Before I discovered this at studentsforbrownback.org, Mitt Romney was still on my maybe list for presidential candidates in ‘08. I am not a big fan because he used to be pro-choice and now is suddenly pro-life as we approach the 2008 elections. In all fairness, it isn’t up to me to decide whether or not he is really pro-life, he simply isn’t pro-life enough for me.
Mitt Romney Refuses to Support a Human Life Amendment to the Constitution:
As a reader pointed out in an earlier post, while Mitt Romney is anti-Roe, he certainly is not pro-life. By refusing to support a Human Life Amendment to the Constitution, Romney is rejecting one of the key planks in the platform of the Republican Party that has been there since 1980. Furthermore, he finds himself to the left on life issues of even Sen. John McCain, who supports such an amendment.
Here is the actual text of Mitt Romney’s published Q&A in the Feb. 10th issue of National Journal:
NJ: You would favor a constitutional amendment banning abortion with exceptions for the life of the mother, rape and incest. Is that correct?
What I’ve indicated is that I am pro-life, and that my hope is that the Supreme Court will give to the states over time or give to the states soon or give to the states their own ability to make their own decisions with regard to their own abortion law.
NJ: If a state wanted unlimited abortion?
The state would fall into restrictions that had been imposed at the federal level, so they couldn’t be more expansive in abortion than currently exists under the law, but they could become more restrictive in abortion provisions. So states like Massachusetts could stay like they are if they so desire, and states that have a different view could take that course. And it would be up to the citizens of the individual states. My view is not to impose a single federal rule on the entire nation — a one-size-fits-all approach — but instead allow states to make their own decisions in this regard.
Could it be any clearer? If you are actually committed to ending the destruction of human life in womb, Mitt Romney is not your man — he is not willing to support what needs to be done to make it happen. Don’t let ignorant “pro-life” sellouts tell you otherwise.
And there you have it. Another one bites the dust.
Sphere: Related Content
Thanks for pointing this out.
And so passes a candidate off of my “maybe” list as well.
Sticking with Brownback here. I might switch to “Duncan Hines” if he appears more electable and I learn more about him. Only if it looks like he can carry that fruity state of CA. No offense to the conservatives there — are there any?
That brings up an interesting question: Is it possible for a conservative Californian to pull the wool over the eyes of liberal Kahleeforneeuns?
I’m not a big fan of Romney, but support for a Human Life Amendment at this point is meaningless. You can’t get 66% of Congress to go for it, and I doubt 38 states would pass it either.
Being anti-Roe is all that would make a difference. Getting rid of that piece of garbage decision would allow states to make up their own minds, so at least some abortions would be curbed. None would be curbed by a President who supported the Human Life Amendment.
“Only if it looks like he can carry that fruity state of CA. No offense to the conservatives there — are there any?”
Hi, Tammi! :p
As a die-hard federalist, I’m afraid that I have to agree with Mr. Romney on this one. Regulation of health, safety, and welfare (i.e. medicine & crime) are quintessential state functions, and I don’t like them being regulated on the federal level. On a very pragmatic level, state regulation will make this less of a federal/political issue. If a human life amendment passes, pro-choicers will waste no time trying to overturn it.