared God” (ibid.). It is precisely from obedience to God — to whom alone is due that fear which is acknowledgment of His absolute sovereignty — that the strength and the courage to resist unjust human laws are born. It is the strength and the courage of those prepared even to be imprisoned or put to the sword, in the certainty that this is what makes for “the endurance and faith of the saints” (Rev 13:10).

                  In the case of an intrinsically unjust law, such as a law permitting abortion or euthanasia, it is therefore never licit to obey it, or to “take part in a propaganda campaign in favor of such a law, or vote for it”.

                  A particular problem of conscience can arise in cases where a legislative vote would be decisive for the passage of a more restrictive law, aimed at limiting the number of authorized abortions, in place of a more permissive law already passed or ready to be voted on. Such cases are not infrequent. It is a fact that while in some parts of the world there continue to be campaigns to introduce laws favoring abortion, often supported by powerful international organizations, in other nations — particularly those which have already experienced the bitter fruits of such permissive legislation — there are growing signs of a rethinking in this matter. In a case like the one just mentioned, when it is not possible to overturn or completely abrogate a pro-abortion law, an elected official, whose absolute personal opposition to procured abortion was well known, could licitly support proposals aimed at limiting the harm done by such a law and at lessening its negative consequences at the level of general opinion and public morality. This does not in fact represent an illicit cooperation with an unjust law, but rather a legitimate and proper attempt to limit its evil aspects.”

                  • http://decentfilms.com SDG

                    Yep, that’s the relevant bit.

              • kate

                Is there really (ever) a perfect and consistent option for a Catholic in politics? The position you seem to advocate is straightforward and absolute but politics is usually about choosing the better of two options, the one MOST consistent with our morals. Abstaining from the process is in fact a cooperation with evil – by refusing to participate in a flawed world one can hold oneself above the fray – but those who engage and serve are actually doing the heavy lifting. Politics is the art of the possible. You seem to be unwilling to deal with that reality. In the end, who knows what is in the heart of man? Only God. It is not for us to judge the intention of Ryan – our judgement must be a prudential one – no perfect answers here.

      • Richard Johnson

        “Assuming that Ryan agrees with this statement, which seems carefully worded to me, Ryan has agreed in principle to belong to an administration that would not have a policy of opposing abortion.”

        I can agree with this statement you have made.

        “Note that “not opposing” is not the same as “supporting” (or “thinking it’s ok”). From a moral theology perspective, it is not morally permissible not to oppose injustice such as abortion.”

        Again, I can agree with this statement.

        “However, it can be permissible to, for example, vote for a law that restricts some abortions but not others. It can also be permissible to belong to an administration that opposes some abortions and not others.”

        But you just said in your first statement that the administration “would not have a policy of opposing abortion.” How do you get from that to, “It can also be permissible to belong to an administration that opposes some abortions and not others.” Logically, how can an administration not oppose abortion and yet oppose some abortions.

        • http://decentfilms.com SDG

          Richard Johnson: You write:

          Logically, how can an administration not oppose abortion and yet oppose some abortions.”

          I meant “would not have a policy of opposing [some] abortions,” i.e., in cases of rape. We are told that a Romney / Ryan administration would oppose all abortions except for cases of rape, incest or the life of the mother (i.e., the vast majority of all abortions would be opposed). In those rare cases, Romney has said that he supports abortion rights, Ryan has said that he opposes them, but the administration policy would be to not oppose them, which in principle violates neither Romney’s personal support nor Ryan’s personal opposition.

          • Richard Johnson

            There’s only one thing to say to that.

            http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YLqKVnNpQ4s

            • http://decentfilms.com SDG

              Read the section from Evangelium Vitae quoted above. Do you really want to accuse John Paul II of “side-stepping”?

              • Blog Goliard

                That rarely stopped the More Catholic Than You crowd when JPII was still alive…why would it stop them now?

              • Richard Johnson

                The side stepping remark referred to Romney’s “nuanced” position regarding abortion, which requires you to execute a series of linguistic acrobatics before coming to a point where he might, if the wind is from the right direction and if you hold your mouth just right, fit into a spot where a Catholic legislator (Ryan) could support his position.

                That assumes, of course, that Romney is truthful when he says he is *now* pro-life (lite) and was wrong to have been pro-abortion before. We won’t know that, of course, until after he takes office.

                • http://decentfilms.com SDG

                  You misunderstood me. Romney’s own position — supporting abortion rights in cases of rape — is indefensible. A Catholic politician can’t support it. But the ticket / administration position, as articulated by the campaign spokeswoman, is not the same as Romney’s position, any more than it is the same as Ryan’s position. The ticket / administration is not “support,” but “will not oppose.” In principle, per Evangelium Vitae, it is possible to support a platform position (just as one could support a law) that seeks to limit the extent of evil even if it doesn’t oppose it in full; therefore Ryan can support this platform, because it doesn’t require him to support abortion rights.

                • http://decentfilms.com SDG

                  Also, nothing I said assumes that Ryan’s position with respect to the proposed administration position is tenable only if Romney is telling the truth, nor is it necessary, from a policy perspective, that Romney’s new-found anti-abortion stance represent a genuine moral conversion. It could be a matter of political expedience for all I care as a voter, as long as his actions are consistent with the position he says he holds.

    • http://chicagoboyz.net TMLutas

      The focus of a campaign is an important part of the struggle between the GOP and Obama. The GOP’s best chance of election in 2012 is to make the focus the economy. It has the largest potential electoral coalition (number of votes available for persuasion). All other coalitions, including the pro-life one, are smaller. So it makes sense for Romney to focus on that because if he succeeds there, he wins. For the Obama campaign, all other focuses look better than the economy so one part of the Obama campaign is to attempt to shift focus out of the economy. This reality is independent from either candidate’s abortion position.
      Just assuming the above is true, you have a reporter breathlessly repeating an off message statement by a Romney family member (does she even have a campaign position?) and asking for comment. To maintain focus on the economy, is there a superior answer to “no comment”? I do not think so. In a situation like this, you starve the story by giving the blandest non-answer you can and no comment does that. Does that superiority of that answer change, at all, for any abortion position Romney actually/secretly has? I do not think so.
      This is the source of the reason why honest pro-life advocates are falling on the other side of this. We’re not reading the tea leaves the same way you are.

  • crazylikeknoxes

    Would it be wrong to vote for Romney in the hope that something might happen to him so that Ryan would become president?

    • http://www.rosariesforlife.com Dave

      Nope. That’s one of the better reasons to vote for him, actually. But it’s not very likely.

    • Richard Johnson

      So we’re at the point of wishing harm on an individual so that good may come of it? I trust you were jesting and not serious.

      • http://www.rosariesforlife.com Dave

        I wouldn’t say “wishing harm”. But I wouldn’t think it evil to take into account the possibility that something may happen to the President and the Vice President could become President. It has happened twice in the last 50 years.

        Even the Presidential candidates care about this. To be honest, except for the possibility that the VP may become POTUS, what does it really matter who the VP is? He has virtually no power or duties, once in office.

  • Ted Seeber

    I wish women would take to the streets on this issue- so that we could once and for all be certain that they’re more for murder than they are for the right of little girls to live.

    • http://www.pilgrimage.subcreators.com Lori Pieper

      If women do take to the streets on this issue, at least half of them will be fighting on the prolife side! People like Jane Romney forget this.

    • Christopher Lake

      Ted, as a serious, practicing, and therefore, pro -life, Catholic man, I have to ask you, do you believe that women think in a monolithic way on the question of abortion? Many women are pr0-life, and many women are not– just as with men. Neither gender thinks in a monolithic way on *any* issue. I wish that all women were pro-life, just I wish that all men were pro-life. However, I know that neither is the case.

      • Ted Seeber

        I do not believe women think in a monolithic way on the question of abortion. I do believe that feminists do. I do believe that rapists also have a monolithic view of abortion (and my definition of rape is pretty much any sex act NOT open to the possibility, however remote, of lasting through 18 years of parenthood).

    • Kristen inDallas

      That was extremely uncharitable. You do understatnd that not all women, and not even all “feminists” are pro-abortion, right?

      • Ted Seeber

        I have never met a truly pro-life feminist who would sacrifice the life of the mother for the life of the child. I have, in fact, met many pro-choice feminists who claim to be pro-life while discriminating against the children of rape, discriminating against the disabled, discriminating against the products of incest. Discrimination is at the core of the entire abortion debate; even for those fellow travelers who claim to be conservative but seem to be fine with abortion by cruise missile for Islamics.

  • some guy

    Romney says he wants to overturn Roe, and he will appoint conservative judges who are for more likely to do that than any judge Obama would ever appoint.

    • some guy

      Unfortunately, the media can’t be bothered to spend a few sentences pointing out that overturning roe would not be the same thing as a national ban on abortion. It would just free the states to debate that issue themselves.

      • http://decentfilms.com SDG

        “Unfortunately, the media can’t be bothered to spend a few sentences pointing out that overturning roe would not be the same thing as a national ban on abortion. It would just free the states to debate that issue themselves.”

        This is a really good point. Romney’s sister (who is clearly pro-choice) didn’t say “Roe v. Wade will never be overturned under my brother’s presidency.” She only said there would never be an abortion ban.

  • Marthe Lépine

    This quote: “Barack Obama is an implacable foe of the pro-life cause. But Mitt Romney is at best an unreliable ally. ” reminds me of a prayer that is said to be from St. Theresa of Avila (but I am not sure): “Lord, protect me from my friends, and I can handle my enemies.” At least, we know exactly what Obama stands for on the issue; Romney? Not so much…

    • Andy

      I agree we know what Obama stands for – not that I like it – but at least I can see where it comes from to fight it. Romney – I have no idea what he believes in other than money, money and money. The adage better the devil… is ringing in my mind right now. But most likely I will vote for a third party candidate simply to keep them on the ballot.

      • http://chicagoboyz.net TMLutas

        This seems a bit like obscurantism. We reasonably expect that federal institutions like military hospitals will stop doing abortions in a Romney administration under a renewed Hyde amendment and that the Mexico City policy will be restored. He also has said that he will push legislation that illegalizes abortion for all unborn who can feel pain. If that passes there will be a number of children born who would not be born under an Obama 2nd term because they would have been killed.

        The point of disagreement between the Church and Romney is that we don’t think making murder painless is grounds for legalizing it. This is an easier argument to win, I suspect than the argument we have with Obama which is that the unborn are human beings. So Romney, for me, provides a direct benefit of less unborn killed and an indirect benefit in that the argument over saving the remainder of the unborn will be on ground more favorable to the pro-life side.

        • Andy

          I am not attempting to be vague or to obscure anything, in fact I think that it is Romney who is being obscurantist. It is my fervent belief that there is no difference between Romney and Obama. I do not think that Romney do much of anything to interfere with the current status of “abortion rights” in this country. It is not part of who he seems to be – a business-person who is more interested in money and the making of money. He did precious little as governor of Massachusetts to promote a Catholic or even slightly more moral view of social issues. (If the argument is that he had to deal with a democratic legislature then Obama can make the same claim when McConnell says that their primary job is to ensure that Obama is one term president.)
          Unfortunately I do not believe his protestations that he will push for a law that illegalizes abortion for the unborn who can feel pain. I do not think he will push to renew the Mexico City policy. Again I think the doesn’t care deeply about those issues. I watched his speech last night and heard nothing that caused me to change my view of him.
          Maybe my cynical view of the two parties – its all about being in power and not the best for the country is in the way. I have lost faith in our current political system, and Romney and Obama are doing little to renew it, in fact they are diminishing it even more.

          • http://chicagoboyz.net TMLutas

            One quibble, Presidents don’t push for a renewal of the Mexico City policy. They take a one page piece of paper and sign, at their convenience. It is entirely an executive order. That’s what makes non-signature something that a GOP president can’t duck. There are no excuses.

            I think that on Hyde, he’d have to wait for a version to pass Congress and then sign so he’s got a bit of wiggle room there. It’s possible to throw up some dust but doing so is more trouble than its worth.

            In any case, I suspect we’ll know early in 2013 as I am predicting a Romney victory. Obama’s just fouled up too often to get another term.

  • vickie

    The issue is how we stop having the same quandry four years from now. Vote for Romney if you must, but IMHO, you need assurance that at least he is going to over turn the HHS Mandate and stop tax payer funding for abortion. And stop any USG collaboration with groups promoting contraception, abortion and gay rights in traditional cultures.

  • Joannie

    Why should anybody out there suddenly be surprised on his or his running mates views on Abortion. Its not all that high on their agenda. Look at what he and Ryan did in the last few days they would not let the Ron Paul delegates even have a voice on the convention floor, they changed all the rules of the whole process. Ron Paul said during the campaign trail that Romney is a notorious flip flopper on this and even on same sex marriage. We already know how Obama feels. Paul Ryan (Catholic or not) has been just recently found to be making inaccurate statements himself as the VP nominee. I just cannot support this ticket. Ron Paul should have been the nominee and we already know how pro-life he is because he had delivered personally 4000 babies.

    • Blog Goliard

      Shafting the Ron Paul delegates is proof that Romney and Ryan can’t be trusted…on abortion?

      I’ve got a soft spot for Paul, and even for many of his Paulbots…but seriously, y’all are beyond parody sometimes.

      • http://www.rosariesforlife.com Dave

        “Shafting the Ron Paul delegates is proof that Romney and Ryan can’t be trusted…on abortion?”

        Well…yeah. It turns out that if someone is willing to overturn the duly elected delegates of multiple states (while denying that he knows anything about it), and insert delegates of his own choosing, and changing the rules ON THE SPOT to deny Ron Paul a voice, not even in order to ensure that he gets the nomination (which was in the bag), but just to ensure that not a PEEP is heard in favor of anyone but himself, it’s a pretty clear indicator that the only thing that matters to that candidate/party is power, and that they are not interested in being honest or fair.

        I’d say, yeah, the treatment of the Ron Paul delegates IS proof that Romney can’t be trusted, on abortion…on anything.

        • vickie

          Yes for the party that claims to be a big tent, only a narrow range of opinion is permitted at their convention. Look how they treated Sarah Palin.

          • http://www.rosariesforlife.com Dave

            Even though I don’t much like Palin, and think she is a showboater, I kind of liked how she mentioned that she may make a 3rd party run if the Tea Party/Liberty/Social Issues side of the party is shut out.

            Now THAT should get the RNC fat cats attention.

          • http://www.rosariesforlife.com Dave

            Assuming of course that this isn’t all just some big farce where the fat cats win, no matter which party is in office…

  • Observer

    First, let us back-track where the mistake is and was made:
    I’d assert, again, the exceptions to which the cases are ever so very rare having a developing human life born out of r.a.p.e (because A.k.i.n referred to not only the rare case. As well, he referred to legal terminlogy deciphering an actual-real crime using the word: “legit.” [as actual evidence is weighed in a courtroom] as opposed to the mere claim of a crime) does not mean such an exception merits aborshun.

    Secondly, evaluate the plausible and very likely outcome of the persuasion:
    The idea of limiting aborshun, as well, to “r.a.p.e., i.n.c.e.s.t, or h.e.a.l.t.h-l.i.f.e” only encircles and shields it (even so if you wait a minute and think about it. If she’s the mother of a child – again you have to deal with the words since terms are the very expressive meaning of law, you’re not dealing with a mere blob of tissue – you cannot just say “her health-life” and at-the-same-time say “mother.” If you say mother, you mean a parent and child. Now that I’ve gone off on a tangent dealing with the lousy argument for it, I return to my main point….)

    And finaly, taking a deeper look:
    The exception is a gauranteed safegaurd-loophole for both a legal and medical declarations for an aborshun to occur. The exception safeguards aborshun and doesn’t even limit it. A doctor or some legal expert can easily find an avenue to legitimately argue (and for medical reasons, proceed with) an aborshun. Think, think, and think (I quote Winnie-the-Pooh), you begin to define a safegaurd for aborshun (not even a limitation) by those excpetions, since in the medical practice anything for the most part can be designated as a legit claim to have an aborshun for health-life (she can’t afford the child, her bills and income are so low, she is under circumstances which her life is in danger or the to be child will be in danter, cosmetically ruins her image and weight which she may lose her job, etc.) Worse, you will get a guaranteed legal backing from the law.

  • Richard Johnson

    Meanwhile back a the convention….

    http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/31/us/politics/at-republican-convention-women-play-down-social-issues.html?hp

    “What is missing from the all-inclusive spot? Any discussion of the social issues — abortion, same-sex marriage, insurance coverage for birth control — that have at times engulfed the Republican nominating contest. “We don’t talk social issues,” said Mary Ann Carter, policy director for the Young Guns Network, who manages the pavilion, as several young women from the convention milled about the space sipping coffee and shopping for souvenirs. “We talk about the economy. We talk about health care. We talk about energy.”

    This refrain is often heard in and around the convention these days. In dozens of interviews, women at the convention made clear that social issues are now taking a back seat. Even those who passionately agree (or disagree) with the new conservative party platform — calling for traditional marriage, public display of the Ten Commandments and a sweeping ban on abortion — did not seem to want to discuss the subject. (The one exception was Mr. Romney’s sister Jane, who on Wednesday declared that if Mr. Romney is elected president, a ban on abortion is “never going to happen.”)”

    From the comments the past couple of weeks it sounds as if the greater concern here is that the HHS mandate be overturned. Like these Republican women, abortion seems to be taking a back seat.

    • http://chicagoboyz.net TMLutas

      So long as the pro-life cause is on the bus and not under it in a Romney administration, I don’t care which seat on the bus it’s on. Progress in social acceptability of pro-life ethics via advocacy and passage of pro-life legislation are my two metrics for success. Whether it is a front burner issue or a back burner issue is less important.

      Given the state of the economy and President Obama’s role in that, the economy *should* take a front seat role right now. Doing so makes it more likely that actual progress is made on the pro-life front.

      • Richard Johnson

        To paraphrase the artist formerly and once again known as Prince, let’s party like it’s 1994. That was the same thing we were told when Newt Gingrich and the Republican Revolution was swept into office. The economy comes first, and then once we get the economy stabilized we will move the social issues.

        Trouble is, the social issues never saw the light of day. And they never will as long as the GOP can take the pro-life constituency for granted.

        • http://chicagoboyz.net TMLutas

          I believe that the 2010 results are a bit more encouraging than 1994, which I agree were not what was hoped for on the pro-life front. I’m not talking about Congress, but rather at the statehouse level. State initiatives to limit/restrict abortion have been having a bumper crop. I put my hope most immediate hope in those state legislators who are actually taking action already. Never forget that this is a war of multiple fronts.

  • vickie

    For me the HHS mandate is not a greater concern, but since no president can immediately change Supreme Court Justices, the least that they can do is overturn the mandate.

    • http://chicagoboyz.net TMLutas

      The President may, through executive order, reinterpret legislation to remove the HHS mandate by restating a broader conscience clause policy. The current HHS policy may be constitutional, but it is not wise. The President can change that.

  • victor

    “It’s not his focus,” Jane Romney said at a talk here Wednesday. “He’s not going to be touching any of that.”

    And now I really, REALLY want to see Mitt Romney do the chinese typewriter while wearing parachute pants.

  • Obpoet

    Again, visualize the change. Hint: It’s not the President.

  • Richard Chonak

    And while he was governor of MA, he implemented same-sex marriage even when the court ruling didn’t require him to do anything. Thanks a lot, Mitt.

    So we’ll get a guy who is a great administrator, promoting clean, efficient vovernment, but he will probably roll back Obama’s abortion zealotry only as far as W: reinstating the Mexico City policy, say.

    • Mark Shea

      Yep. Just a cosmetic change. Then he can tell prolifers. “Hey! I did something. Whaddaya want? The Moon? Now Shut up and support what I *really* want to do or you’ll get nothing else from me. Which is *so* sad because if you’d just be patient I will eventually get around to the thing you want. if I can find time.” And prolifers, the cheapest dates in the American political landscape, will grovel with gratitude and shush any prolifer who protests the betrayal.

      • BobRN

        Mark,
        I looked at the Mitt Romney web site and it says that Romney thinks the SCOTUS should overturn Roe v. Wade. Of course, this wouldn’t ban any abortions. What it would do is put the issue back in the hands of the individual states, which is where it was before Roe v. Wade. Each state, then, would determine it’s own laws on abortion. Likely, a few states would choose to ban all, or most, abortions, more states would have few, if any, limitations, and most states would continue to have legal abortion while restricting access considerably. I guess the question is, would this situation be preferred to the current situation where there are virtually no restrictions on abortions and we have a president who supports the “right” to abortion so fiercely that he would not even require that doctors provide care for children who survive an abortion? Also, how likely is it that Romney would work to limit abortions? Obviously, Mark, you feel that Romney is simply lying, that he’s only mouthing support for pro-lifers, while he really intends to do nothing at all on the matter. Your conviction seems to be that, if Romney becomes president, the abortion issue won’t even be touched by his administration, and the situation on abortion in the U. S. will, for all intents and purposes, be the same under Romney as it is under Obama. Other Catholics may be willing, for whatever reason, to take Romney at his word and vote for a candidate who will at least support more restrictions on abortions, or a return to the pre-Roe situation, rather than vote for a candidate who is fiercely pro-abortion, or not vote and risk the pro-abortion candidate winning.
        I asked this earlier, but no one had an answer: does the Catholic Church allow that it is morally permissible to support legislators and legislation that restrict abortions, even if they don’t completely ban abortions?
        Finally, you continue to insist that pro-lifers are condemning anyone who refuses to vote for Romney, or who “protests the betrayal” (a betrayal, mind you, that hasn’t taken place, yet, since Romney isn’t yet president; so it’s more a betrayal expected on your part). Can you provide any links to pro-life organizations that have told you to shut up or have generally condemned Catholics who question the wisdom of voting for Romney or the sincerity of his pro-life commitment? Thanks!

        • Richard Johnson

          “I asked this earlier, but no one had an answer: does the Catholic Church allow that it is morally permissible to support legislators and legislation that restrict abortions, even if they don’t completely ban abortions?”

          Given Romney’s record as Massachusetts governor (both his words before and during his term and his actions while in office), can you at least understand why some pro-life advocates are skeptical of his words now? Many of us recall the 1994 Republican Revolution, after which the GOP refused to even bring the HLA out of subcommittee because of Speaker Gingrich’s desire to keep abortion as an issue going forward (this according to Henry Hyde in an interview after he left office).

          Mark is quite correct when he talks about the relationship between the GOP and pro-life advocates as a case of battered woman syndrome. We keep getting promises. We keep getting told that the other lizard is far worse. But we get little if any substantive change when we vote for the good lizard.

          If pro-life voters support the GOP ticket in 2012 and little if anything changes, what do you suggest we do in 2016? 2020? 2024? When do we look at the GOP and say, “Enough! Stop running your campaigns from a platform of dead children!”

          If we won’t so this, then let’s just get new T-shirts for all the pro-life voters. On the front will be a picture of a sucker, and on the back the acronym ‘BOHICA’.

          • BobRN

            Mr. Johnson,
            You begin your comment by quoting my question, but then you fail to answer it. Instead of answering the question of whether or not Catholics may morally vote for a candidate that promises to restrict abortion over a candidate that favors unlimited abortion, you instead argue that the GOP is not really pro-life. That may be the case but, ultimately, each Catholic needs to answer that question for him or herself: Is the GOP genuinely, though not perfectly, pro-life (or pro-life enough) that I can justify voting for the GOP candidate against the candidate that favors unrestricted abortions? The way you and Mark paint the picture, we may as well throw out abortion and other pro-life matters as an issue of consideration for our voting, since both candidates, and even both parties, are essentially the same on the issue when it comes to making practical, real progress on banning or even limiting abortion. If that’s the case, then I’ll certainly vote for Romney, since Obama’s presidency has been a huge failure, and I agree with Romney on many more issues than I agree with Obama.
            I think it more realistic, and moral for that matter, to consider the fact that the GOP, while not perfect on abortion, generally supports and implements policies that are genuinely pro-life, while the Democrats make it clear that they favor no restrictions whatsoever on abortion, favor unlimited access to abortion (even for minors without the knowledge of their parents), favor requiring taxpayers and even religious institutions paying for abortions and even, in the case of Obama, oppose providing medical care to children who survive abortion. In an imperfect world, this election is a no-brainer for me.

            • Richard Johnson

              “Instead of answering the question of whether or not Catholics may morally vote for a candidate that promises to restrict abortion over a candidate that favors unlimited abortion, you instead argue that the GOP is not really pro-life.”

              Incorrect. I question whether or not Mitt Romney, the candidate who is running for President, is really pro-life. His ACTIONS as governor certainly were not. His WORDS as candidate are those of a pro-life candidate, but as we have seen too many times in the GOP words do not often precede actions.

              Since we have established that the President does not have a role in overturning Roe, Doe, or Casey (save for making an attempt to appoint Justices who might do so), we are left with executive orders and signing of legislation as the two avenues where a President can act.

              What *specific* pieces of legislation, or what *specific* executive orders has Mitt Romney promised to sign/enact upon taking office? His past actions as governor, at least in my opinion, require that he be very specific about his approach to limiting abortions before I would be convinced.

              What has he specifically said he would do that convinces you he would further limit abortions? Given his past I would think that vague generalities would not be enough, but your mileage may vary.

              • BobRN

                According to his website, the pro-life positions Romney says he holds are:
                1. support for overturning Roe v. Wade
                2. a pledge to deny Planned Parenthood federal funding
                3. a pledge to protect the conscious rights of health care workers
                4. a pledge to not sign pro-abortion legislation
                5. opposition to embryonic stem cell research and cloning and support for adult stem cell research
                6. nominate judges and justices that respect the right to life
                Does this make him really pro-life? Will he come through with any or all of these promises? Whether or not Romney is really pro-life is a reasonable question. But, whether or not Obama is really pro-abortion is not. These are our choices. Yes, we can vote third party, if we can find a candidate that is really pro-life. But, practically speaking, that only puts us back in the same boat of Romney v. Obama, because a really pro-life candidate who has no chance of winning will not be in a postion to keep his pro-life promises, even if he wanted to. I hear people say they’re tired of choosing the lesser of two evils. But, unless Jesus Himself is running for president, isn’t that always our dilemma?
                In any case, it seems that you’ve concluded that, regardless of whether Romney or Obama win, the situation for abortion in America will remain essentially unaltered. So, I guess what’s left is for citizens to decide for whom to vote based on other issues.

              • BobRN

                Oh, I forgot to mention support for the Hyde Amendment. He also alludes to reinstating the Mexico City policy.

            • Richard Johnson

              “If that’s the case, then I’ll certainly vote for Romney, since Obama’s presidency has been a huge failure, and I agree with Romney on many more issues than I agree with Obama.
              I think it more realistic, and moral for that matter, to consider the fact that the GOP, while not perfect on abortion, generally supports and implements policies that are genuinely pro-life, while the Democrats make it clear that they favor no restrictions whatsoever on abortion, favor unlimited access to abortion (even for minors without the knowledge of their parents), favor requiring taxpayers and even religious institutions paying for abortions and even, in the case of Obama, oppose providing medical care to children who survive abortion. In an imperfect world, this election is a no-brainer for me.”

              As governor of Massachusetts didn’t Mitt Romney also sign a law that required insurance companies to pay for abortion?

              http://www.massresources.org/masshealth-essential.html

              “If you qualify for premium assistance, MassHealth will pay all or part of your private health insurance premiums. You will get whatever health care benefits your private health insurance offers. (Your private insurance must meet the basic standards of MassHealth.)

              If you do not have private health insurance, you must enroll with a primary care doctor to get benefits. Benefits are similar to MassHealth Basic, but somewhat more limited. They include:

              …abortion and family planning services”

              Governor Romney also, according to Rick Santorum, required Catholic hospitals to provide emergency contraception…

              http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/290423/santorum-accuses-romney-forcing-mass-catholic-hospitals-offer-emergency-contraception-

              “This is not the first time that elected officials have trounced on the fundamental right to religious freedom. In December 2005, Governor MittRomney required all Massachusetts hospitals, including Catholic ones, to provide emergency contraception to rape victims.

              He said then that he believed “in his heart of hearts” that receiving these contraceptives – free of charge – trumped employees’ religious consciences. Now, a few years later and running for president, his heart isstrategically aligned with religious voters opposing this federal mandate.”

              “Asked yesterday to elaborate on that position, Romney said simply that the law was the law and that the state had to follow it. The governor characterized his own beliefs about emergency contraception this way: “My personal view, in my heart of hearts, is that people who are subject to rape should have the option of having emergency contraception or emergency contraception information.”

              In 2002 then candidate Romney filled out this questionnaire for Planned Parenthood. In it he indicated he supported Roe, supported taxpayer funds for low income abortions, establishing safety zones around abortion clinics, and the morning after pill. His actions as governor were in line with these statements.

              http://yfrog.com/z/oc6u1p

              When asked about these positions, rather than admitting that these were his stands and explaining why he changed his mind, Romney lies and claims to have governed from a pro-life standpoint in Massachusetts.

              If he is going to lie in the face of such evidence (audio, visual, printed, etc.), how can you trust him enough to believe what he says today? Hope for change didn’t work so well in 2008. Are you just hoping for another change in 2012?

              • BobRN

                Mr. Johnson,
                Sorry for being so long in getting back to you. You may even not be coming back to check the site any longer. Be that as it may … I’m confused by your neglecting the main point of my post that you quote, which is not that Romney can be trusted by pro-lifers, but that, since his and Obama’s position on abortion will leave the matter essentially unaltered regardless of who wins, in your mind, than that frees Catholics up to vote for one or the other based on other issues. I may not agree with you, in fact I don’t, but that seems to be your position.

          • BobRN

            Oh, I meant to ask, what does ‘BOHICA’ mean? Just curious.

      • http://chicagoboyz.net TMLutas

        Mark Shea – Does reinstating Hyde and the Mexico City policy count as cosmetic? Does illegalizing abortion at the point where fetuses feel pain count as cosmetic? You are clear enough that you don’t like Romney. I don’t like him either. What is unclear to me is the proper christian tactics to adopt with a fellow traveler like Romney. From my perspective you’re doing it all wrong but your pronouncements are so unclear about what you actually want that I can’t say with any certainty what you really believe on the subject.

        BTW: that’s the exact problem I have with Romney too. This means that we’re going to be able to work together and I’ll support him tactically, but there’s never going to be a lot of love because I’m going to have to constantly double check and verify him and that level of work is a bit exhausting.

  • Frank Sales

    mark, would you vote for a republican candidate who said he was personally pro-choice but that it was not a federal issue and he would work to reverse Roe v Wade and return the power to criminalize abortion to the states?

  • Joannie

    Newsflash, people off COURSE Mitt Romney does not really care about Abortion, or for that matter Contraceptive Plan B and of course “Gay Marriage” which he allowed as the Governor of Massachusetts, so why should we be so amazed or shocked by this. We all knew Ron Paul was all anti-abortion but the GOP elites just don’t care about this issue. Look at the way he basically stole his nomination away from Ron Paul (or any other potential threat) by getting the endorsement from the Party before all of the delegates were all decided on. Then the greatest insult to come – change the rules altogether for the next Election Cycle. I say this Both Parties stink and I won’t and cannot support either one. I can’t support Romney now that he’s been bought and paid for.

  • Peggy R

    I haven’t quite figured out Mitt Romney. By all the accounts, as a man, Mitt Romney is very decent, caring and an upright person, actually doing himself good deeds helping others. Much of this was through his leadership role in the Mormon faith. While he’s no ordained clergyman, his “ministering” to his fellow Mormons and helping those in need, surely tells us something about the man. He is pretty modest about it all too.

    http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/315627/no-cameras-and-no-reporters-mark-krikorian

    So, I am having trouble understanding his obstinacy and inconsistency on abortion in particular and homosexual “marriage” as well. I don’t know how to explain him. He is stiff and awkward, but he is not an empty suit. Of that I am sure.

    • S. Murphy

      I think there’s some back- story about his sister or someone close to him having had an abortion, supposedly a dramatically life-saving (well, 1 out of 2) one. I don’t know ant details; I just vaguely recall hearing mention on NPR that back when he was pro-choice, it was because it was important to someone in his family. If it was his sister, that explains her confidence that he’s not that serious about opposing abortion.

  • Jehu

    “What is needed at present is to form whatever alliances can be formed (within the pale of moral action, of course) and defeat this act of tyranny. ” — Mark Shea, speaking on the HHS Mandate

    Romney offers such an alliance.

    Here’s some more:
    ____________________
    Confederate Papist says:
    February 7, 2012 at 11:18 am
    Victory for the sake of claiming victory means nothing if that victory is just window dressing or a temporary hold…

    Reply
    Mark Shea says:
    February 7, 2012 at 11:29 am
    Worry about that after victory is achieved.
    __________________________________

    Agreed. Shea is dead-on in this one too. Worry about that after we remove the only President who put the HHS Mandate in place.

    More? Okay:
    ___________________________

    Mark Shea says:
    You really are more interested in hating Obama than in defeating him.

    The point is to defeat this assault in religious liberty.

    Mark Shea says:

    I will accept the help of a fool if the fool can help.

    ______________________________________

    Hmm.

  • http://mommentary.blogspot.com Elinor Dashwood

    I don’t care for Romney myself, but I suppose it must be. At any rate I don’t pay any heed to his sister. If his sister is as stupid and short-sighted as my sister, he won’t listen to her, either.

    • Doug Pearson

      Totally agree… his sister is an actor in California. That’s like caring what Obama’s Kenyan kin living in huts think. Leave it to Mark to blog about it.

  • http://ressourcement.blogspot.com/ David

CLOSE | X

HIDE | X