Romney On Abortion Through The Years

Here is Romney in his pro-choice days when it was convenient for him to be pro abortion.  Mitt Romney cannot be trusted.

Catholics Support Artificial Birth Control

Life Magazine Cover
of March 20, 1970

The fight continues between the White House and the Catholic Church about the healthcare law forcing Catholic employers to provide free contraception and/or sterilization for their employees.  Speaker John Boehner, himself a Catholic, has gotten into the fray and has said that "If the president does not reverse the department's attack on religious freedom, then the Congress, acting on behalf of the American people and the Constitution we are sworn to uphold and defend, must."   The White House is now talking about reaching a "compromise", although I don't know how you compromise with evil.  The Catholic Church's plain teaching is that artificial contraception and sterilization are inherently evil and constitute a mortal sin, which means complete separation from God, and if this sin is not confessed, repented of and absolved in confession, these men and women will die and remain separated from God for all eternity. 

Again, I think in many ways the Catholic bishops have only themselves to blame for this situation because they have allowed Catholics in their jurisdiction to disobey this law and nothing was ever said.  But now that they are actually being threatened, they have no choice but to defend Church teaching.  And as a result, the true message of God is being taught, which is a reason for rejoicing.

However, far too many Catholics don't believe this is even an issue, as they have no problem with artificial contraception and do not hesitate to make that known, as shown in this article from USA Today.

New surveys: Catholics want birth control coverage

Pundits and bishops warn President Obama he could lose the white Catholic vote over requiring a contraception option for insurance plans. But Catholic women say they want birth control covered in employee health plans.

The pivot point is how you see this. Is it a battle over birth control -- used by 98% of U.S. women at some time in their lives -- or over government intrusion into the right of religious organizations to live by their teachings? 

The Catholic bishops, backed by conservative evangelicals, say the Obama administration shouldn't include contraception coverage as part of free preventive care options in employers' health insurance plans. 

Hence the showdown: As our editorial Monday says, religious liberties fight or, as Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius says, a free choice issue. 

And here's where the Catholic women come in. According to the Public Religion Research Institute poll released today, 

A majority (55%) of Americans agree that "employers should be required to provide their employees with health care plans that cover contraception and birth control at no cost." Four-in-ten (40%) disagree with this requirement. 

Key breakdowns 

• 58% of all Catholics agree employers should be required to provide their employees with health care plans that cover contraception. That slides down to 52% for Catholic voters, 50% for white Catholics.
• 61% of religiously unaffiliated Americans say employer plans should cover contraception.
• 50% of white mainline Protestants want the coverage. However, for evangelical Protestants, that drops to 38%  

 And perhaps of greater note among election-watchers  

Women are significantly more likely than men to agree that employers should be required to provide health care plans that cover contraception (62% vs. 47% respectively).  

A second poll, also released today from Public Policy Polling, has similar findings. This poll, conducted at the request of Planned Parenthood, finds 

...a majority of voters, including a majority of Catholics, don't believe Catholic hospitals and universities should be exempted from providing the benefit.

...Independent voters support this benefit by a 55/36 margin; in fact, a majority of voters in every racial, age and religious category that we track express support. In particular, a 53 percent majority of Catholic voters, who were oversampled as part of this poll, favor the benefit, including fully 62 percent of Catholics who identify themselves as independents. 

I was listening to an interesting interview with the late Fr. Malachi Martin in which he compared the state of the Catholic Church to the brutally beaten and scourged Jesus Christ.  Just as Jesus Christ, as a result of the horrific scourging he received, was no longer recognizable even to his own mother, so the Catholic Church is so beaten and in such tatters that it is hardly recognizable as the same institution it was even 50 years ago.  Fifty years ago Catholics accepted the teachings and pronouncements of the Holy See and obeyed without question. Catholics faithfully attended Mass and received the sacraments. I remember the long lines at confession, the packed churches at each and every Sunday Mass.  If there was dissent among the laity and hierarchy, it was muted and only in pockets here and there.  Now it is widespread and common, and many millions of souls are at risk.

Fr. Martin says we can do only what Christ himself did - continue on the way carrying our cross.  It is still possible to be a good and loyal Catholic in these evil and turbulent times, but just as it took all of Christ's efforts and more to continue on the way to Calvary, it will mean giving everything inside of us to continue this fight.  When it became too much for Christ, another named Simeon came along to carry the burden.  When we have given all we can, God will supply the help we need.  But we must never back down.  We must always stay loyal to Christ's Holy Vicar and to the Church founded by our Savior.

Romney, Catholics and Abortion

Just this past weekend I was talking with a very devout and holy Catholic who told me that I absolutely must vote for Mitt Romney because we had to do whatever it takes to defeat Barack Obama, and Romney is the only one who can do it.  Yes, he agreed that Romney was far from perfect, but he completely deflected my arguments that Romney and Obama are basically the same person and nothing will change under Romney.  My good Catholic friend insisted that Romney will appoint the right judges and we have our best chance of defeating Roe v. Wade by electing Mitt Romney.

I saw this article today on townhall.com which would seem to belie my friend's faith in Romney.  My friend is convinced that Romney will repeal the Obama Healthcare law.  Well, friends, it just ain't gonna happen.  Ann Coulter tells us Romney is the most conservative candidate we have.  The truth is Romney, Gingrich, Santorum and Obama are all "workin' for the man." 

Romney Told Catholic Hospitals to Administer Abortion Pills

A defining moment in Mitt Romney's post-pro-life-conversion political career came in his third year as governor of Massachusetts, when he decided Catholic hospitals would be required under his interpretation of a new state law to give rape victims a drug that can induce abortions.

Romney announced this decision -- saying it was the "right thing for hospitals" to do -- just two days after he had taken the opposite position.  

The story begins in 1975, when Massachusetts enacted a law that said, "No privately controlled hospital .. shall be required to permit any patient to have an abortion ... or to furnish contraceptive devices or information to such patient ... when said services or referrals are contrary to the religious or moral principles of said hospital ... ."

Twenty-seven years later, when Romney was running for governor, he filled out a questionnaire for NARAL Pro-Choice Massachusetts. It said: "Emergency contraception does not cause abortion. Rather, it prevents pregnancy from occurring. Will you support efforts to increase access to emergency contraception?"

Romney said: "Yes."

The next year, the Massachusetts legislature considered an "emergency contraception" mandate. It would have allowed pharmacists to sell Plan B -- an abortifacient -- without a prescription and without parental consent. It also would have required all hospitals to inform rape victims of the availability of such "emergency contraceptives" and provide them to the rape victim if she wanted them even when they would cause an abortion.

Maria Parker of the Massachusetts Catholic Conference, the public policy organization of the state's Catholic bishops, explained in testimony to the state legislature why Catholic hospitals could not do this.

The normal Catholic ban on artificial contraception did not apply in a rape case, Parker said. But while contraception was acceptable in such a situation, killing an unborn child was not.

In keeping with this moral understanding, one Massachusetts Catholic hospital chain would later explain to the Boston Globe that its practice was to test a rape victim to make certain she was not pregnant and only then give her emergency contraceptives. If the test proved the woman was pregnant, the hospital would not give the woman the drugs because they could not prevent conception but they could kill her child.

Parker concluded her testimony by quoting what Cardinal Frances George of Chicago had told the Illinois legislature when it proposed a similar law: "Our hospitals cannot and will not comply with this law."

In that session, the Massachusetts Senate passed the "emergency contraception" bill, but it was blocked in the House.

As Planned Parenthood and NARAL demanded action on the bill, and the Massachusetts Catholic Conference continued to speak out against it, Gov. Mitt Romney remained mum.

"Shawn Feddeman, spokeswoman for Gov. Mitt Romney, declined to comment on the governor's position on the bill," the Boston Globe reported on July 1, 2004. "'We'll review it when it reaches the governor's desk.'"

The bill was reintroduced in the next session -- and Romney remained mum.

Romney had "no opinion on the bill," his spokesman, Eric Fehrnstorm, told The Associated Press in April 2005. "We'll take a look at the bill should it reach the governor's desk."

But the bill had veto-proof support in both chambers of the Democrat-controlled legislature in 2005. In July, the House and Senate reached a compromise on it that would protect Catholic hospitals from being forced to act against their faith.

At that time, the Massachusetts Catholic Conference published a bulletin explaining what happened. The House had included language to "expressly apply" the 1975 conscience law protections to the new emergency contraception law. The Senate had included language saying the new law should apply "notwithstanding" any existing law.

"In the end, neither amendment was included in the bill," said the Massachusetts Catholic Conference. "House Majority Leader John Rogers, who worked tirelessly behind the scenes to defend the hospitals' right of conscience, made it clear during floor debate on July 21 that the House blocked the Senate amendment so that the 1975 conscience statute would continue to have full effect."

The conference provided me with a copy of this bulletin, and Rogers assured me its account was "accurate and true."

The Catholic Church still opposed the bill because it would facilitate abortions. But at least the religious liberty of Catholic hospitals had been preserved -- or so it seemed.

On July 25, 2005, Romney vetoed the bill -- even though it was clear his veto would be overridden.

He published an op-ed in the Boston Globe the next day explaining his decision. "The bill does not involve only the prevention of conception," he wrote. "The drug it authorizes would also terminate life after conception." Romney said the veto kept his pledge not to change the state's abortion laws.

Romney made no mention of the religious liberty issue in his op-ed. But then, the bill, as the Massachusetts Catholic Conference and the House majority leader understood it, did not allow coercion of Catholic hospitals.

On Dec. 7, 2005, a week before the law was to take effect, the Boston Globe ran a piece headlined: "Private Hospitals Exempt on Pill Law." The article said the state Department of Public Health had determined that the emergency contraception law "does not nullify a statute passed years ago that says privately run hospitals cannot be forced to provide abortions or contraception."

Public Health Commissioner Paul Cote Jr. told the Globe: "We felt very clearly that the two laws don't cancel each other out and basically work in harmony with each other."

Romney spokesman Fehrnstrom told the Globe that Romney agreed with the Department of Public Health on the issue. The governor, he said, "respects the views of health care facilities that are guided by moral principles on this issue."

"The staff of DPH did their own objective and unbiased legal analysis," Romney's spokesman told the Globe. "The brought it to us, and we concur in it."

The Globe itself ruefully bowed to this legal analysis. It ran an editorial headlined: "A Plan B Mistake." "The legislators failed, however," the Globe said, "to include wording in the bill explicitly repealing a clause in an older statute that gives hospitals the right, for reasons of conscience, not to offer birth control services."

Liberals joined in attacking Romney's defense of Catholic hospitals. But that defense did not last long.

The same day the Globe ran its editorial, Romney held a press conference. Now he said his legal counsel had advised him the new emergency contraception law did trump the 1975 conscience law.


"On that basis, I have instructed the Department of Public Health to follow the conclusion of my own legal counsel and to adopt that sounder view," Romney said. "In my personal view, it's the right thing for hospitals to provide information and access to emergency contraception to anyone who is a victim of rape."

A true leader would have said: I will defend the First Amendment right of Catholics to freely exercise their religion -- against those who would force them to participate in abortions -- all the way to the Supreme Court.

Romney cannot be trusted.  He is a globalist and committed to the New World Order.  When asked about the National Defense Authorization Act, he said without hesitation that he supports it.



From thepoliticalguide.com

Governor Romney is a strong supporter of the PATRIOT Act, and the expanded powers given to the government for homeland security purposes. He supports the use of Guantanamo Bay for holding detainees, supports military tribunals, and opposes habeas corpus rights for detainees and civilian trials for terrorists. He has also expressed support for extraordinary rendition.

At a campaign event in 2007, Governor Romney stated that he supported enhanced interrogation techniques in a "ticking time bomb" scenario, but that he was opposed to torture. He praised President Bush for the passage of the PATRIOT Act, for the pursuit of wiretapping calls made by possible terrorists, and for interrogating prisoners.

During the New Hampshire Debate, Governor Romney was asked about previous statements that he believed mosques should be wiretapped if a credible threat existed. He reiterated this stance, but noted a judge's approval would be required. He stated that while he hears people worry about encroachment on civil liberties, he believes that the most important civil liberty that government can provide is to keep it's citizens alive.

At a 2009 policy speech, Governor Romney lamented the possibility that CIA interrogators would be investigated over possible violations. He stated that there were times when other countries helped us out by allowing us to have prisoners interrogated there. Investigations into those actions only weakens trust in the US and may lead to nations refusing these extraordinary renditions in the future.

As part of his 2012 campaign, Governor Romney issued a white paper on foreign policy. In that document, he outlined a vision of the world that had the US under constant assault from all sides, and noted that the military and other tools of the government needed to be adjust to accomodate those threats. He advocated for restructuring the DHS, for focusing on domestic radicalization, and for updating the authorization for the use of force to include new terrorist entities and new countries.

In 2012, Governor Romney stated in a debate that he would have signed the 2012 National Defese Authorization Act. That legislation gave the President the authorization to arrest and indefinitely detain US citizens who are suspected on being allied with al-Qaeda.

Yes we have a choice between Romney and Obama, just as we have a choice between Lucifer and Satan.