Okay, now I am totally confused about Mitt Romney’s ever-moving position on the abortion issue. You don’t think he is trying to cater to as many people as possible, do you?
In the past, I’ve written about how when Romney was Governor of Massachusetts he was pro-choice straight down the line. And not only was he pro-choice in terms of legislation, he actually met regularly with staff people from the Massachusetts branch of the National Abortion Rights Action League to strategize. They were buddies.
Then, when Mitt decided to run for President, his position on this very basic issue started to “evolve.”
Now, I can see how over a period of years someone might change their views on certain economic models or on the pros and cons of rehabilitating prisoners. There are a lot of fuzzy areas in those issues so one could become more educated over time. But abortion? Gimme a break! What is more fundamental than whether or not to allow a woman to terminate her pregnancy? I mean, there’s something living inside the woman’s body and, if she gets an abortion, that once-living thing is no longer living, pure and simple. How does an adult “evolve” on that basic issue? Did Romney suddenly learn how pregnancies work?
Of course, the answer is he had to be pro-life to get the Republican nomination. That’s because the nominating process in that party is totally dominated by right wing nut balls and you gotta pander to them if you hope to have any chance of securing the nomination. And Romney did pander. Oh, no, I’m sorry. He “evolved.”
So now that he has the nomination, he’s had to shift gears again to cater to the independent voters. And to do that you have to move to the political middle. So, the other day Mitt Romney actually declared that ““There’s no legislation with regards to abortion that I’m familiar with that would become part of my legislative agenda.”
What the hell?
Is Romney telling us that when the new Congress comes to town and pro-life Congressman James McNabb from Podunk, Illinois introduces legislation banning third trimester abortions or requiring women to get the consent of their husbands, he will have absolutely nothing to say about those bills? If the Republican House of Representatives decides to pursue one of those “personhood” measures on a national level, is Mitt Romney actually going to resist the incredible amount of pressure from the pro-life lobbyists and not take a position on that issue?
Poppycock. He just continues to pander to anyone who will listen.
I will give him some credit, however, in that he is actually being candid when it comes to Planned Parenthood. He has said unequivocally that he will “cut off funding for Planned Parenthood” and that is certainly an extreme position that might not go over well with independent voters. The irony, of course, is that Planned Parenthood clinics probably prevent thousands of abortions each year but then Romney probably still has not “evolved” on the issue of birth control. Give him 20 more years to catch up.
Hopefully, the American public, and especially those who for some unfathomable reason are still undecided, will not buy into this “it’s not on my agenda” bull crap. Indeed, if Obama is not in another coma during the next debate, this is an issue that he should jump all over.
- Romney again promises to defund Planned Parenthood (washingtonpost.com)
- Mitt Romney Changes His Abortion Position, Again (alan.com)
- Romney flip-flopped twice on abortion yesterday (americablog.com)
- Mitt Romney’s Constantly Evolving Stance On Abortion Rights (thinkprogress.org)
- Romney suddenly remembers he’s got a legislative agenda on abortion after all (dailykos.com)
- Mitt Romney’s abortion comment draws criticism (al.com)
- Romney Says Abortion Isn’t on His Agenda, Campaign Disagrees (nymag.com)
- Mitt Romney Tries to Etch-A-Sketch His Stance on Abortion (slog.thestranger.com)
- Romney flat-out lying to his own base about abortion (dailykos.com)