Even as they try to scare female voters about Mitt Romney being an out-of-touch, anti-choice fanatic from one side of their mouths, pro-aborts hope to convince pro-lifers he’s an abortion-indifferent phony with the other.
Last week, Romney told the Des Moines Register, “There’s no legislation with regard to abortion that I’m familiar with that would become part of my agenda.” The Obama campaign and the mainstream media have pounced on the statement as a contradiction from Romney’s pro-life stance, simultaneously suggesting that Romney’s trying to deceive moderate voters and/or abandon pro-life ones.
Admittedly, the comment in question is poorly phrased, but a few moments of critical thought should be sufficient to figure out what Romney meant: he wasn’t aware of any specific pro-life legislation currently on Congress’s docket, and he wasn’t about to commit to some unknown, undefined hypothetical. Rightly so – no sane politician agrees to anything without reading the fine print, and the most immediate abortion-related controversies in this campaign revolve around undoing pro-abortion measures, not enacting pro-life ones.
On Friday, Romney clarified:
“I was asked a simple question – do you have a piece of legislation on this, and the answer is no, I don’t have a piece of legislation on this,” he told The Dispatch. “What I do have is an executive order which I will put in place on Day 1, to see that the Mexico City policy is put back in place.
“By the way, I said that to the Des Moines Register. The Mexico City policy, and I will also, as has been pointed out in ads here frequently, I will not fund Planned Parenthood through federal funding.
“And it is my preference that would return to the states and to the people and their elected representatives the issue of abortion as opposed to having the federal government impose, the Supreme Court impose its view on a one-vote majority. But that’s something that will be up to the court. That’s not something I can decide as president, that’s something which the court would have to decide.”
Viewed in context of everything else Romney has said about abortion during this campaign, it becomes clearer still that he wasn’t signaling any sudden abandonment of the unborn.
Throughout the Republican primary and the general election alike, Romney has consistently said he opposes abortion (with rape, incest, and life-of-mother exceptions). His pro-life platform strongly affirms the right to life, overturning Roe v. Wade, responsible judges, conscience rights, defunding Planned Parenthood, and opposing embryonic stem-cell research. Last year, he also pledged to reinstate the Mexico City Policy and support the Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act. His running mate, Paul Ryan, has an impeccable pro-life record. And despite identifying as pro-choice early in his political career, Romney sided with life as Massachusetts governor following his conversion.
Whatever else may be said about Mitt Romney, he cannot simultaneously be a fire-breathing radical out to usher in a new age of misogynist suppression and a opportunistic moderate just waiting to throw the right to life in the trash once he no longer needs it. It’s either-or. So which is it, liberals?
NOTE: Opinions expressed do not necessarily reflect the position of Live Action. Live Action does not endorse federal candidates.
