Romney’s views on abortion rights are absolutely clear

Translation: I believe in deliberately killing innocent human life if it stands in the way of my acquisition of power. In Massachusetts, all innocent human life stood in the way of my acquisition of power because Massachusetts was overwhel mingly pro-abortion. So I was a zealous pro-abort Governor for years and years and you can see it all on Youtube. However, in mainstream American conservative culture, only innocents conceived in rape and incest are acceptably killed, so when I decided to run for President, I started saying I believe in killing only them. I also totally lied and said I governed as a pro-lifer. The main thing to remember, though, is that I am absolutely consistent on one point: Any innocent who would endanger my rise to power must die. My deeply Catholic running mate supports this position. And when prolifers point that out, they get shouted down and told–by other prolifers–to get in line behind me instead of me getting pressured to not murder innocent babies! Is this a great country or what? Now shut up and vote for me.

The other key quote: “Recognize this is the decision that will be made by the Supreme Court,” he said. “The Democrats try and make this a political issue every four years, but this is a matter in the courts. It’s been settled for some time in the courts.”

He’s going to betray prolifers. He’s not even subtle. Indeed, he’s already in the process of betraying them. The whole matter is a “distraction” for him as the article makes clear and, as far as he’s concerned, it’s already been settled for some time. Prolifers who place their hope in this guy are deluding themselves. They should stop wasting time and energy pressuring other prolifers to shut about this guy’s obvious duplicity and instead start threatening this ticket within an inch of their lives if they don’t comply with prolife demands.

  • Scott

    Go see 2016, Obama’s America and I guarantee you will stop trashing Romney. Obama is pure evil and he needs to go. Romney is the only person who can defeat him and what he has in store for America. No true pro lifer will try to defend Romney’s deficiencies on life issues, but if it is between him and Obama. No brainer.

    • Ted Seeber

      You are the second person who has said that to me. While I admit 2016 is well researched; it is still a science fiction projection. It wasn’t written by a time traveler.

  • Rusty

    Is it fair to say that Paul Ryan supports Romney’s positions on exceptions for rape and incest? He’s second on the ticket. Romney will be the boss. He’s made clear his positions, and he’s consistently voted pro-life. I’ve no doubt that if in the position to influence Romney, I’d rather have Ryan there as #2 than someone like Gov. Christie.

    • Mark Shea

      Yes. It is perfectly fair:

      Romney campaign spokeswoman Amanda Henneberg wrote:

      “Governor Romney and Congressman Ryan disagree with Mr. Akin’s statement, and a Romney-Ryan administration would not oppose abortion in instances of rape.”

      That’s the official stand of the ticket. Ryan then gives “personally opposed” press conference to distance himself from his own policies and mollify prolifers who want to go on deluding themselves that he didn’t really mean it. But the official policy remains the official policy. His *function* on the ticket is to sucker prolifers into thinking Romney cares about them. And it’s working beautifully.

      • enness

        I see the two parts of that statement separately, and I also don’t think it is the smoking gun you think it is. I guess I’m ‘deluded’?

    • Chris

      Shouldn’t we be objectively concerned for Paul Ryan’s soul? Or is defeating Obama a fair trade for eternal life? We’d have to admit that we’re okay with Paul Ryan supporting grave evil and consequently jeopardizing his salvation if we keep defending his participation in this campaign.

      If Paul Ryan is really against rape/abortion, then he’s lying about being okay with it, and doing so for the sake of obtaining power. Either way, there are some contradictions in Ryan that should trouble us.

  • http://www.rosariesforlife.com Dave

    Yeah, Romney has already signaled (for those who read carefully) that he won’t do anything about abortion. I accept that he is better than Obama, just because we are part of his base, so he might throw us an occasional bone. And MAYBE with a Miers-style outcry every time there is a SCOTUS justice to be appointed, we could get decent judges out of him. Hopefully, he would reverse the overseas abortion funding. That’s about all we can expect.

    Personally, I’m not even convinced he will get rid of Obamacare.

    I don’t agree that Ryan is “supporting” his position, though.

    • enness

      Yeah, same here. I suppose one could say he should have turned down the place on the ticket, but that was his decision to make, and without knowing what his thought process was I’m not prepared to say he was wrong.

  • Richard Johnson

    “I accept that he is better than Obama, just because we are part of his base, so he might throw us an occasional bone.”

    Come back in four years if Romney and let’s examine that statement. I predict that Obromneycare will still be in place, the HHS mandate will still be in place, and little if anything will have been done on abortion.

    I also predict that folks like you will still be telling us we have to vote for Romney lest the other lizard win.

    • http://www.rosariesforlife.com Dave

      “Folks like me”

      Where did you get the idea that I am a Romney supporter? Saying “better than Obama” (which almost anyone could do) certainly doesn’t mean I’m a supporter. I mostly agree with you about what would likely happen after four years of Romney, though I think it likely (though by no means guaranteed) that the HHS mandate would be removed.

    • Chris

      Obamacare will still be in place for the sole reason it first requires Congress to repeal it; and neither side –Democrat or Republican — will relinquish the massive injection of power the Supreme Court gave them political cover to wield against us muppets.

    • Richard Johnson

      “Folks like you” refers to those who continually stand at the side of the table begging for scraps after a quadrennial “that’s a good boy” from the politicos. I see it on both sides of the aisle, and it is disgusting.

      Mark posted a very good piece today about the immense buyers’ remorse those on the left have regarding Obama. Hope misplaced.

      You, and the others who point at Romney/Ryan and begin a sentence with “hopefully” without hearing *anything* definitive in which to place that hope are setting yourselves up for the same buyers’ remorse that the Obama supporters feel today.

      I’m sure everyone remembers the GOP platforms that called for the passage of a human life amendment. I believe one of the first platforms to have such a call was the 1980 platform. How many times have the GOP members of Congress, when in the majority in a given house, brought said amendment to the floor for a vote? Anyone?

      If you are seriously placing any hope in the Romney/Ryan team to do anything meaningful regarding abortion (other than use it again in 2014 and 2016 to mobilize the pro-life base), your hope is misplaced.

      • Dave

        Richard,
        I’m not currently planning on voting for Romney/Ryan, though I’d give it more consideration if there was a realistic chance that R/R could win my state.

        I think it’s realistic to think that Romney would get rid of the overseas abortion funding, since all previous GOP Presidents have done that (and the Dems always put it back when they get in.) Other than that, I have no expectations whatsoever that Romney would do anything about abortion. His SCOTUS appointments would be better than Obama’s horrid ones, but we’d have to put a lot of political pressure to bear to get anyone better than a Kennedy type, IMO.

      • enness

        Calling for such an amendment in the ’80s wasn’t meaningful? I think that’s easy for you to say.

    • enness

      Predict all you want. Even knowing someone’s record doesn’t make the future certain. I think he will probably be awful, just like I thought McCain would be awful. Obama has been more shockingly awful than even I expected.

  • vickie

    “I’m in favor of abortion being legal in the case of rape and incest, and the health and life of the mother.”

    As a reminder the “health of a the mother” clause pretty much guts any ban, because they can always use psychological issues as health reasons.

    • Ted Seeber

      The only case of “for the health of the mother” that I accept is triage- and for that, when it comes to psychological reasons, you always have the possibility of putting the mother in a straight jacket until she gives birth.

  • Chris

    Obama = Camel Non-Filtered
    Romney = Marlboro Light

    The only difference is, like Camel cigarettes, Obama doesn’t hide the fact he wants you dead. Romney , Like Marlboro Light, would like you to think he’s a healthy alternative, but he’ll put you in the same grave over a slightly longer period of time.

    • http://www.rosariesforlife.com Dave

      Very good analogy. Very similar to the one about both speeding over a cliff….only the speed at which we go over varies.

  • Rosemarie

    +J.M.J+

    >>>The other key quote: “Recognize this is the decision that will be made by the Supreme Court,” he said.
    >>>“The Democrats try and make this a political issue every four years, but this is a matter in the courts. It’s
    >>>been settled for some time in the courts.”
    >>>
    >>>He’s going to betray prolifers.

    Or maybe he’s talking about the separation of powers. What do we reasonably expect a Truly-True Pro-life Prez to do – overturn Roe v. Wade? Sorry, no can do; only the Judicial Branch has the power to do that, not the Executive. Would he pass a Human Life Amendment? Nope, that would the Legislative Branch’s job.

    Maybe Romney’s point is that, every election year the Dems raise a ruckus over the GOP candidate’s alleged desire to end all abortion, just to scare up more votes for their side. Yet that’s not much more than a cynical fear tactic, since ending abortion is not within the power of any POTUS. Sadly, Roe v. Wade did effectively “settle” the matter, at least until that ruling is (hopefully) overturned or perhaps cancelled out by a Human Life Amendment some time in the future. In the meantime, the Executive Branch can only do so much to advance the pro-life cause; unilaterally ending Roe is one thing it really can’t do.

    We’re about to elect a President, not a despot. Even the most pro-life Prez in the world wouldn’t be able to simply end legalized abortion by fiat; the US Gov’t just doesn’t work that way.

    • Chris

      The presidency is still a bully pulpit. Whether or not he would technically be able to do anything directly about abortion, it’s his prerogative to jawbone public opinion and Congress and SCOTUS until the cows come home. Obama practically shamed Roberts into siding with Obamacare. This is red meat electoral material . If he’s already parsing his responses, it belies any authentic passion he might have for the right to life.

      • Rosemarie

        +J.M.J+

        Bully pulpit or no, even if a president does jawbone public opinion until the cows come home, this is not what will end legalized abortion in America. I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again, the solution is not in politics. At best, politicians could move to limit abortions in various ways, which is why we should vote pro-life rather than pro-choice, since the latter will try to maximize abortion “rights” and even persecute the pro-life movement. Yet even those pro-life politicians are not the ultimate answer. Pro-lifers on the ground must pray and work to close abortion mills, run crisis pregnancy centers and do all they can to change hearts and minds on the matter. The solution will ultimately be a spiritual and social one, not political. Even if we had the most pro-life prez ever in the history of the country, Scripture would still stand when it says, “put not your trust in princes….”

        • Chris

          I understand that jawboning, in itself, doesn’t get it done. But if a presidential candidate indicates he won’t even try to use his position as influence, I can’t believe his authenticity.

          This tells us more about who Mitt Romney ISN’T, rather than who he is.

          • Rosemarie

            +J.M.J+

            Like I said, only time will tell how much he will do or omit, if he is elected. In the end, though, I guess I believe that the main purpose of government is to rein in evil as much as possible so that the citizens are free to do good. So if Romney is elected and does what he can to restrict abortion and allow pro-lifers the freedom to change the culture, that will be a good thing.

    • Mark Shea

      Nope. “I’m in favor of abortion being legal in the case of rape and incest, and the health and life of the mother”… means “I’m in favor of the judgment rendered in Roe v. Wade.

      • Rosemarie

        +J.M.J+

        I guess time will tell what he would do. If he is elected and does what little a president can to curtail abortion, I will be happy. If not, I will be disappointed. Yet I still think he is speaking mainly about the separation of powers in that quote.

  • Rosemarie

    +J.M.J+

    Okay, I have a question. Let’s fantasize for a second that, when Romney gets up in front of the GOP convention to accept the nomination, he will state that while he was personally in favor of abortion being legal in the case of rape and incest, and the health and life of the mother, as president he would defer to the pro-life constituency in the GOP and do all he could to limit abortion through executive orders, appointing pro-life justices, etc. Would it be okay for us to vote for him, then?

    Remember, his personal opinion isn’t 100% morally pure, yet he still pledges that he would still work to restrict abortion and make it as rare as possible. Basically the reverse of the tired old “I’m personally opposed BUT…” line we hear all the time. And let’s say we have every reason to believe him when he pledges that. Would it be okay to vote for a politician in that situation?

    • Rosemarie

      +J.M.J+

      Mind you, I’m not saying he will do that at the convention. This is just a hypothetical question.

    • Mark Shea

      He’s already answered that: “Recognize this is the decision that will be made by the Supreme Court…The Democrats try and make this a political issue every four years, but this is a matter in the courts. It’s been settled for some time in the courts.” He has no intention whatsoever of challenging this settled matter. He will not do “all he can”. He *may* do a couple of cosmetic thing, just so he can tel prolifers, “Shut up. What do you want? The moon?” and then set about doing what really interests him, which is servicing Mammon and Empire. Prolifers need to face the fact that right now is the window of opportunity to put pressure on this ticket, not the time to shout down those who are pointing out how clearly duplicitous RR are.

      • enness

        If they’re duplicitous, what good will pressure do anyway?

    • Ted Seeber

      He’d get my vote if he did that. But what we really need is a Congress brave enough to pass a legal definition of a person.

      • Rosemarie

        +J.M.J+

        So, (if I may play devil’s advocate here) is it then okay to vote for someone who is not 100% morally correct as long as he votes against his personally-held beliefs in the “right” way?

        • Ted Seeber

          I’d have problems trusting such an individual, but then again, I have problems trusting anybody.

          So yes.

  • Rosemarie

    +J.M.J+

    Like I said above, “this is a matter in the courts” could very well mean “the Executive Branch can’t overrule the decision of the Judicial Branch,” which is quite true. If he becomes president he will *not* be able to overturn Roe v. Wade but he *will* be able to do as past presidents have done – issue executive orders limiting funding for abortions, banning abortions in military hospitals, etc. If he does what he can do with his limited powers then that is all we can hope from him.

    Yet you sidestepped the question, so let me restate it. If *any* future GOP presidential candidate states that, while he was personally in favor of abortion being legal in certain cases, yet as president he would defer to the pro-life constituency in the GOP and do all he could to limit abortion through executive orders, appointing pro-life justices, etc., and we have every reason to believe him when he pledges that, would it be okay to vote for a politician in that situation? Even if his personal opinion on abortion isn’t 100% morally pure.

  • Richard Johnson

    “If *any* future GOP presidential candidate states that, while he was personally in favor of abortion being legal in certain cases, yet as president he would defer to the pro-life constituency in the GOP and do all he could to limit abortion through executive orders, appointing pro-life justices, etc., and we have every reason to believe him when he pledges that, would it be okay to vote for a politician in that situation? Even if his personal opinion on abortion isn’t 100% morally pure.”

    Look up the term “celibate homosexual” and you will find your answer there.

    • Rosemarie

      +J.M.J+

      A celibate homosexual accepts the moral teachings of the Church and tries to live by them with God’s help, despite the fact that same-sex attraction is pulling him or her in the other direction. I’m talking about a hypothetical politician who does *not* accept the moral teaching of the Church on abortion yet agrees to vote in line with it anyway. They’re not quite the same thing. The former is acting in concord with personally-held moral beliefs while the latter is not.

  • Jason

    Thank you Mr. Shea. I have given up on the idea that the RNC takes the abortion issue seriously and will protest both major parties this election. I think it would be nice to see fellow Catholics and other Christians work on getting their local states to just flat out nullify Roe V Wade and make abortion illegal in their states. It would be a start untill the federal government got its house in order.

    • enness

      As great as that sounds, it won’t happen while Roe is intact.

  • Jason

    Roe V Wade is unconstitutional and the Tenth Amendment grants to the states the power to nullify unconstitutional laws. So any State could nullify Roe V Wade today for their State. It was never the framer’s intentions to give the federal government the final constitutional say in passing laws, that power is in each State. The two major parties are abortion parties and the changes will be bottom up, not top down.


CLOSE | X

HIDE | X