Mitt Romney’s Stance on Abortion, from the National Pro-Life Alliance
Unfortunately, the case of Mitt Romney is typical of too many politicians.
It shows that you and I must never stop putting heat on all the politicians to support sweeping pro-life protections, because all too often their positions seem to change when, either as a candidate, or as an office holder, he or she believes that the prevailing wind has shifted.
Now I believe wholeheartedly in St. Paul’s “Road to Damascus” conversion, but I am not so sure we can really put much stock into “Road to the Presidency” conversions.
Just how many times should a candidate be allowed to change his position — and which conversion is real?
Especially on something so black and white as abortion.
Now, true pro-lifers like you and me can understand the conversion from pro-abortion to pro-life, but how do we explain the reverse? Yet that recent Mitt Romney book claims he decided to do just that during his ’94 bid to win the Massachusetts Senate.
After one pollster opined that a pro-life position would be a political liability for a statewide race in Massachusetts, Mitt decided to cast off his Church’s “burdensome pro-life position” and embrace wholeheartedly the Roe v. Wade position that legalized abortion-on-demand for the full nine months of pregnancy.
To seal the deal with the abortion lobby of Massachusetts he even sent Planned Parenthood a donation!
Then, during a debate with Ted Kennedy for Senate, Mitt Romney actually looked right into the camera and said, with full conviction, “I believe that Roe v. Wade has been the law for 20 years, that we should sustain and support it, and I sustain and support that law and the right of a woman to make that choice.”
Well . . . apparently Mitt had a pro-life change for the better 10 years later.
He credits a November 2004 meeting with a Harvard stem-cell researcher, while he was still Governor, as the moment that the scales fell from his eyes and he “realized” that the unborn needed his protection.
Yet, just how deep the change he had is still questionable.
Just months after his 2004 change of heart, he appointed a lifetime pro-abortion advocate to the Massachusetts bench.
Then, in 2005, after flopping around for a while on the issue of the so called “abortion pill” he flipped again, and finally came down on the wrong side — not only legalizing but expanding state subsidies to pay for even more abortions pills.
But I suppose the most worrisome insight into his true pro-life convictions occurred in 2006.
Mitt Romney, following his success in forcing RomneyCare on all Bay Staters, expanded abortion services in his bill, and required that the MassHealth Payment Policy Board always have one member appointed by Planned Parenthood of Massachusetts.
He shrugs off that part when questioned about the plan he set in motion.
God bless him if he really has converted. Every pro-lifer will have to decide that for themselves.
But it seems that for many politicians the timing always coincides with their run for political office.
That’s why it’s so vital we keep the pressure on Mr. Romney to support a full pro-life agenda, including the Life at Conception Act, all the way until November 6 and beyond.
Since so many candidates blow back and forth with the wind — right now — while the candidates are looking for votes — is the best time to make sure that the wind is blowing in our direction.
And given Mr. Romney’s tendency to sway with the political winds, it’s even more important that you, and other National Pro-Life Alliance members, insist that candidates you support for the U.S. House and Senate pledge to support and cosponsor the Life at Conception Act.
By supporting the Life at Conception Act as a candidate litmus test, we can improve the positions and the pro-life resolve of all the candidates.