Prolife Mitt Romney Watch

Today's Boston Globe Article on Romney and Blogosphere

Romney connecting quickly with bloggers

Romney is inviting bloggers to top secret meetings, giving them baloney and cookies and seeing who he can get to obscure his track record on his sex ed programs for Massachusetts children, and abortion, and spin it all out as "Ronald Reagan".

Romney's public schedule that day didn't list the event.  Members of the  mainstream press weren't invited.

But influential Nashville-area bloggers Bill Hobbs and Nathan Moore were, and both penned accounts Romney must have liked. Hobbs likened the governor to Ronald Reagan. Moore called Romney impressive and declared him "a formidable candidate for the 2008 nomination."

There's one enormous disadvantage to operating on the level out of touch with grassroots - - you lose touch with the pulse.  Whatever traction Romney had with prolifers, the pulse of it is now close to that of a cadaver.  In spite of the fact that the Romney camp thinks they are 'nipping  it in the bud'.

That Hobbs and Moore were asked to the private gathering illustrates a growing effort
by Romney and his political team to cultivate a relationship with the conservative blogosphere as he prepares to enter the Republican primary, which is already being shaped as never before by countless bloggers, pundits, and other online opinion-makers.

Seeing as the mainstream media is controlled in a manner to obscure the truth, we had to find our own media source.

Though pro-Romney bloggers around the country have been dutifully defending him for months,

But if Romney is seeing the promise of the blogosphere, he's also experiencing its perils. A number of bloggers have attacked him for his recent shift to more conservative positions on social issues such as abortion and gay rights. On Friday, for example, a blogger in Washington circulated a Christian Broadcasting Network report that several Romney supporters in Michigan were reconsidering their endorsement.

Those individuals did not defect without checking the pulse of Romney's campaign with grassroots people.  The grassroots people are using the internet to pass the information via emails.  The press may never see it.  Bill Hobbs may not be in the loop.   People are defecting in Michigan because they can not get traction going for Romney.

I heard that National Review wants to back off and it's getting pretty uptight with Lopez's high school crush with Romney in spite of the evidence.

The Crack that Won't Heal

Another good post from Deal's blog..

Here is an article from the Christian Broadcasting Network reporting that some of Romney's prominent supporters in Michigan are considering defecting.  They have been turned off by the recent coverage of Romney's record on abortion and gay marriage. 

Perhaps even more significant than the possible defections themselves is the fact that they are being reported by Pat Robertson's newsroom. 

CBN STORY

CBN News has been talking to operatives in the state of Michigan and the news is not good for Governor Romney. I've learned that there are at least four Republican Representatives from the Michigan State House that are seriously rethinking their support of Romney for President.

These are members of Romney's steering committee in Michigan who are now having reservations about recent revelations about Romney's past comments in regards to marriage, abortion and the Boy Scouts. There's a good chance that they could jump ship. I know that one of them wrote to Romney's office demanding specific answers to certain questions.

Everyone's hard work in getting out the facts is paying off.   The second part to the Catholic Romney Report  will be coming out after the New Year.   

Part 1 of a Boston grassroots Catholic Report on Romney

Deal W. Hudson 

In This Issue:

Some Questions for Gov. Mitt Romney

One of the likely candidates for the 2008 presidential nomination, outgoing Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney, has been in the news recently. Romney's positioning of himself as a pro-life, pro-family "social conservative" seems to be playing well in some states and among a few Evangelicals, but Boston-area grassroots Catholic activists familiar with his record are not so enthusiastic.

Reviewing his record as governor, a look at Romney's positions on abortion, emergency contraception, gay marriage, and gay adoption raises serious questions for Catholic voters.

Here's Part 1 of a report on Romney's record on key issues, some of which have been ignored by the mainstream media. Part 2, which will be given after New Year's, will cover Romney's record on gay marriage and gay adoption.

ABORTION

Today Romney describes himself as "pro-life," and explains he converted to this position in late 2004 at 57-years-old. But, his public statements and actions present a mixed history of pro-choice vs. pro-life positions with conflicting conversion stories.

Romney as Pro-Choice

During his 1994 Senate campaign against Ted Kennedy and in his 2002 gubernatorial campaign, Romney campaigned as a pro-choice candidate. In a televised debate against Kennedy in October of 1994, Romney said he felt "abortion should be safe and legal in this country," and he believed this because his mother took that position in her 1970 US Senate campaign.

When Kennedy labeled his opponent, "multiple choice," Romney rebutted that since the time of a close relative's death from an illegal abortion years ago, "My mother and my family have been committed to the belief that we can believe as we want, but we will not force our beliefs on others on that matter, and you will not see me wavering on that."

Romney thus suggested he may have previously been neutral or pro-life, but converted to pro-choice two years before Roe v Wade (Conversion #1). He maintained that pro-choice position through his 2002 gubernatorial campaign, when he answered to Planned Parenthood and NARAL questionnaires saying he supported "the substance of the Supreme Court decision in Roe v. Wade," and ''I respect and will protect a woman's right to choose…Women should be free to choose based on their own beliefs, not mine and not the government's."

Oddly, Romney refused to answer the candidate questionnaire sent to him that year by Massachusetts Citizens for Life.

Romney as Pro-Life

By spring of 2005, Romney was highlighting his personal opposition to abortion in out-of-state speeches. "I'm in a different place than I was probably in 1994, when I ran against Ted Kennedy, in my own views on that." On May 23, 2005 Romney was quoted in USA Today saying, he was "personally pro-life" but declining to say more. "I choose not to elaborate on those because I don't want to be confusing to people in my state."

Massachusetts Citizens for Life was "unimpressed with those moves," and still considered Romney an abortion-rights supporter.

Romney has attributed his pro-life conversion (Conversion #2) to a November 2004 stem cell research discussion with a Harvard researcher. He now claims he has joined company with other political figures such as Ronald Reagan and Henry Hyde who changed their views.

Everyone welcomes politicians who are open to realizing the truth about the evils of abortion. Reagan and Hyde changed their views once and became stalwart supporters of a culture of life.

But will Mitt Romney, if elected president, turn out like Ronald Reagan and Henry Hyde?

And is Romney asking us to believe he converted twice-first to pro-choice before abortion was ever legalized by Roe v Wade, and then 34 years later from pro-choice to pro-life as a result of one brief meeting?

What prevents Romney from converting back again? And how does he explain why one of his political consultants, Charles Manning, said, "Mitt has always been consistent in his pro-choice position" in 1994, while another Romney political consultant, Michael Murphy said last year, "He's been a pro-life Mormon faking it as pro-choice friendly."

Which Mitt Romney should Catholic voters believe?

Tom McClusky of the Family Research Council summarized his view last year. "For a lot of people, especially Christian conservatives, it's one of those black and white issues. You're either pro-life or not. That's the trouble with Governor Romney -- he's gray."

EMERGENCY CONTRACEPTION

The Boston Globe claims a visible result of Romney's abortion shift was his July 2005 veto of a bill making the "morning-after pill" (Plan B) available over-the-counter at state pharmacies and requiring hospitals to offer it to rape victims.

If Gov. Romney has indeed suddenly become committed to the culture of life in the past two years of his political life, why did he eliminate the conscience exemption allowing Catholic hospitals to opt-out of the intrusive law that his own Department of Public Health decided to grant them?

On December 7, 2005, the Globe reported that Romney's Department of Public Health had determined Catholic and other privately-run hospitals could opt out of giving the morning-after pill to rape victims because of religious or moral objections. A statute passed in previous years said privately-run hospitals could not be forced to provide abortions or contraception, and indeed, Article II of the Massachusetts Constitution guarantees such freedom of religious practice.

When pro-choice groups complained, Romney immediately caved-in, or "flip-flopped," as Massachusetts Democrats described it, saying that after legal review, his own lawyer found all hospitals in the state would be forced to provide the morning-after pill to rape victims.

On December 9, 2005 the Boston Globe reported, "Governor Mitt Romney reversed course on the state's new emergency contraception law...The decision overturns a ruling made public this week by the state Department of Public Health that privately run hospitals could opt out of the requirement if they objected on moral or religious grounds."

Will Romney, himself a Harvard-trained attorney, plan to bring the same timid legal counsel to Washington to protect and defend life?

Why did Gov. Romney not simply abide by the state constitution and the decision of his own Public Health Department? He instead abandoned Catholic hospitals, setting them up for possible court battles if they upheld their constitutionally guaranteed freedom of religion.

Good News

Bob Novak is off the bus

Ideological conservatives are not happy about McCain's ascendancy. Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney is trying to run to McCain's right, but his past liberal positions on abortion and gay rights get in the way. Former Virginia Gov. Jim Gilmore and former Oklahoma Gov. Frank Keating are testing prospects of filling the vacuum, but the fund-raising will be daunting.

New Republic Online Article on Brian Canemaker

Urine Trouble

With occasional flashes of Internet-quality vividness, the report links the Massachusetts governor and conservative presidential hopeful to fisting and golden showers.  While some of the connections Camenker makes are tenuous at best, he is desperate to stymie Romney's growing popularity with the religious right.

Is Romney accountable for the people under his supervision that are teaching children the art and pleasure of fisting, golden showers, anal sex, etc?

Cardinal Law certainly was.   

What is tenuous about holding Romney to the same level of culpability?

His exposé of what he calls "Fistgate"--how the state of Massachusetts was teaching gay teens "how to put their hands up other kids' rectums"--was featured on "Hannity & Colmes" and "The O'Reilly Factor."

What is tenuous about holding Romney to the same level of culpability?

While most of Romney's flip-flops on social issues are generally known, the excruciating detail of Camenker's report might make it tough for conservatives to embrace Romney.

Romney's own words and actions leave an excrutiating and undeniable trail.

He notes that Romney's Department of Education distributed a publication, The Little Black Book: Queer in the 21st Century, that includes the following practical information: "There is little risk of STD infection and no risk of HIV infection from playing with pee.

"The stark facts Camenker has uncovered about Romney's record are putting social conservatives in a bind. On the one hand, transgenderism and urine don't play well on the right. And the evangelical poo-bahs have made predictable noises about being shocked--shocked!--by Camenker's revelations.

People who haven't experienced Romney's duplicity first hand would be shocked at the revelations. Most especially with Lopez and Gallagher swooning like lovestruck teenagers.

The article predicts the trajectory of prolife conservatives as selecting Romney over candidates who have solid records of prolife activism. Apparently, if it's one thing prolifers insist upon in a candidate, it's credentials that include duplicity, hypocrisy and a lengthy record that demonstrates the ability to sling the BS to gain the support of whatever faction you want to get to the polls. 

But, on the other hand, Romney may really be conservatives' only hope against the dreaded John McCain. The alternatives--Sam Brownback, Duncan Hunter, and Tom Tancredo--are all too fringe to be taken seriously.

Could it be possible that the RNC did not get the moral of the story in the last election? 

Brian Canemaker's observations on the Lopez-Romney publicity stunt

More on KLo's NR interview:
This part of Romney's response -- on how he evolved on abortion from pro-choice to pro-life (at the age of 57) -- struck us, because it shows ROMNEY IS STILL NOT PRO-LIFE !


[Romney:] "But I do believe that the one-size-fits-all, abortion-on-demand-for-all-nine-months decision in Roe v. Wade does not serve the country well and is another example of judges making the law instead of interpreting the Constitution. What I would like to see is the Court return the issue to the people to decide. ... I understand there are people of good faith on both sides of the issue. They should be able to make and advance their case in democratic forums with civility, mutual respect, and confidence that our democratic process is the best place to handle these issues."

We say, NO! This is not a true pro-life position either! People should NOT vote on either the definition of marriage, or the definition of human life! Marriage is marriage, and murder is murder! Either a human fetus is a human life, or it is not. If you believe it is a HUMAN, how can we leave it up to the voters to decide whether it can be murdered? Come on, Romney. Come on, KLo -- and National Review. Romney: You're still "pro-choice" if you think the people should be given the opportunity to vote on abortion! "Let the People Vote!" -- on murder???

Also: If Romney has suddenly become pro-life in the last two years of his political career, then why did he force the morning-after pill on private hospitals just one year ago (with no conscience exemption to protect freedom of religion)?

December 7, 2005: "The state Department of Public Health has determined that Catholic and other privately-run hospitals in Massachusetts can opt out of giving the morning-after pill to rape victims because of religious or moral objections, despite a new law that requires all hospitals who treat such victims to provide them with emergency contraception."
("Private hospitals exempt on pill law," Boston Globe)

December 9, 2005 -- Flip-Flop: "Governor Mitt Romney reversed course on the state's new emergency contraception law yesterday, saying that all hospitals in the state will be obligated to provide the morning-after pill to rape victims. The decision overturns a ruling made public this week by the state Department of Public Health that privately run hospitals could opt out of the requirement if they objected on moral or religious grounds."
("Romney says no hospitals are exempt from pill law," Boston Globe)

 

Thanks, I have other people to talk to

Conservatives concerned about inconsistencies in Republican Mitt Romney's record on gay marriage and abortion said Tuesday the Massachusetts governor has some explaining to do.

The Associated Press was "brushed aside" when they asked him to address the miraculous metamorphasis:

"Thanks, I have other people to talk to right now", 

I'm fascinated by Kathryn Jean Lopez's willingness to cover up Romney's prochoice, antiCatholic tenure in Massachusetts with duplicitous sound bytes.

Kathryn, eager to give the appearance that prolife opposition comes from a 1994 statement, asks:

As you know, in recent days the Boston Globe and the New York Times, as well as the Boston newspaper, Bay Windows, have run pieces about your 1994 race against Ted Kennedy and your run for governor that appear to be in conflict with your current position against gay marriage. Are they?

But I have made clear since 2003, when the supreme court of Massachusetts redefined marriage by fiat, that my unwavering advocacy for traditional marriage stands side by side with a tolerance and respect for all Americans.

Mr. Romney fails to divulge the millions of dollars and support he has given to educational programs that indoctrinate children and teenagers into sinful lifestyles. Romney made a promise in 1994 to weaken the foundation of marriage ordained by God and spent 10 years executing that promise.   

Like the vast majority of Americans, I’ve opposed same-sex marriage, but I’ve also opposed unjust discrimination against anyone, for racial or religious reasons, or for sexual preference. Americans are a tolerant, generous, and kind people. We all oppose bigotry and disparagement.

He opposes injustice, yet his record reflects using his executive office to direct Catholics give out emergency contraception in Catholic Hospitals, disavow their religion if they want to place Catholic children into adoptive homes and foster care of Catholics to preserve their heritage or shut down their adoption agency?

Marriage is first and foremost about nurturing and developing children. It’s unfortunate that those who choose to defend the institution of marriage are often demonized.

Demonized by the very people Romney had employed and deployed since 1994.

It seems at this stage of the game, Lopez and Maggie Gallagher are on a trajectory that parts from the conservative prolife movement.  Even if Romney's 180 is genuine, at the end of the day, it's too little, too late, to be of any value politically for 2008.

Every day, there more websites and blogs that expose what see as Romney's duplicity.

Blog here.


Romneyisaliberal.com

Good exposure on Mitt and Kerry's flyer

More quotes on Mitt's Prochoice record.

"I don't want to get into a philosophical discussion of a federal law and a case that's been in the books for 30 years, and that is distracting from my agenda." He added, ''I oppose abortion, but I will maintain the laws as they exist in Massachusetts." Boston Globe, June 4, 2005.

Getting Out Information on Romney

Many grassroots prolifers have been busy getting information on Romney's track record in Massachusetts out to national Catholics, Evangelicals and journalists.

Under "most emailed" feature on Boston.com is their article on the awakening of Romney's hypocrisy which they describe as "potential hurdle".

Deal Hudson has posted one of the NY Times articles quoting various prolife leaders who are beginning to see the tip of the Romney duplicitous iceberg.

The emails I've been sending out:

Dear __________,

 

Many Roman Catholic prolife activists are deeply concerned about the traction Mitt Romney seems to be getting with our conservative prolife leadership.

 

While we'd all love to believe that he has had a miraculous conversion in the last four months, few of us here in Massachusetts are on board with it.

When Catholics asked Romney to use his executive office to protect Roman Catholic      Hospitals from being forced to give out emergency contraception, he  instead took the side of prochoice feminists. Our Catholic hospitals, our doctors, nurses, staff pharmacists are being forced against their will and  conscience to hand out abortifacients.

When Catholic activists placed pressure on our Cardinal to get Catholic Charities out of the gay adoption business, (after an exhausting ten years of bombarding the Chancery with various misdeeds) Cardinal O’Malley agreed to align our adoption services with our Catholic mission. Homosexual lobbyists reacted by threatening  “civil rights” and “discrimination” litigious actions.  When their momentum put Catholics in a position to act against the will and conscience of our  religion in order to continue our adoption services, Catholic activists again went to Mitt Romney. Romney sided with homosexual lobby. (The Massachusetts Bishops, thank God, shut down Catholic adoption services   rather than accept the edict.)

When  Margaret Marshall and the MA SJC illicitly used their power to declare  the current laws of Massachusetts unconstitutional because they forbade homosexuals marriage, they gave the Legislature 180 days to  create the law.  Mitt Romney subverted the process and  gave the immediate order for towns to give out marriage licenses to  homosexuals. Here we are three  years later, and the Legislature has still not acted upon the SJC’s order. The current laws of Massachusetts still  forbid gay marriage. Yet, gay   marriages are being performed thanks to Mitt Romney’s misuse of his  executive authority.  Under Romney’s leadership, or lack thereof, there is constructive permission for legislative, judicial and executive anarchy.  It is hardly edifying to imagine this is the kind of leadership Republican leaders are going to ask the religious right to embrace for President of the United States.

Romney has been the grand marshal of immoral, amoral public education and during those years he opposed and had a downright aversion to parents trying to sustain the moral compass we give our children inside of our homes. Parents are being bullied & threatened if they resist the educational agenda and in one case, arrested. Despite our attempts to engage him, Mitt Romney has shown no sign of interest in our plight. It’s impossible to believe that after all the years Romney has supported gay marriage, gay activists, the infusion of the gay agenda into our schools, that his current spin isn’t duplicitous.

 His most recent absurdity of petitioning the same court of judicial thugs who subverted democracy themselves, to stop the legislature from subverting democracy, when he is a party of the first part in the subversions of democratic process in the gay marriage debacle,  rises to the level of a publicity stunt.

Several Catholic activists from Massachusetts are going to be courting our prolife Catholic and evangelical leaders, our conservative journalists with Romney's paper trail (which I have barely touched upon) and ask them to withhold their support from Romney. We are also in the process of building a Catholic Blog that will have the mission of opposing Romney for President. I hope we can count on your support.

Should the RNC make the egregious error of backing Romney as their candidate – I believe an enormous division in our values based voters lies ahead in the 2008 election that will make Harriet Meirs look like child’s play.

 

We certainly wish Romney well, and hope that his spiritual epiphany is genuine. God Bless him. Unfortunately, with his record of opposition right up until he made the decision to run for president and hired advisors to appeal to the religious right, I’m afraid it just doesn’t give us anything we can base our trust upon.

 

Thank you for taking the time to read my letter. When our Mitt Romney Executive Report is done, I’ll be sure to send you a copy.

 

Sincerely,

Catholic Pundit Watch

Brian Canemaker has done a phenomenal job rounding up quotes and sources of Romney's record in Massachusetts.

'I believe that abortion should be safe and legal in this country. I have since the time that my mom took that position when she ran in 1970 as a US Senate candidate. I believe that since Roe v. Wade has been the law for 20 years we should sustain and support it.' "

When [during their debate] Kennedy called him 'multiple choice,' Romney demanded an extra rebuttal. He revealed that a close relative died of an illegal abortion years ago and said, 'Since that time, my mother and my family have been committed to the belief that we can believe as we want, but we will not force our beliefs on others on that matter, and you will not see my wavering on that.' "
  - Boston Globe, 3/2/2006

On a questionnaire Planned Parenthood gave to the gubernatorial candidates in 2002, Romney answered ''yes" to the question, 'Do you support the substance of the Supreme Court decision in Roe v. Wade?' Romney also professed support for state funding of abortion services for low-income women, [Erin] Rowland [spokeswoman for the Planned Parenthood League of Massachusetts] said."

Other important quotes:

• "Romney, a Republican and the former Winter Olympics chief, was endorsed by the New York-based Republican Pro-Choice Coalition. He mentioned his mother, Lenore Romney, who favored abortion rights when she ran for the U.S. Senate in 1970, even before the 1973 Roe v. Wade case affirmed women's constitutional right to abortions. . . . Lynn Grefe, director of the Republican Pro-Choice Coalition, applauded Romney's 'commitment to family planning and protecting a woman's right to choose' in a letter on Wednesday."
        - Associated Press / New Bedford Standard-Times 10/3/2002   
• "Gubernatorial candidates Shannon O'Brien and Mitt Romney sparred yesterday over who was the strongest abortion rights supporter by touting endorsements from abortion rights groups and challenging each other's records on the issue . . . O'Brien and Romney both say that if elected they'll uphold state and federal laws protecting abortion rights. 'There isn't a dime of difference between Mitt Romney's position on choice and Shannon O'Brien,' said Kerry Healey, Romney's running mate."
        - Associated Press / New Bedford Standard-Times 10/3/2002
• In 2002, Romney responded to the National Abortion Rights Action League's  candidate survey: ''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." Notably, Romney refused to answer the candidate questionnaire sent to him by Massachusetts Citizens for Life.
        - Boston Globe, 7/3/2005
• During the 2002 governor's race, Romney's platform stated, "As Governor, Mitt Romney would protect the current pro-choice status quo in Massachusetts. No law would change. The choice to have an abortion is a deeply personal one. Women should be free to choose based on their own beliefs, not the government's."
        - Romney's 2002 campaign website

        

Romney is willing to support some embryonic stem cell research

• "Romney has decided to support experimentation on surplus frozen embryos from in-vitro fertilization procedures."
          - National Review Online 2/11/2005

Romney Approves of Abortion Pill and Supports the Legalization of RU-486

• "When he ran for governor in 2002, Romney said he supported expanding access to the emergency contraception pill, a high dose of hormones that women can take to prevent pregnancy up to five days after sex . . . On a questionnaire Planned Parenthood gave to the gubernatorial candidates in 2002, Romney answered 'yes' to the question, 'Do you support efforts to increase access to emergency con-traception?' "
          - Boston Globe 7/7/2005
• In 2002, the Boston Globe reported Romney's positions from his1994 campaign as follows: "ABORTION: Favored basic Roe v. Wade abortion rights, though would not endorse a specific version of the Freedom of Choice Act, which would codify those court-established rights as federal law . . . Said he would leave the matter of Medicaid funding for abortion to individual states . . . Endorsed legalization of RU-486, the abortion-inducing drug."
          - Boston Globe, 3/19/2002
• "I don't really understand how it works or when it works but my understanding is it's an effective morning after pill and I think it would be a positive thing to have women have the choice of taking morning-after pills….I would favor having it available."
          - Boston Herald, 5/19/1994
• "A new law to make emergency contraception more available in Massachusetts continues to be a political rollercoaster for Governor Mitt Romney. He supported expanded access when campaigning for governor, but vetoed a bill expanding access, earlier this year. The bill then passed over his veto. Earlier this week, the governor sought to exempt Catholic and other private hospitals from having to offer 'morning after pills' to rape victims. Then yesterday, he reversed his position."
          - WBUR Radio, Boston, 12/9/2005

      

Romney signs "Right to Privacy" Proclamation celebrating birth control availability

• In March, 2005, Romney signed an annual proclamation establishing a ''Right to Privacy Day" to mark the anniversary of Baird v. Eisenstadt, a 1972 Supreme Court ruling legalizing birth control for unmarried people. Interestingly, Romney's staff deleted references to Roe v. Wade from the previous year's proclamation.
          - Boston Globe, 3/25/2005

One of the articles in the NY Times quotes prolife hero Paul Weyrich who said unless Romney repudiates his statements, there is hypocrisy going on, and if he does repudiated it, one wonders on what basis.

I think "a hurdle" is an understatement.