January 27, 2007
HE SHALL OVERCOME?
Mitt Romney's Conversion: His pro-life turn is more recent than you think. (Jennifer Rubin, 02/05/2007, Weekly Standard)
In the spring of 2002 Romney completed a Planned Parenthood questionnaire. Signed by Romney and dated April 9, 2002, it contained these responses:Do you support the substance of the Supreme Court decision in Roe v. Wade? YES
Do you support state funding of abortion services through Medicaid for low-income women? YES
In 1998 the FDA approved the first packaging of emergency contraception, also known as the "morning after pill." Emergency contraception is a high dose combination of oral contraceptives that if taken within 72 hours of unprotected sex, can safely prevent a pregnancy from occurring. Do you support efforts to increase access to emergency contraception? YES
Romney also completed the questionnaire of the National Abortion Rights Action League, or NARAL (now called NARAL Pro-Choice America), with this statement:
I respect and will protect a woman's right to choose. This choice is a deeply personal one. Women should be free to choose based on their own beliefs, not mine and not the government's. The truth is no candidate in the governor's race in either party would deny women abortion rights. So let's end an argument that does not exist and stop these cynical and divisive attacks that are made only for political gain.
As he had with Planned Parenthood, Romney answered "Yes" to questions asking whether he supported Roe v. Wade and opposed attempts to restrict abortion. After completing the questionnaire, Romney met with three NARAL executives. In this meeting, NARAL executives recount, Romney evidenced no hesitation about his pro-choice views. He also tried to pique the executives' interest in endorsing him by bluntly acknowledging that he had higher political aspirations, saying, "You need someone like me in Washington." Moreover, those present recall that Romney argued that his election would make him credible in the Republican party nationally and thus help "sensible" Republicans like him overshadow more conservative elements in the GOP.
Posted by Orrin Judd at January 27, 2007 5:49 PM
I wonder if he read his position on abortion with magic spectacles.
Posted by: Lou Gots at January 27, 2007 7:13 PMLet's see - Romney is no good because of his previous pro-choice position and moderate GOP image. Rudy is no good because of his social views and past. McCain is no good because he is in love with the MSM and is set to implode at any moment. The Dems might win this thing by default.
Posted by: AWW at January 27, 2007 8:31 PMI don't remember any such angst on the Left about Democrats like Dick Gephardt (who was first elected to Congress on an anti-abortion platform) or Jesse Jackson (who way back in the beginning saw abortion as a scourge on the black community) or even Jimmy Carter (who opposed abortion for about 10 minutes during the primaries).
The voters (and the media) knew why these guys changed, and that they had to stand by their 'evolving' positions. Presumably, GOP voters know the same thing.
Posted by: jim hamlen at January 28, 2007 12:13 PMHow'd Gephardt do?
Posted by: oj at January 28, 2007 12:22 PMHe was ugly - he wasn't going to get the feminist vote anyhow.
K-Lo seems to believe that Romney will cause women to swoon and vote for him. I don't see it. Edwards is more likely to get votes from gay men who like his hair.
Posted by: jim hamlen at January 28, 2007 7:36 PM