Untangling Romney's Views on Abortion
Friday September 21, 2007
See Also: Mitt Romney on Civil Liberties
Despite a recent Rasmussen poll showing Mitt Romney in fourth place with 11% support among likely Republican voters, he remains a top-tier candidate. Why? Maybe it's because he leads in fundraising among Republican candidates. Maybe it's because he won the Iowa Straw Poll, and continues to survey well in Iowa. Or maybe it's because all three of the candidates who lead him in the polls--Rudy Giuliani, Fred Thompson, and John McCain, in that order--are perceived as extremely vulnerable.
Whatever the reason, Mitt Romney remains firmly on the radar as a leading contender for the 2008 Republican presidential nomination. And that's a shame, because there is no Republican candidate whose civil liberties platform makes less sense than that of Mitt Romney. And in his nonsensical, Alice in Wonderland civil liberties platform, no plank makes less sense than his position on abortion rights.
It's not that he's changed his mind on abortion rights--he has already admitted to that. Personally, being someone who has only semi-recently gone pro-choice myself, I'm all in favor of Romney changing his mind on abortion rights. In fact, I hope he tries it again sometime. No, what makes his position nonsensical is the way he has changed his mind. When it comes to abortion, Mitt Romney is like Jack Nicholson in The Shining: One minute he's writing a book, and the next he's ripping through your door with an axe.
Michael Dobbs, who writes the Fact Checker feature for the Washington Post, has nailed down Romney's many positions on abortion better than anyone has so far. Especially surreal tidbits:
|
Whatever the reason, Mitt Romney remains firmly on the radar as a leading contender for the 2008 Republican presidential nomination. And that's a shame, because there is no Republican candidate whose civil liberties platform makes less sense than that of Mitt Romney. And in his nonsensical, Alice in Wonderland civil liberties platform, no plank makes less sense than his position on abortion rights.
It's not that he's changed his mind on abortion rights--he has already admitted to that. Personally, being someone who has only semi-recently gone pro-choice myself, I'm all in favor of Romney changing his mind on abortion rights. In fact, I hope he tries it again sometime. No, what makes his position nonsensical is the way he has changed his mind. When it comes to abortion, Mitt Romney is like Jack Nicholson in The Shining: One minute he's writing a book, and the next he's ripping through your door with an axe.
Michael Dobbs, who writes the Fact Checker feature for the Washington Post, has nailed down Romney's many positions on abortion better than anyone has so far. Especially surreal tidbits:
- Romney's convoluted relationship with Massachusetts Citizens for Life. After accepting their endorsement in the 1994 U.S. Senate race, he denied having accepted their endorsement. After 12 years of relative silence on the matter, he donated $15,000 to the group, received an award for his service as governor, and described himself as a recent convert to the pro-life cause.
- His 1994 waffling over federal funding of abortions. In February, he opposed it. In September, he stated that the matter should be left to the states.
- Romney's dramatic Summer 2007 conversion experience. In the June presidential debate, he stated support for overturning Roe v. Wade, arguing that abortion law should be left to the states. In an August 6th interview, he stated support for a federal constitutional amendment banning abortion, contradicting his June position. In an August 21st interview, he stated again that abortion law should be left to the states, reaffirming his June position but contradicting his August 6th position.
- Gun rights. As Massachusetts governor, Romney said "I don't line up with the NRA" and supported the Brady Bill. In August 2006, he purchased life membership in the NRA and described himself as a lifelong hunter. When it was revealed that he did not actually own a gun, was not a licensed hunter, and had only been on two hunting trips in his life, Romney made the somewhat odd claim that his lifelong passion for hunting was limited to rabbits and small rodents.
- Lesbian and gay rights. In 1994, he promised to "make equality for gays and lesbians a mainstream concern." As Massachusetts governor, Romney's catchphrase on LGBT rights issues was "full equality." In 2002, he promised a group of gay Republicans that he would "keep [his] head low" and honor the state supreme court's ruling with respect to same-sex marriage. Now Romney is the only top-tier presidential candidate to support the Federal Marriage Amendment, and defended his position by stating that "we're people that are designed to live together as male and female."
- Emergency contraception. In 1994, when the "morning-after" pill was not on many politicians' radar, Romney expressed support for the idea. He stated support even more explicitly in a 2002 Planned Parenthood questionairre. But in July 2005, he vetoed a bill that would given rape victims access to emergency contraception, stating that he believed preventing blastocyst implantation in the uterus was a form of abortion--and then, less than three months later, reversed himself again by signing a bill that would have provided federally-funded emergency contraception to low-income women. He never explained the discrepancy. (A charitable interpretation might be that during the three-month period, someone told him what emergency contraception actually does.)
Comments
Listen, I can totally understand how Romney has been with abortion – it IS a complex issue, one that I myself have gone back and forth on. I agree with letting states decide…it is too divisive of an issue in this country. On another note, I really think it’s ridiculous when people cast their votes based on where the candidate stands on gay and abortion issues. No offense, but there are much more important issues facing this country and the world. So, if you want to cast your vote for the leader of this country, please base it on issues that REALLY matter!!! We must be better at prioritizing the problems of our times. Personally, I think that Romney is the most intelligent of the candidates – If you made a list of accomplishments of all the candidates and lined them up next to eachother it would be plainly obvious. THAT is why Romney is still considered a top tier candidate.
Before you untangle Romney, you need to untangle your polls. When has Rasmussen shown Romney at 7%? His national numbers in that poll have been consistent most of the summer.
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/daily_presidential_tracking_poll__1
Even ignoring your mistake with snapshots of national standings. Since when have we asked politicians to not stand by the rule of law or to not modify their positions consistent with changes in technology and science? The line between abortion, contriception and life gets blurred. Romney took a stand consistent with his moral framework, and he fought harder than politicians in “red” states to maintain his promises and his ethics.
On gay marriage, even some Democrats from The New Republic do not agree with gay marriage. Are they “flip-floppers”?
Abortion is such a difficult issue. I wonder why everyone is so hard on Romney. He clearly is trying to find a way to reconcile his faith (which is liberal in its views of abortion when compared with Evangelical Christians) and his libertarian leanings. Abortion is killing. That’s not necessarily a damning statement. Most of us agree that it is necessary to kill other living things in order to live. Also, there is no question that killing a human fetus produces a different outcome than killing a cow fetus, for example. Abortion results in one fewer human life. The real question is whether or not it is ever OK to kill a human fetus. Mormons say “YES, but only under special circumstances”, Evangelicals say “NEVER”, and liberals say “ALWAYS”. The hard question for a Mormon, then, is this: if Mormons believe that abortion can be allowable in special circumstances (rape, incest, mother’s life in danger), then should abortion be legal for everyone?
Romney’s supposed flip-flops are anything but that. He is walking a razor’s edge that the media do not understand. Give him a break!
Abortion is a difficult issue but it’s clear to me that he is pro-life and always has been. In Massachusettes he took a pro-choice platform to win the election but was upfront with everyone telling them that his personal views were pro-life. Should the republicans just concede Massachusettes or handle it the way Mitt did? All of his poll numbers are moving up. He actually leads in 7 states namely Iowa, New Hampshire, Michigan, Nevada, Idaho, Utah and Wyoming and is gaining ground in other key states such as Arizona, Florida, South Carolina and California. He’s a man on the move and I like his platform.
I want to know exactly what you’re saying here. First this quote:
“But in July 2005, he vetoed a bill that would given rape victims access to emergency contraception…” then this one: “reversed himself again by signing a bill that would have provided federally-funded emergency contraception to low-income women.” Clearly, in the first you’re trying to MISinform your readers that he vetoed emergency contraception for rape victims when the second quote clarifies that it was only federal FUNDING he vetoed. There is a stark difference, and your DISinformation is clearly the result of your pro-abortion bias.
I think the problem with Romney is the way he decided to run his campaign, trying to present himself as a conservative when he has been, in fact, a moderate pragmatist.
My theory is that, at heart, Romney is an executive, and apparently a pretty good one. And what do executives do? They solve problems in the best way they can, and typically not as an ideologue. And that’s pretty much the kind of governor Romney was, a pragmatist who was able to work with people from both parties to accomplish quite a bit.
Unfortunately for him, his pragmatic side told him that he needed to run as a hard-line conservative if he hoped to win the GOP nomination. So that’s what he’s been trying to do, and the result is that he comes across as a flip-flopper and a panderer.
I’ll give him some (not a lot) benefit of the doubt on abortion. As I understand it, he has always been anti-abortion on a personal level. He used to say he wouldn’t impose those views on others (a view not inconsistent, by the way, with what the LDS church has said), but he changed his mind when confronted with embryonic experimentation. I can buy that. I just don’t think he’s decided precisely what the legal approach should be.
And while I am not a Romney supporter (my first choice these days is Senator Dodd), I’m going to defend him to a certain extent on his claim that he hasn’t been a flip-flopper on gay issues. Back when he was soliciting support from gays, the issue of same-sex marriage was barely on the radar; in fact, I remember some gay leaders then saying that they saw no need for same-sex marriage, because marriage was a corrupted institution anyway. As governor, he appointed gays to positions on various occasions, by all reports he didn’t appear to be unconfomratable around gays, and he still says that there shouldn’t be workplace discrimination. So when it comes to specifics, I don’t think he’s changed positions on anything (although his tone has changed, because that’s the pragmatic thing to do).
I think that at heart Romney probably is somewhat socially libertarian. That would be consistent with his record, and even with his religious affiliation (people who think otherwise don’t understand LDS theology or its soteriology, which places a strong emphasis on free will). But, like you say, if that’s true we’ll never know because of the way he has pandered to the right wing of his party in order to get the nomination.
That’s unconfortable, not unconfomratable.
Uncomfortable. I need to use my spell-checker.
I think James Dobson is seriously considering endorsing Mitt Romney. Not that he approves of Mormonism, but most people (including Dobson) really looking at Romney don’t feel like he’s earned the flip-flopping label the media has given him in articles like these, and I think Dobson secretly trusts/likes Romney and believes Romney is a capable politician with some core values, even though Dobson abhores his religion. One thing is for sure: Romney is probably the only top tier contender who really believes in God (albeit one that is different is some respects from the Protestant version). Is a Mormon worse than an atheist? Because if “by their works you shall know them” all the other candidates are godless atheists and its a question people have to ask.
Sam Brownback and the Rev. Mike Huckabee are godless atheists? That seems a little cold…
Agreed that Romney’s faith should not be a factor, though; the prohibition on religious tests was written into the Constitution even before the First Amendment was. Maybe I should do a little writeup on this.
The truth is that if we look at presidents over the past 40 years, the only Democrat who belonged to a liberal denomination was LBJ, a member of the Disciples of Christ. Kennedy was Catholic, and both Carter and Clinton were Southern Baptist.
Compare this to the Republicans from the same period: Nixon was a Quaker, Ford and Bush 41 were Episcopalian, Reagan was Disciples of Christ, and Bush 43 is Methodist. Every last one of them belonged to a mainline or left-of-mainline denomination, which is really quite remarkable. If Hillary Clinton is elected president next year, she will be the first mainline Democrat since LBJ–and, ironically, the second consecutive Methodist president.