Romney to Prolifers: I Smack You Around Because I Love You, Baby

Romney to Prolifers: I Smack You Around Because I Love You, Baby October 10, 2012

Latest bulletin to the prolife movement that this utter fake doesn’t give a rip about you or the unborn and delivers casual slaps in their faces because he knows he can:

As if further evidence were needed, pro-lifers just received another reality check that Mitt Romney doesn’t give a discarded gray hair for their cause.  He toldThe Des Moines Register today that “there’s no legislation with regards to abortion that I’m familiar with that would become part of my agenda.”

Damage control was immediate, no surprise, and I doubt pro-lifers will abandon him for this remark.  His opponent’s a real believer in reproductive rights, so Romney can flip-flop and self-contradict and play the moderate here and still appear preferable to their eyes.

We voters can be so easy to manipulate.

What incidents like this–and Romney’s partying at the home of the morning after pill manufacturer, and Romney bare-faced lie that he governed as a prolifer, and Romney’s statement that he supports abortion “for the health of the mother” (i.e. always), and Romney’s surrogates assuring us that he won’t do a damn thing about Roe–what all these incidents mean is that Romney knows that prolifers pose no challenge to him whatsoever and will bend over for whatever betrayals he chooses to dish out–and like it.  “Prolife” leaders act like enabling abused spouses, always afraid he will abandon us, always angry at family members who try to warn us the guy has no respect for us, always ready to blame the ‘troublemakers” in the prolife movement for lack of loyalty to Romney instead of taking a rolling pin to the philandering duplicitous creep who is making exceedingly clear he is going to stab us in the back.

It really is like an abusive marriage.  Prolifers should be threatening this guy within an inch of his political life right now and putting the fear of God into him if he betrays them–threatening to walk out, take the kids, and make life a living hell for him if he pulls this crap one more time.  Instead, they are groveling to him as though they are his slaves and not he their job applicant.  Yeah.  I get it.  Obama hates prolifers.  So what?  Why does that mean we give Romney a pass instead of laying down the law with him?  This is the moment in his career where he is most vulnerable to pressure.  So apply pressure and extract from him the policy proposals we want. Threaten to destroy his party in the midterms if he sleeps around behind your back. Stop shushing people who are warning about what a fraud this guy is when he blathers about his “conversion”.  Stop being played.

"I guess straight up, I can't see the big problem with admiring Peterson or finding ..."

Of Dogs, Fleas, and Jordan Peterson
"The Catholic hatred of the Puritans and the first Thanksgiving has always puzzled me, especially ..."

Thanksgiving and the Puritan Paradox
"Thank you very much for the link! That’s reassuring to hear! One criticism I’ve often ..."

Of Dogs, Fleas, and Jordan Peterson
"Maybe Arroyo is really Pee Wee, have you ever seen them together? :-)"

Today’s New Facts I Learned About ..."

Browse Our Archives

Follow Us!

What Are Your Thoughts?leave a comment
  • Nonymous

    Wow — it’s a Clueless Contest about who’s running the most inane, hollow and stupid campaign. Romney does a Jim Carrey immitation from Liar Liar and thinks he can walk it back by having campaign stooges say he didn’t say what he said and if he did say it he didn’t mean it. Can anybody trust this man about anything?

    President Obama’s campaign sees Romney and raises him by claiming that Romney really doesn’t mean what he said and really will do something about life issues. Apparently the re-elect strategy requires them to protect Romney’s base before they go after moderate voters on the grounds that Romney only *seems* focused on the economy.

    Either way, it seems that our country is going to be run by people who couldn’t find their asses with both hands and a friendly Labrador retriever.

  • Harpy

    Preach it brother …

  • I saw this break last night. My first thought was that he really doesn’t want to stay ahead does he.

    • rakowskidp

      Dave G., that’s precisely what I thought after reading the article. His debate performance generated much-needed momentum and bolstered his pro-life credentials (so I’ve heard – I didn’t watch), and it seems that now he’s determined to throw it all in the garbage. What a fool!

  • Pathfinder

    It was the Democrats who elected their hollow man, who they projected all their desires on, in ‘0; some of them have now learned the hard way, much to their chagrin, and the only way they can be rid of him is if he loses to their opponents.
    Looks like the Republicans want their turn at that bat.

    • Blog Goliard

      Romney’s not a hollow man so much as he’s Organization Man.

      But yeah…either way, if you’re expecting him to have fundamental principles that undergird what he does regardless of the context, you’ll be disappointed. The “organization” when he ran for office in Massachusetts was overwhelmingly Democrat and pro-choice, so theirs were his principles. The “organization” in the primary was a Tea Party-inflected Republican electorate, so theirs were his principles. The “organization” in the general election are moderate 2008 Obama voters whom he has to coax over to his side…and this is where things get tricky, because their principles are harder to identify and seize on, but he’s doing his best.

      Identify the “organization” once he’s in the White House, and you’ll be able to predict how he’ll govern.

      • Pathfinder

        Well, that’s a ringing endorsement to vote for him. Yeah, I’m being sarcastic, but serious at the same time.
        That’s like the Democrats in ’08: we don’t know really what Obama stands for, if anything, but he’ll probably preside over the White House in whatever way his special interests want him to.
        And here we all are 4 years later…I’m guessing that “the American people” or “the republic” isn’t the organization that matters…seeing as how only a person with principles would consider those things above all other considerations.

  • George W. Bush gave Planned Parenthood 2.2 billion dollars during his presidency:

    We’ve been fooled before.

  • Andy

    Romney’s core is money – although I do agree with BG in that he is an organization man – the organization has to make money for him and for people like him. As much as folks look at Ryan and an Ayn Rand devotee, I think that Romney is a sub-rosa devotee of Ayn Rand – his 47% comment, his comments dealing with “the job creators: that did not create jobs with their tax-reduction among many seem to come from the John Galt crowd (my interpretation).
    His stance on social/moral issues seems to fluctuate – as Ted Kennedy dubbed him ( a source I know not well liked) Multiple-choice Mitt. His own advisors said he was like an etch-a-sketch. No one should be shocked. His only concern with social issues will be how they affect making money – nothing more, nothing less. To hold out hope that he will appoint justices that will strike down Roe v. Wade is true only if these are the same justices that support his theories about making money.

  • Josh

    Anybody know of any good prolife legislation that will pass judicial scrutiny under the guiding legal precedents of Roe v Wade and Planned Parenthood v Casey?

    • Patrick

      Thanks for this, Josh. Thanks for taking a moment to do some *critical thinking* on what’s actually been said. There aren’t three pro-lifers in the country that can answer your question in the affirmative, and yet because Romney has given this some thought instead of just “getting the vapors” every time abortion is mentioned…

      • actually, there is some legislation…see the thread immediately below. But other than that, yeah.

        Still, Romney should have realized that his statement wouldn’t sound good, and clarified. The fact that he didn’t is the main problem.

        • Patrick

          “actually, there is some legislation…see the thread immediately below.”

          I hadn’t heard of the R. Paul proposal. How many people do you think have actually *read* the proposed bill, to see if it’s any good? Or how many people do you think understand exactly where Congress can take away the Court’s jurisdiction on a matter? Probably not many.

          And yet because Romney doesn’t emote and writhe on the floor in pain when abortion is mentioned and is unwilling to support a bill the text of which less than .0001% of the country has read to see if it’s any good, not to mention not being sure if it would pass Constitutional muster *if he did read it and if it was a good bill*, he’s unfit for office and assuredly not a real pro-lifer.

          By the way, everybody: *Planned Parenthood v. Casey* is the operative standard on abortion jurisprudence, not *Roe*. The “undue burden” test put forward by former Justice O’Connor comes from that case. Now, the fact that even pro-lifers think *Roe* is the important case on whether legislation restricting abortion is unconstitutional and not *Planned Parenthood* just goes to show you how clever all of the *real pro-lifers* are and what Romney has to work with here.

    • Arnold

      I agree with both Patrick and Dave. Romney could have phrased it a bit better but the fact is that Roe v. Wade blocks any legislation that would ban abortion. Romney’s campaign has confirmed he would support any pro life legislation that Congress might pass and he will overturn Obama’s pro abortion executive measures. The Mandate too.

      • Andy

        The problem is that Romney himself could/should have said this and we should not have to wait for his campaign to tell us what he really means. The issue with Romney is that he seems to say what he thinks will get him elected – just like all politicians – so who knows what he stands for? The lack of clarity in his statements in so man venues scares me as much Obama does.

        • Sean O

          Romney stands for NOTHING. Romney is only about money. Romney knows he cant serve 2 masters. He aggressively serves Mammon.

          Knowing this, evaluate Romney. See how the confusion disappears.

    • Ted Seeber

      Roe V. Wade, in the comments, tells you what legislation will work to eliminate abortion in this country.

      Whether you can find the politicos who actually WANT to protect the unborn as persons is an entirely different question however.

  • The only legislation that could make any difference as long as Roe v Wade stands is something similar to the legislation Ron Paul proposed to strip the courts of jurisdiction on abortion. But we know that 99% of so-called pro-life politicians don’t have anywhere close to the amount of guts required to push something like that forward.

    So, they can just keep pro-life voters on the reservation by bringing up that dream of overturning Roe vs. Wade. Somehow, it never seems to happen, even though the GOP appointed the first 6 judges after Roe vs. Wade was decided, and 8 of the last 10 (before Obummer’s two horrible appointments)

    • Will

      “…legislation Ron Paul proposed to strip the courts of jurisdiction on abortion”

      It sounds like Ron Paul was proposing something that would not work.

      Article III
      Section. 2.
      The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority;–to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls;–to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction;–to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party;–to Controversies between two or more States;– between a State and Citizens of another State,–between Citizens of different States,–between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects.

      • Yeah, and if you read the next paragraph after the one you posted, it says, “In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction.. In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, WITH SUCH EXCEPTIONS, AND UNDER SUCH REGULATIONS as the Congress shall make.”

      • Blog Goliard

        No, Ron Paul is quite right. Case law and the overwhelming weight of Constitutional scholarship are behind him on this…as is the present Chief Justice. His memorandum on this issue, written when he was Special Assistant to the Attorney General in the Reagan administration, is a good summation of the argument in favor of jurisdiction-stripping…it can be found online at for those who care to pick through the precedents and legal reasoning.

  • Sam Schmitt

    OK, I get it that Romney is no divinely anointed pro-life hero and I’m not going to jump off a bridge if he doesn’t nominate Joe Schindler to the Supreme Court or overturn Roe v. Wade by executive order his first day in office. Do I have anyone’s permission to vote for him just so there’s a better chance that (for example) the Hyde amendment will be put back in place?

    • Will

      You do not need anyone’s permission. Vote your educated conscience.

    • Rosemarie


      Well, considering he can’t overturn Roe v. Wade by executive order, we shouldn’t be expecting that of him at all. As of now, I intend to vote for Romney, not because I think he is perfect or solidly pro-life or will single-handedly abolish abortion and fix all our country’s problems. I plan to vote for him because, based on what he has said and what the current POTUS has actually done, Romney is more likely than Obama to abolish the oppressive HHS mandate and pass some executive orders curbing abortion. As Peggy R notes below, “Romney said in that interview that he will re-instate Mexico City and defund PP”.

      Obama, OTOH, will absolutely not do those things in a million years, barring a Damascus Road conversion experience which I’m not going to hold my breath for. Four more years would be too dangerous for America, for a few dozen reasons.

      As I’ve said before, I never expect a POTUS to do away with legalized abortion since he just doesn’t have the power. It’s that old checks and balances thing we learned about in school long ago. In fact, if a pro-life prez ever tried to arrogate that level power to himself after taking office, I’d be unnerved by his actions. For the same reason we’re bothered by some of the powers that Bush grabbed and that Obama later expanded. Even if you agree with what he’s doing, that doesn’t mean a successor won’t use the same excuse to do something you don’t like. We don’t want the Presidency to become a tyranny.

    • Ted Seeber

      ” Do I have anyone’s permission to vote for him just so there’s a better chance that (for example) the Hyde amendment will be put back in place?”

      Only if you’re convinced that the Etch-A-Sketch candidate will offer such a chance. Right now, I can’t say WHAT Romney’s position is, and neither can anybody else (including himself).

  • Peggy R

    I am as dismayed as you, but Romney said in that interview that he will re-instate Mexico City and defund PP…I hope the GOP sends him a budget that does so. The president does not act alone. There really is only so much the federal elected officials can do on this. We need state laws that restrict abortion to filter up to SCOTUS. Mississippi has effectively ended abortion in its state (for now at least), by imposing ordinary hospital standards for safety and cleanliness (I can’t think of the word I want here..!).

    Mitt is not a social issues man. He is out to lunch on that realm of political matters. It doesn’t interest him. The economy does. That is a flaw in him, indeed.

    • JCAHO standards, I think, is the term you were trying to find. I’m not certain what term you were looking for, but if JCAHO took a look at your average abortion mill, it’d shut down in a heartbeat, from all the accounts I’ve seen thus far.

  • Michael F.

    Any Catholic who plans to vote for Romney should be slamming the local campaign headquarters and demanding answers. They need to know that if Romney goes wobbly or plays much more etch-a-sketch that we’ll bolt. He needs to know that if he’s elected and doesn’t follow through in rescinding the HHS mandate or reinstating the Mexico City Policy then we’ll turn on him. I could care less about Romney, personally. I care about winning the war against abortion. I care about stopping the war against Catholic conscience (HHS). I care about protecting marriage. Romney is weak and unreliable – but I believe he is better than the alternative – at least for now. Much more of this and he won’t be a significant enough improvement to make me vote for him. I agree with Mark – hold his feet to the fire. Hard.

    • I am so danged proud of you right now I could spit!!!

      • Michael F.

        LOL – that has been my position for a while, Hezekiah. I’ve never been a blind Romney supporter. I’ve been a “hold my nose” Romney supporter.

        That said….

        I’ve spent a bit more time looking at and considering what Romney said. I still think strong pressure should continue to be brought to bear on him to make sure he doesn’t go wobbly. He’s a politician. But I think it’s also fair to point out that his promises in regard to abortion have never been about promoting a “legislative agenda” or particular legislation against abortion, per se (i.e. proposing new federal laws against abortion). His promises have related primarily to executive orders. Those are not part of a “legislative agenda”. For example, he has repeatedly stated that he will reinstate the Mexico City Policy so that we stop funding abortion world-wide as we are currently doing under Obama. And he will rescind the immoral HHS mandate that forces Catholics and others to provide coverage for abortifacient drugs (and more). Also, he supports defunding Planned Parenthood, the nation’s largest abortion chain. He and his campaign have repeatedly stated all of this.

        He has also stated that he believes Roe v Wade should be overturned in the courts (he has said he will appoint non-activisit, “strict constructionist judges”, which means judges who don’t read a “right to abortion” into the constitution) and then have the issue of abortion turned **back to the states**, where the states can take individual action to limit or outlaw abortion. This is exactly what conservative states that are governed by Republicans are actually **doing** today. See:

        • Michael F.

          [In other words, this doesn’t appear to have been a true flip-flop, imo]

        • Michael F.

          And as Fr. West has recently noted, Romney clarified what he said here:

          “I think I’ve said time and again that I’m a pro-life candidate and I’ll be a pro-life president. The actions I’ll take immediately is to remove funding for Planned Parenthood. It will not be part of my budget. And also I’ve indicated that I will reverse the Mexico City position of the president. I will reinstate the Mexico City policy which keeps us from using foreign aid for abortions overseas.”

  • thomas tucker

    As I’ve said elsewhere, politics is the art of compromise. If you accept compromise, no one is going to agree with you 100%. If you watn to elect someone who aagrees with you 100%, then vote for yourself. But don’t be surprised if you don’t win.

    • My problem is more that I don’t think that the candidates for high office generally believe in anything, except getting elected and accruing more power to themselves and their network of elites.

    • Will

      Have to agree with you. But we are probably on the wrong blog.

    • Mark Shea

      I don’t want 100% agreement. I just want somebody who is committed to grave intrinsic evil worthy of the everlasting fires of hell.

      • Will

        “I just want somebody who is committed to grave intrinsic evil worthy of the everlasting fires of hell.”

        What do you mean? Is there a word missing (“committed to eliminating a grave intrinsic evil”)?

        • *is should be ‘isn’t’ (this isn’t the first time Mark has written this)

      • thomas tucker

        Well, if that’s what you want in a President, you’re not going to get it. Unless, as noted by a commentor below, you/we change the culture from within.

        • Mark Shea

          I agree completely. Hope you and the fam are well!

          • thomas tucker

            Doing well. I’m taking my 11 y/o with me to Rome next week- our bishop is leading a pilgrimage to Rome for the canonization of Blessed Kateri. That might just be a good time for us to to be praying for her intercession in turning our country and its leaders around in support of Life!

            • Mark Shea

              Fun! Have a great time!

  • rachel

    I’m not surprised. He is not pro-life. He has never been pro-life. He is pandering at this point and flip flopping as usual. Again, why should he be different from how he was in the primaries when most pro-lifers were going for Sanctorum (who is only pro-life when it comes to American babies. If they are non-white/non-Christian, he’s fine with killing them)

    • B.E. Ward

      But.. but.. the people that get to speak on EWTN say he’s pro-life!

  • vickie

    Another aspect is the presidency as bully pulpit. What if we had a president who actually attended the March for Life and who said, our laws, unjust though they are, will take a long time to overturn but I will never give up the fight for the restoration of the sanctity of human life in this country. We need to change hearts as well as laws. The president has the recognition to do this.

  • Chris

    HHS Mandate? My Vice President said I’d do what? Hm. I’ll get back to you.

  • Mark S. (not for Shea)

    Anyone who thinks that abortion is going to be stopped in this country in the political arena is just lining up for the football again. Neither party cares about this.

    Prayer and changing the culture from within is the only thing going to change it.

    But since this is a political discussion …

    It’s only proving my conviction correct that I’ll be voting Third Party this election. Neither Obama nor Romney will get my vote.

    • Michael F.

      “Anyone who thinks that abortion is going to be stopped in this country in the political arena is just lining up for the football again. Neither party cares about this. Prayer and changing the culture from within is the only thing going to change it.”

      Don’t you think the same could have been (and probably was) said by some in regard to segregation and slavery? The law is a pedagogue, too. It took a long time for the political forces to coalesce sufficiently to bring about the greatest and most complete political action in these historical cases, but it did eventually happen. Witness what happened over time to the culture after Brown vs. the Board of Education, The Civil Rights Act of 1964, Griswold vs. the state of CT, Roe v. Wade to the culture. And there were smaller initiatives leading the the greater.

      We’re seeing that now even on abortion. Republicans tend to view it as a matter for states to handle. And, indeed, at the state level they are aggressively challenging the culture of death and undermining the unfettered right to kill unborn children:

      I don’t see the need to draw such a sharp distinction between “changing the culture from within” and politics. Certainly, it’s far more than just politics, but don’t you think politics is at least a *part* of that process?

  • Tim S.

    I came up with a new rendering of our two dominant political parties- the Demoncrats and Repugnantcans..the world has swallowed up our mainstream political process along with our mainstream media, educational elites- add to that our market economy and most potent cultural paradigm-shapers- we need prayer and reflection with political expression and action ongoing but with clear analysis- not the clouded-over ideological bias that finds Catholics lining up as self-proclaimed Liberals and Conservatives following the trail of false gods – idolatry of markets/self/sex/nationalism/power/pragmatism whatever..I’m a Catholic I like the social doctrine of the Church – as delivered through the Magisterium- as my moral guide through the murky political waters. Lonely and not alone.

    • Tim S.

      Lonely but not alone I should have said.

  • Melanie

    We are polarized by these two parties by their rhetoric, when in deed, they are few – if any – differences.

    “There is nothing which I dread so much as a division of the republic into two great parties, each arranged under its leader, and concerting measures in opposition to each other. This, in my humble apprehension, is to be dreaded as the greatest political evil under our Constitution.”

    -John Adams

  • Richard Johnson

    The only thing you can guarantee about a Romney Presidency is that he will mention abortion frequently beginning September 2016.