Former Massachusetts Governor and current GOP candidate for president Mitt Romney has been doing his level best to redefine in his favor his past stance on abortion and to push his newfound anti-abortion position as he continues his campaign. Romney appeared on the August 12th edition of Fox News Sunday to face host Chris Wallace who confronted the Governor with several video clips of Romney’s professing far more support for abortion just 5 years ago than he now claims to have espoused then, or that he claims he currently espouses.
Romney has been desperately trying to distance himself from his past abortion stance and has been lately saying he was always “personally pro-life” and was mistaken to begrudgingly allow for pro-abortion support while he was Governor. Also, during the Sunday ABC Republican debates in August, Romney tried a mae culpa of sorts on his past stance calling it the “greatest mistake of his life.” Romney told George Stephanopoulos, “My greatest mistake was when I first ran for office being deeply opposed to abortion but saying I’d support the current law, which was pro-choice and effectively a pro-choice position. That was just wrong.”
But, Chris Wallace presented Romney with proof that pretty much devastates Romney’s claim that he never supported abortion and that he only bowed to his Massachusetts constituency’s desires. Wallace played two video clips where Romney went much further then any begrudging support, both of which in fact, seemed more like active advocacy than any perfunctory support. After the clips, Wallace reminded Romney that “for eight years” he had said that he would “protect and respect a woman’s right to choose.”
Video Clip One transcript:
M. ROMNEY: I believe that abortion should be safe and legal in this country. I believe that since Roe v. Wade has been the law for 20 years that we should sustain and support it.
Video Clip Two transcript:
M. ROMNEY: I will preserve and protect a woman’s right to choose and am devoted and dedicated to honoring my word in that regard. I will not change any provisions of Massachusetts’s pro-choice laws.
But as Romney’s current explanation is that he was always “personally pro-life” but that he made a mistake not to say so in the past, he also said just last December that he has “grown” to his current position. This “grown” claim seems to make the lie to his more recent GOP debate claim of having “always personally opposed abortion.”
What is plain is that the evidence shows that Romney evolved from being a qualified abortion supporter as governor, to become a possible candidate claiming that he viewed abortion as wrong but supported it because those who voted for him by and large supported it, to an official candidate that says that he was always anti-abortion and regrets that he seemed to support it as governor. Its all hardly believable, but it does show a candidate who will say what he thinks his constituency wants to hear, at least on the issue of abortion.
Of course, these claims are hard to assess as who really knows what is in someone’s heart? Certainly his past statements seem much more as advocacy for abortion but who can really say what is in his heart today? We can quibble about the veracity and truth of those statements and still not be able to successfully arrive at the truth, granted. But, the most disingenuous claim Romney has made, and one that can be assessed for its truth, is his claim that he has grown in his abortion position just like Ronald Reagan did when Reagan was first confronted with the issue while Governor of California in 1967. Romney told Chris Wallace that as governor Reagan was “adamantly pro-choice,” and that Reagan “became pro-life as he experienced life,” and presumably as his governorship evolved.
Romney’s claim, however, is just patently false. Reagan’s most able biographer, Lou Cannon, has documented* that in contravention to Romney’s claim that Reagan was “adamantly pro-choice” Governor Reagan had never really given the abortion issue much thought before he took office. Cannon demonstrates that when Reagan was first confronted with abortion in 1967 he was unusually indecisive and had a difficult time deciding what he should do with a liberal abortion bill winding its way through the state house in Sacramento.
Cannon documents that after the abortion bill passed the California Senate, Reagan was asked by reporters during a press conference about his stance on the bill. When asked if he would sign the bill, Reagan answered, “I haven’t had time to really sit down and marshal my thoughts on that.” Such a reply certainly does not reveal an “adamant” position on the issue, as Romney claims Reagan held. Further, such indecision was not in any way a hallmark of the Reagan mode of operation.
In fact, Cannon writes that in 1968, the year after the bill passed, Reagan said that “those were awful weeks,” and that he would never have signed the bill if he had “been a more experienced governor.”
In light of the evidence it cannot be said that Reagan was ever an “adamant” pro-abortion supporter who later “grew” into an anti-abortion advocate. For Romney to invoke the spirit of Ronald Reagan in this way is a disgraceful attempt to co-opt the reputation of the most famous and successful politician of his age and an icon of the conservative movement to the aid of a candidate floundering on an issue. Mitt Romney’s abortion problem bears no resemblance at all to Ronald Reagan’s views “grown” or not.
Much can be said of Romney and his abortion problem. You can take him at his word that he “grew” into a more staunch pro-lifer or not. But one thing is absolutely sure; Mitt Romney is not like Ronald Reagan in any way, shape, manner or form.
A Transcript of Romney’s reply to Chris Wallace from Fox News Sunday, August 12th, 2007:
M. ROMNEY: Yes. Yeah, that’s right. And then when I became governor — I don’t know what’s so unusual about this, but when I became governor and when legislation was brought to my desk that dealt with life, and I sat down and I said, “Am I going to sign this? Because I personally oppose abortion. Am I going to sign this?”
And I brought in theologians. I brought in scientists, took it apart — this related to embryonic cloning. And I said, “I simply have to come down on the side of life,” and wrote an op-ed piece in the Boston Globe and said, “Look, here is why I am pro-life.”
And I laid out in my view that a civilized society must respect the sanctity of life. And you know what? I’m following in some pretty good footsteps.
It’s exactly what Ronald Reagan did. As governor, he was adamantly pro-choice. He became pro-life as he experienced life.
And the same thing happened with Henry Hyde and George Herbert Walker Bush. And so if there’s some people who can’t get over the fact that I’ve become pro-life, that’s fine.
But I’m not going to apologize for the fact that I am pro-life and that I was wrong before, in my view, and that I’ve taken the right course.
*Governor Reagan, His Rise to Power, by Lou Cannon, published in 2003 by Public Affairs, New York. Reference Chapter 16, pages 208 through 214.
Loading ...
6 users commented in " Romney Wrong That His Abortion Flip Flop Like Reagan’s "
Follow-up comment rss or Leave a TrackbackWell Mr. Huston, I think Mr. Romney’s abortion stance is well known at this point. This is a non-story. The real story here is that if Mr. Romney had changed in the other direction, from pro-life to pro-choice, he would be hailed as an enlighted conservative with all the lavish praise from the left. What hypocracy!
I suppose the conservatives in Massachusettes should just concede the state to the liberals instead of trying to run for office.
Mr. Romney has been doing the same thing that everyone else has been doing in politics – defining himself. Bill Clinton remains the master at that game.
So, you’d want Romney to be just like Clinton? A liar?
No Republican should vote for a Clinton wannabe, and no American should want such a liar as president.
Romney is a true conservative read this
An Open Letter Regarding Governor Mitt Romney
January 11, 2007
Dear conservative friends:
We hail from a broad spectrum of organizations dedicated to fighting for the pro-family agenda in Massachusetts. As you know, Mitt Romney became the governor of our state in 2003.
Since that time, we have worked closely with him and his excellent staff on that agenda. Some press accounts and bloggers have described Governor Romney in terms we neither have observed nor can we accept. To the contrary, we, who have been fighting here for the values you also hold, are indebted to him and his responsive staff in demonstrating solid social conservative credentials by undertaking the following actions here in Massachusetts:
• Staunchly defended traditional marriage. Governor Romney immediately and strongly condemned the 2003 court decision that legalized “same-sex marriage” in our state. More importantly, he followed up on that denunciation with action – action that saved our nation from a constitutional crisis over the definition of marriage. He and his staff identified and enforced a little-known 1913 law that allowed them to order local clerks not to issue marriage licenses to out-of-state couples. Absent this action, homosexual couples would surely have flooded into Massachusetts from other states to get “married” and then demanded that their home states recognize the “marriages,” putting the nation only one court decision away from nationalizing “same-sex marriage.”
• Worked hard to overturn “same-sex marriage” in the Commonwealth with considerable progress to date. In 2004 he lobbied hard, before a very hostile legislature, for a constitutional amendment protecting marriage – an amendment later changed by the
legislature to include civil unions, which the Governor and many marriage amendment
supporters opposed. Working with the Governor, we were successful in defeating this
amendment.
• Provided active support for a successful citizen petition drive in 2005 to advance a clean constitutional amendment defining marriage as the union of one man and one woman.
• Rallied thousands of citizens to focus public and media attention on the failure of
legislators, through repeated delays, to perform their constitutional obligation and vote on the marriage amendment.
• Filed suit before the Supreme Judicial Court. The Governor’s suit asked the court to
clarify the legislators’ duty to vote and failing that, to place the amendment on the 2008
ballot. That lawsuit, perhaps more than any other single action, was by all accounts
instrumental in bringing pressure on the legislators to vote. The vote ultimately was taken on January 2, 2007 and won legislative support – clearing a major hurdle in the three year effort to restore traditional marriage in the Commonwealth.
• Fought for abstinence education. In 2006, under Governor Romney’s leadership,
Massachusetts’ public schools began to offer a classroom program on abstinence from the
faith-based Boston group Healthy Futures to middle school students. Promoting the
program, Governor Romney stated, “I’ve never had anyone complain to me that their kids are not learning enough about sex in school. However, a number of people have asked me why it is that we do not speak more about abstinence as a safe and preventative health practice.”
• Affirmed the culture of life. Governor Romney has vetoed bills to provide access to the socalled “morning-after pill,” which is an abortifacient, as well as a bill providing for
expansive, embryo-destroying stem cell research. He vetoed the latter bill in 2005 because he could not “in good conscience allow this bill to become law.”
• Stood for religious freedom. Last year, Governor Romney was stalwart in defense of the right of Catholic Charities of Boston to refuse to allow homosexual couples to adopt children in its care. Catholic Charities was loudly accused of “discrimination,” but Governor Romney correctly pointed out that it is unjust to force a religious agency to violate the tenets of its faith in order to placate a special-interest group.
• Filed “An Act Protecting Religious Freedom” in the Massachusetts legislature to save
Catholic Charities of Boston and other religious groups from being forced to violate their
moral principles or stop doing important charitable work.
All of this may explain why John J. Miller, the national political reporter of National Review, has written that “a good case can be made that Romney has fought harder for social conservatives than any other governor in America, and it is difficult to imagine his doing so in a more daunting political environment.”
We are aware of the 1994 comments of Senate candidate Romney, which have been the subject of much recent discussion. While they are, taken by themselves, obviously worrisome to social conservatives including ourselves, they do not dovetail with the actions of Governor Romney from 2003 until now – and those actions have positively and demonstrably impacted the social climate of Massachusetts.
Since well before 2003, we have been laboring in the trenches of Massachusetts, fighting for the family values you and we share. It is difficult work indeed – not for the faint of heart. In this challenging environment, Governor Romney has proven that he shares our values, as well as our determination to protect them.
For four years, Governor Romney has been right there beside us, providing leadership on key issues – whether it was politically expedient to do so or not. He has stood on principle, and we have benefited greatly from having him with us.
It is clear that Governor Romney has learned much since 1994 – to the benefit of our movement and our Commonwealth. In fact, the entire nation has benefited from his socially conservative, pro-family actions in office. As we explained earlier, his leadership on the marriage issue helped prevent our nation from being plunged into even worse legal turmoil following the court decision that forced “gay marriage” upon our Commonwealth.
For that our country ought to be thankful. We certainly are.
Sincerely,
Rita Covelle
President, Morality in Media Massachusetts
Richard Guerriero
Immediate Past State Deputy, Massachusetts State Council, Knights of Columbus
Mary Ann Glendon
Learned Hand Professor of Law, Harvard Law School
Kristian Mineau
President, Massachusetts Family Institute
Dr. Roberto Miranda
President, COPAHNI Fellowship of Hispanic Pastors of New England
James Morgan
President, Institute for Family Development
Joseph Reilly
President, Massachusetts Citizens for Life
Thomas A. Shields
Chairman, Coalition for Family and Marriage
___________________________
Note: The signatories are all acting as individual citizens, and not as representatives of their respective organizations.
Organizational affiliations and titles appear for identification purposes only.
This is old news. It is a non-story. The man changed his position, get over it.
I changed my position on alot of things over the last seven years. I went froma leftist to a moderate to a conservative.
I trust Mitt Romney. He is the ebst candidate and he has my support.
There are a range of beliefs on abortion that vary more than just “pro-life vs. pro-choice”. Some think that women should be encouraged to have abortions whereas others feel it is wrong all the time no matter the circumstances. Romney’s belief has always been somewhere in the middle.
His stance is that abortion is wrong except in cases of rape and medical necessity. However, he has been slow to say it should be outlawed for fear of unsafe abortions by those who do it illegally. He receives heavy criticism from people on both sides of the fight. This in my opinion puts him right where he should be on the issue – middle of the road.
In the end, we should let his record speak for him and his record shows that he values life.
There are several “strawmen” in your portrayal of Romney. Romney never referred to himself as “pro-choice.” He has taken a position that is “effectively pro-choice” which is what he has said all along. Romney was always personally against abortion, why else would he be criticized so strongly by Kennedy in ’94 saying Romney was “multiple choice?” Furthermore, Romney’s point in saying that he has acted like Reagan in abortion isn’t to say they came from exactly the same views before their conversion but that both did in fact convert from being effectively pro-choice to pro-life.
Leave A Reply