Stanek endorses Romney
I have a soft spot for pro-life converts, which Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney is. I think pro-lifers could do a better job of supporting them. I think it is time for that to happen for some of us who have been reluctant about Romney. The fact that he used to be pro-abortion is the major hang-up.
I’ve told the story before of meeting then-gubernatorial candidate Chris Christie at the New Jersey’s Rally for Life in 2009, where he was maligned by his primary opponent as a fake, a political opportunist. There were even a few boos when he was introduced. Feeling sorry for Christie, who looked a little out of place, I approached his table during dinner, introduced myself, and sat down to offer encouragement for his conversion. He lightened up and talked a mile a minute, describing how he had changed his view on the life issue when becoming a father in the 1990s.
To start out pro-abortion and end up pro-life cannot be an easy process, particularly when one is in the public eye.
But Romney has made that change. Toward that end, as the Susan B. Anthony List pointed out in its endorsement today:
Romney has pledged to defund Planned Parenthood, restore the Mexico City Policy, support legislation to ban abortions based on fetal pain, and appoint only constitutionalist judges to the federal bench. Governor Romney has also committed to selecting a pro-life vice president.
Pro-lifers will always want more, but this is a great start. There are also many intangibles a pro-life president brings to the table. Just imagine a president whose Justice Department allows states to defund Planned Parenthood without suing, for instance?
But as to the most consequential duty of our next president, choosing 2-3 Supreme Court justices, Romney has already started down the path he promised. In August 2011 Romney formed a Judicial Advisory Committee, with two of the best pro-life minds agreeing to serve as chairpersons: Judge Robert Bork and Professor Mary Ann Glendon, former U.S. Ambassador to the Holy See.
As for lingering pro-life complaints against Romney, Glendon was part of a group of pro-life leaders from Massachusetts, which also included Kris Mineau, Executive Director of the Massachusetts Family Institute, and Ray Ruddy, President of the Gerard Health Foundation (which biannually awards Life Prizes), who corrected the record in a statement in January, posted on LifeNews.com:
Governor Romney vetoed bills to provide access to the so-called “morning-after pill,” which is an abortifacient, as well as a bill providing for expansive, embryo-destroying stem cell research. He vetoed the latter bill in 2005 because he could not “in good conscience allow this bill to become law.”
We do not agree with the claims that Gov. Romney is responsible for tax payer funded abortion under the Massachusetts health care system. That blame lies solely on the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court who ruled in 1981 that the Massachusetts Constitution required payment for abortions for Medicaid-eligible women. In 1997, the Court reaffirmed its position that a state-subsidized plan must offer “medically necessary abortions.”
In 2006, under Governor Romney’s leadership, Massachusetts’ public schools began to offer a classroom program on abstinence from the faith-based Boston group Healthy Futures to middle school students. Promoting the program, Governor Romney stated, “I’ve never had anyone complain to me that their kids are not learning enough about sex in school. However, a number of people have asked me why it is that we do not speak more about abstinence as a safe and preventative health practice.”
We are aware of the 1994 comments of Senate candidate Romney, which have been the subject of much recent discussion. While they are, taken by themselves, obviously worrisome to social conservatives including ourselves, they do not dovetail with the actions of Governor Romney from 2003 until now – and those actions have positively and demonstrably impacted the social climate of Massachusetts.
Since well before 2003, we have been laboring in the trenches of Massachusetts, fighting for the family values you and we share. It is difficult work indeed – not for the faint of heart. In this challenging environment, Governor Romney has proven that he shares our values, as well as our determination to protect them.
I agree with the sentiments expressed by Eric Scheidler, who wrote in an email (as a private citizen and not as Executive Director of Pro-Life Action League):
Now that Santorum is out, it’s this man’s opinion we all need to cowboy up and help Romney beat Obama.
And that starts, now, with avoiding all disparaging remarks about “holding one’s nose” and the like, which I’ve been seeing on Facebook these last few hours. From now on, I’m nothing but thrilled I’ve got a good man to rally behind, and I’ll leave it to Team Obama to make Romney look like anything less.
It also means working to convince our friends that sitting out this election is the wrong call. Yes, I’d rather have 8 years of Romney than 4 more years of Obama followed by the impossible task of undoing 4 more years of Obama.
Finally, defeating Obama with Romney shows the both of them, and the whole country with them, who owns the grassroots.

I would just say that the issue that Romney was pro-choice and is now pro-life should, to me, be the MOST AWESOME thing that can be said. If we could turn all of these pro-choice/death people into pro-life what a gift from God it would be. I pray that we can change the hearts of more and more each day.
Headline: Amber Currie Endorses Ron Paul, Can’t Stand Romney (but would choose him over Obama if it were the last line of defense.)
Ron Paul:-Has delivered over 2,000 babies.-Is the only 100% pro-life candidate.-Will cut all federal funding of Planned Parenthood and other abortion mills, Obamacare, etc.-Will over turn Roe v. Wade.-Will support pro-life legislation.-Has promised to sign an amendment to the Constitution that will give the unborn personhood if congress gives him one.
-Does not flip-flop like Romney.
-100% Christian (not Mormon) values.
-Has been married to his lovely life for so long, they are beautiful and inseparable.
-Cares about our religious freedom.
-Supports the Constitution.
-Plans to cut the debt by $1 TRILLION the first year!
– Will bring our troops home.
-Puts America first!Ron Paul pro-life ad: http://youtu.be/MkAsLPrnJGc
Santorum tells WA leader to support Ron Paul: http://www.dailypaul.com/223934/breaking-santorum-directs-wa-team-to-form-coalition-w-paul-supporters
Christian leader says to Santorum fans; support Ron Paul, Romney is evil: http://www.opposingviews.com/i/religion/christian-leader-calls-santorum-followers-vote-ron-paul-pray-and-fast-wednesdays-usa
One of the biggest problems with Romney a lot of us are having is that Romneycare was the model for Obamacare. Ron Paul for the win.
“Pro-lifers will always want more”? Yes that’s right, we will always want the lives of all those unborn babies to be legally recognized and protected. I was pretty sure that’s what “pro-life” meant. Guess that’s too radical, huh?
Oh come on, people Ronald Reagan actually signed the bill that legalized abortion in California, and he’s often seen as a hero in the prolife movement. Basically, Romney is guilty of maintaining the status quo as governor. Honestly, ANYTHING is better than Obama, and I’m pretty sure Romney’s one of us now anyway.
As a retired pro-life nurse and social conservative I am behind Mitt Romney for president as well. The fact that he has changed his mind about the abortion issue is not suprising. There are thousands of American who are learning for first time the ugly facts concerning killing children in the womb. If Roe versus Wade were overturned, the abortion industry would dry up overnight because people would have to take responsibility for their behavior. We have the scientific ability to identify every father who fathers a child, but we lack the moral will to make that father responsible for his part in the creation. Giving women the absolute power to have their offspring killed in the womb or left to die is morally unacceptable. I have to have faith that the moral majority in this country will make it happen.
Can someone give me a rough time as far as when Romney changed his mind to switch from pro-choice to pro-life? I can certainly appreciate it when someone converts, I’m interested in investigating whether or not it would be a true conversion. So does anyone know roughly which year it was that Romney converted? Or is he on record as having officially converted? Thanks.
Endorsing Mitt Romney, especially when Newt Gingrich is still in the race is not just myopic, it is horrifying.
Arlen, Newt Gingrich isn’t in the race in any serious sense.
You have to ask yourself: do you want to quibble or do you want to get rid of Obama?
No mere politician is going to save the world, but, we need to focus and win the presidency away from the man who is getting political donations from Planned Parenthood who is still getting OUR tax money.
Basically Planned Parenthood is a murderous, filthy, money-laundering organization. And our current president is beholden to them like a dog on a leash.
We need to get rid of Obama AND make sure that we don’t end up with anything resembling Romneycare, Obamacare, Stalincare, Leningradcare, or MaoTseTungcare.
Bobby Bambino wrote:
Can someone give me a rough time as far as when Romney changed his mind to switch from pro-choice to pro-life?
Why, certainly! (*clears throat*)
(*wry humour warning, BTW*)
Good grief, man!! Do you seriously not know when Romney supposedly changed his position? Are you utterly unaware of your surroundings, you snotty-faced heap of parrot-droppings? You vacuous, toffee-nosed, malodorous pervert??
(*pause*)
Oh… you meant, “give me a rough approximation of the time“? :)
(BTW: in case anyone is scratching his/her head at the reference: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kQFKtI6gn9Y)
Oh I just got it… you think as a mathematician I would be more precise. You would be wrong.
:) No, no… I think you were quite clear. It’s simply that such comedic set-ups happen so infrequently, that one needs to grab them when they arrive…
To give you an example of how I feel right now, it is as I walked into my favorite seafood restaurant and I asked for a hearty grilled wild caught salmon fillet with a side of veggie (Santorum) and they told me all they had was farm-raised tilapia and house salad (Romney)
OR a cholesterol-buster double-cheese burger with bacon a large fries (e.g. Obama) (all pun intended).
I’ll take the tilapia and house salad anytime!
Sorry…it’s lunch-time and I am really hungry!
Anybody But Obama 2012!
Bobby,
Slate has a fascinating and thorough article about Romney’s history regarding abortion.
start at the slate website then add: /articles/news_and_politics/the_conversion/2012/02/mitt_romney_s_abortion_record_flip_flop_or_conversion_.single.html
I would be really interested to hear reactions to this article.
Those who vote for Ron Paul (unelectable, like it or not) on principle are neglecting other principles that are of comparable importance. Such as that voting on principle in a way that gets Obama re-elected (spoiler vote for Romney) repudiates other principles they hold dear. “Romney’s the only solid alternative to Obama! Therefore we’ll vote for someone who won’t get elected, in a way that will ensure that someone who’s worse than the alternative we could have voted for instead, wins again! We’re flippin’ geniuses at these calculi!” ;)
“Romney’s a changeling pro-lifer!” Ah, I see! So a spoiler vote that gets a solid, committed pro-choicer re-elected is the logical answer. Thanks for sequencing your principles with such great priority! ;)
Bobby Bambino says: April 12, 2012 at 12:56 pm
1. Can someone give me a rough time as far as when Romney changed his mind to switch from pro-choice to pro-life?…
2. Or is he on record as having officially converted?
============================================================
Bobby,
1. Which time?
2. See #1.
I have a vague recollection of a post or a link to a post on this site that chronicled Mitt’s meandering journey from one position to the other on his previous attempt to secure the republican nomination.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eBRjSe8WvfQ
This is definately a ‘lesser of two evils’ situation.
Let your olfactory senses lead you on this one.
b o stinks more than a crack ho on sunday mornin.
de-odorize the white house.
get rid of b o.
The choice is between a plastic RINO and a Kenyan lyin.
Both are proof positive that a leper can change his spots.
But the good news is neither man is a muslim
and the bad news is neither man is a christian.
b o is consistent in his disregard for the rights of pre-natal humans.
m r is consistently inconsistent when it comes to pre-natal children.
Just pray when it comes time for mitt to nominate supreme court justices and he spins the wheel of misfortune that it is Vanna selects the letters on the board that spell ‘pro-life’.
You have to ask yourself: do you want to quibble or do you want to get rid of Obama?
This is precisely why the Republicans continue to get away with putting faux conservatives up as the nominee. They know that, when push comes to shove, their base won’t ever actually stop them. This is basic operant conditioning: as long as the target behavior keeps getting reinforced, the target behavior will keep occuring. And we’re always promised that “next election cycle, there’ll be a better nominee.” That’s like saying “I’ll do it tomorrow.” It will never be tomorrow. The next election cycle will never come. We either decide to stop putting up with mediocrity or we will continue to be stuck with it.
MaryGW says: April 12, 2012 at 12:16 pm
”I pray that we can change the hearts of more and more each day.”
==============================================================
MGW,
Suggested prayer for mr. bo=jangles:
Acts 1:20 For in the book of Psalms it is written, Let his place of residence become deserted and gloomy, and let there be no one to live in it; and [again], Let another take his position or overseership. [Ps 69:25; 109:8.] AMP
Alice: “And we’re always promised that ‘next election cycle, there’ll be a better nominee’.”
Actually, that’s the promise the “principled voters” (such as Ron Paul fans) always make. “Well, maybe Obama WILL get re-elected, but since there’s little difference between him and Romney, it won’t matter. After 4 more years of Obama the nation will see the sense of a conservative candidate. But they actually won’t see that because in order to rationalize our spoiler vote we’ll also assert that as a lame duck Obama won’t do much mischief after all. We’re so incoherent!” ;)
There are two kind of voters: those who vote to keep their integrity lily white, and those who wish their vote to have an effect. The latter resent the former’s “spoiler” role (“you’re throwing away a vote that could avoid the worst alternative and you gain nothing by doing so, contrary to your send-a-message holier-than-thou principled inconsequential voting!”), and the former resent that the latter do not en masse (for only en masse would it matter) convert to integrity voters willing to gamble that everyone else will jump at the same time, thus both rendering their pragmatic vote moot and making the principled vote consequential for a change.
Bah.
We have to remember that the default position of most people - especially politicians - is to be tolerant of abortion. It’s quite believable that they would convert to pro-life. How can a pro-lifer say, “Oh! Never mind! I thought they were babies, but it’s been proven to me that they’re not.”
Good point. At least, it sounds intuitive. Is there any evidence that such conversions are “one way?”
Hans,
Proabortion has always been politically popular. It’s up to us to make it not politically popular.
Love Paul or hate him, you always know where he stands-same can’t be said for Romney, Obama or Gingrich. He’s witnessed abortion and he respects the Constitution. At this point I’d vote for Obama’s dog before I voted Obama.
MPQ,
Too many people have blinders on when it comes to protecting the soon-to-be-born. Certainly Ron Paul is not one of them. But when it comes to foreign policy, he does. It’s a small, dangerous world. Our nation is as responsible for keeping the peace as we all are to protect the defenseless in the womb.
Good points, hans, and well worth considering.
See:
Everyone griping for us to get out of Iraq, and now that we are out of Iraq, crap like persecution/murder of homosexuals and all that other good stuff is going on that libs ALSO complain about. Sorry guys, can’t have it both ways! Either we stay to help keep the peace until civil government is established, or innocent people DIE.
Obama and Romney are centrists, though there is some separation between the two. The American people, as a whole, fall in-between them. Santorum was “way out there” and thank goodness he quit.
Paladin gets +10000 internets for the Monty Python reference.
I dislike every single politician in the race, and however I vote I am voting against my conscience in some way. I can barely stomach Romney but I definitely like him over Obama.
Obama is a centrist like Richard Simmons is a tad flamboyant. He’s only very good at backpedaling and attacking messengers when they bring out examples of his extremism. I’m sorry, but you can only scream, “LIAR!” at so many reputable sources before you lose all credibility. Obama is long past that point, I’m afraid.
What is Ann Romney’s pro life status?
Arliss: Obama and Romney are centrists, though there is some separation between the two. The American people, as a whole, fall in-between them. Santorum was “way out there” and thank goodness he quit.
Exactly. There are people on either side who will whine and moan about one or the other, especially if said people are far to one side or the other.
I must disagree with this decision to endorse Romney. His “conversion” was in fact not a difficult thing to do. It was the necessary political step that had to be made when he decided to run for the Republican nomination. Saying that you are pro-life is popular among republicans if not in the mainstream media.
A true pro-lifer would not just state that he is going to do something about abortion he would actually sign pledges put out by numerous pro-life groups, which he has refused to do. He also has no record to back up what he claims. The record that he does have is pushing to pass his health care bill in Massachusetts which funded abortions just as Obamacare does. Obama is already tearing him apart on this. He released an ad recenty on the anniversary of the passage of Romneycare wishing it a happy birthday. The Republicans want to make repealing Obamacare a major campaign issue and then they go and choose a nominee who passed the same bill in Massachusetts!
Now I know that someone is going to bring up the fact that Romney’s defense of his health care bill is that “I believe it should be a state issue, not a federal issue.” And yet if you watched him at all during the debates, states rights was almost never something he talked or cared about except when it became a convenient defense for this particular bill.
I will not vote for someone “just to beat Obama.” There must be a more principled reason than that. Do we really want to put our support behind a man who has such a bad record (on so many things if you’re a conservative) just because Obama is on “the other team.” I vote for men who have actually stood behind what they believe and have been consistent, not lying, floundering politicians.
But some would say “then you’re just essentially voting for Obama by not voting for Romney.” The logic of this can be discounted immediately. If not voting for Romney is the same as voting for Obama, then why isn’t the inverse true as well. Why isn’t not for Obama the same as voting for Romney. Logically the two are equal. So by this flawed reasoning that many have used against me I am voting for Romney in the fall by not voting for Obama.
There is a whole lot more to the pro-life fight than the president. We will not be able to end abortion in America just because we have some “pro-life convert” Republican in the White House. Did Bush do anything serious to end abortion (in the womb) during his 8 years as president? Just because someone is “our guy” does not mean they will put themselves on the line to advance the pro-life cause. And so I choose to vote on principle and not be a pawn in the political game, making my only value “uniting around the GOP.” That to me is not a goal to be supported. In April I will cast my primary vote for a man of consistency and I will sit out the November election because both men have taken far to many big government, pro-abortion actions to be trusted or to be worthy of support.
@jim sable: Google says…hard to pin down. She donated money to PP in 1994 (only $150, though, which is not exactly a ringing endorsement) and she’s expressed support for stem cell research in 2004 (I think; source does not give good dates for her or specify which kind of SCR, which is sort of an important point). On the other hand, in a 2008 video she says “I’ve always been pro-life.” So…question mark. At the very least, she doesn’t seem to want to publically state support for abortion, which is not a bad thing.
Ron Paul has zero chance of being elected. The only chance he has at making a meaningful difference in the election would be to be a spoiler through a 3rd party run. Should he do such a thing, then Obama owes him an ambassadorship since at that point he is on the Obama team.
Beyond that, his approach to abortion is to return it to the states. That is no solution. For anyone that “wants it all” on the Life issue, Ron Paul is not your solution.
Finally, anyone that thinks Obama is a centrist needs to choose from one of the following.
a) put down the crack pipe
b) call their mom’s OB/GYN and ask if he still has the brain he removed at birth
c) seek serious psychiatric help
d) ask God for forgiveness for being a hopeless habitual lying sack of it
ROMNEY 2012
I love the people who say “Ron Paul has zero chance of being elected.” Why? Because the MEDIA says so? Because the ESTABLISHMENT has handed you the koolaid and you’re obviously drinking deeply? I know SO MANY people who are supporting Paul. Many many many more than Romney.
Romney…BLECH. As much as I respect Jill, I totally disagree with her on this. I am voting for who I want to vote for, just as you all will too. I don’t care if people I respect vote for Romney. My vote is my own. I will vote my conscience. I am tired of POLITICIANS. I want someone like Paul who follows the Constitution even when its unpopular. He is principled and we need a man like that at this hour!
saynotoromneycare – on behalf of our current deathscort-in-chief, let me say “thank you for your support” – thank you for standing behind your “principles” – we could use more like you – if you have not been euthanized for your own good and to help ease the burden on your fellow comrades, we will pass on your principled name to Hillary or whoever we have anointed as successor (unless, of course, we have already managed to eliminate the Consitution and install BO as supreme god-ruler)
Y’all might want to check out the treatment Ann Romney is currently getting on Twitter:
http://moronicprochoicequotes.blogspot.com/2012/04/ann-romney-and-few-classy-liberal.html
Someone from the Obama camp made a huge gaffe saying Ann Romney has ‘never worked’ (as if motherhood wasn’t work) so, can we expect she’ll receive an apologetic phone call from Big O like Fluke got?
So let me get this straight. Romney becomes Pro-Life and then signes this monstrosity into Law in Massachusetts. Notice under “Out Patient Care” Abortions. $50. Friends, these are taxpayer funded abortions. No thank you You can keep Mitt. I for one will not be voting for him and hope the GOP establishment wakes up to realize he will not beat Obama. They need to support another candidate. Here’s to a brokered convention in Tampa!
https://www.mahealthconnector.org/portal/binary/com.epicentric.contentmanagement.servlet.ContentDeliveryServlet/About%2520Us/Connector%2520Programs/Additional%2520Resources/cc_benefits1220_pt234.pdf
MPQ, looks like Obama finally responded: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/47036448#.T4eQPI78SS4
I don’t know about any phone call, though. :D
Ron Paul has been around forever but never rises far in the polls because when he starts going up he says something insane like 9/11 was an inside job.
if we’re going to doubt Mitt Romney’s prolife conversion, then I think we also have to doubt Newt Gingrich’s conversion from a philandering, oathbreaking Republican loyalist who puts party before principle (Google “Gingrich” and “Scozzafava”) into a devoted husband who is honest and virtuous.
Kel-
Color me shocked :)
My favourite part was when that clown said that “the Obama campaign does not use [the term ‘War on Women’]”, and that it’s really just a victim card that the Republicans are spreading:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BrYomxAKzs4&feature=related
…except it gets 72 Google hits on Obama’s official campaign site:
http://www.google.ca/#q=site%3Abarackobama.com+%22War+on+Women%22&hl=en&prmd=imvns&ei=uZeHT7HrB4Gx8AG529G6CQ&start=0&sa=N&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.r_qf.,cf.osb&fp=50263e49d726c85c&biw=1280&bih=606
The first one also includes the 2011 ‘lie of the year’, which gets 101 hits.
Though in all fairness, Hilary Rosen isn’t directly connected to the president’s re-election campaign.
Jason: “I for one will not be voting for him”
So your vote will be a spoiler, increasing Obama’s odds of winning. Because whatever candidate you vote for to preserve your lily-white principled credentials will NOT have a chance of winning, and if Obama’s the last person you’d vote for then any vote short of one for an electable candidate is one for Obama.
Look, people, no one likes to be in an untenable position. I understand that. But let’s not be delusional about the practical effect of being all holier-than-thou with our votes. If you want Obama elected, don’t vote for Romney. Progressives will thank you. Conservatives will not — not because conservatives love Romney — but because he’s closer to them than Obama by a long shot.
And stop rationalizing your lunacy by continually trying as hard as you possibly can to make out that “Romney’s no different than Obama, really.” That’s just an effort to suppress the cognitive dissonance you feel whenever someone calls you a lamer spoiler.
Eh?
Well said, Jill. I believe Mitt Romney to be a very genuine man. As a Christian, I am called to forget about the past at the instant of a conversion and not to judge the person but the actions. If Mitt Romney performed abortions yesterday and today proclaimed himself pro-life, the challenge would be to recognize him as a pro-lifer – but we have that example in Dr. Diamond and Norma McCorvey. Heck, even when Giuliani was running he maintained his pro-abortion stance but pledged to appoint only strict constructionists to the supreme court. Even if he had won, Roe would be in very deep doo-doo. Mitt is not just our best hope – I believe that 8 years from now we will be holding him up as a pro-life hero. Funny how circumstances and timing make unlikely herores out of people.
Romney’s “pro-life” record:
1. Created RomneyCare which is terribly similar to ObamaCare but even worse for it openly funds abortion.
2. Forced Catholic Hospitals to violated their conscience in Massachusetts exactly like the recent mandate does. (http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/romney-pulled-the-rug-out-from-under-catholic-hospitals-adoption-agencies-m)
3. Put Planned Parenthood on the so-called “independent” board he created that offers $50 co-pay abortions, thereby instituted tax-funded abortion on demand two years after his orchestrated “pro-life” conversion and yet denies responsibility for the 10-member board even though his executive branch filled 7 seats
4. Supported destructive embryonic research after his false 2004 pro-life conversion.
5. Put a pro-abortion Democratic judge on the bench after Romney had claimed a pro-life conversion.
6. Single-handedly instituted same-sex marriage and later fabricated a claim that a court ordered him to do so.
7. Pro-choice in ’94; pro-life in ’01; pro-choice ’02; pro-life ’04; pro-choice ’05; pro-life in ’06; then funded abortion in ’06
As Christians, we must accept converts and rejoice. But is it prudent to trust this politician’s conversion? Why not hold off on an endorsement until Romney commits to certain points (he is the only GOP candidate not to sign the Susan B. Anthony, or the Personhood pledge)
The mainstream pro-life movement should be a pro-life advocate and learn to be comfortable stating the fact that in 2012, there will be no pro-life candidate (Obama or Romney)
Could we trust Romney, even if he did commit to certain points? Keep in mind Obama ran as a moderate and then swung far left immediately after winning the election.
Kevin Keane says: April 13, 2012 at 6:04 am
“As a Christian, I am called to forget about the past at the instant of a conversion and not to judge the person but the actions.”
==============================================================
KK,
Conversion from the ‘dead babies r us’ mob to a ‘pro-life’ position is in no way synonomous with being ‘born again’.
One of the evidences of being ‘born again’ would be converting from a pro-abort position to a ‘pro-life’ position, but Mitt Romney has made no claims of being ‘born again’.
He is still mired in the same religious self deception that allowed him to support abortion on demand, public funding of abortion, planned parenthood and same sex marriages, not to be mention ‘Romney care’.
[I am not singling out mormonism when I speak of religious self deception. It is a sin that is common to all religions.]
Romney will be a far more competent president than mr. bo-jangles, but I have serious reservations if he will employ his competency to better the plight of pre-natal children. Mitt might even use his presidential veto to nullify a law overturning obamahellthscare.
I would not go so far as to declare, ‘Anybody, but o’bama!’ because I am sure there will always be someone worse than b o.
If Romney gets the nominaiton then I will vote for him in hope that he is better than mr. bo-jangles.
Ken the birther said ”
I would not go so far as to declare, ‘Anybody, but o’bama!’ because I am sure there will always be someone worse than b o.
Ken I agree with you. There always can be someone worse than Obama.
However, the question is, after all is said and done and someone from the GOP gets the nomination, at that point there are only two items on our “menu”: 1.Barack Obama: 2. GOP nominee (say Romney). Which one do you pick?
Parpharsing another blogger “do you pick sure shipwreck and death (Obama) or uncertain naviagtion through foggy seas (Romney) “?
I would pick the latter since I have the hope (although at this point I am not 100% convinced of Romney complete pro-life conversion since I haven’t seen any concrete action in that sense on his part and his negative attack campaign doesn’t speak well of him) we can influence his possible presidency.
What!!?? Why not support Ron Paul who was always against Abortion and voted against Roe vs Wade!!!
Hey Prolife movement, Mitt’s and Obama’s policies both foreign and domestic are almost the same!!! WAKE-UP!!! If i was on the Pro-choice side you guys would be looking like complete Morons!! That is a Fact; Use your Brain!! Mitt is a Flip-Flopper he only says what you want to hear to get votes!!
If your voting only for mitt because you think he can beat obama, then your not thinking…..Mitt has not New or Youth vote, nor will he get any democrats or other 3rd parties to vote for him!! Ron Paul is the only one who can beat obama because Ron Paul has Respect among all party lines because he never changes to get votes!! If the prolife movement wants to give PP and liberal teachers firepower to use against them, this will be YOUR own Folly!!!
I had liberal teachers before, and when socalled godly groups support a candidate who is a Fake, they will not only lose a spirit they will lose the YOUTH!!! Wake-UP; Because if your only in for Mitt to beat obama, then your being a team player and have NO foundation or cause, just nothing more then quicksand.
You like pro-life converts? What about people who have been pro-life their entire lives? What about people who actively and publicly decry abortion? “Eventually I would like to see Roe v. Wade repealed.” Come on Jill, you’re either pro-life or you’re not. If you support Romney, it’s clear that YOU DO NOT SUPPORT PRO-LIFE. I don’t think you can get clearer than Ron Paul: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VfXzWo8znQI
Ron Paul has delivered over 4,000 babies. Mitt Romney has pressured female interns into aborting at least twice. You can’t be pro-life and pro-Romney. it’s a no brainer, the only Christian left in the race is Ron Paul.
Jill, you’re absolutely killing me here. Setting aside the life issue for a second, there are other disqualifying issues besides abortion. You do know that right? Mitt Romney is a cult member. He also singlehandedly instituted homosexual marriage in Massachusetts. On the contrary, Obama claims to be a Christian and also openly opposes gay marriage. Let’s take a look at the whole lesser of two evils approach:
Candidate A
Christian
Against gay marriage
Candidate B
Cultist
Supports gay marriage
Who should I pick Jill? Please answer.
Getting to the abortion issue. Since you think Romney is a convert, can you please answer 2 questions?
1. What month and year did he convert?
2. Has he done anything pro-abortion since then?
Re: the Ron Paul supporters:
1) Fro what it’s worth, I think it’d be a fully valid (morally, and otherwise) option to cast one’s vote for Ron Paul, despite his presumably poor chances of securing the nomination and/or final election victory.
2) I don’t, however, see that it’d be either obligatory (morally speaking) or even necessarily the best choice, given two key reasons: (a) the apparent low probability that Rep. Paul could, in fact, get elected in this cycle; and (b) the fact that Rep. Paul is on record as “sending the abortion issue back to the states” (as opposed to prohibiting it on all levels, federal and state), which would presumably allow for individual states to keep abortion legal (and even minimally restricted). He also has made some rather bizarre comments re: 9/11, though I find those to be of lesser importance than the abortion issue.
As an aside: I don’t think that an agreement to vote for Romney (and, frankly, I’m struggling with that a bit, myself–I’m leaning toward holding my nose doubly-hard, and voting for him [as I did for McCain… *sigh*] simply to try to minimise the damage which an Obama second term would doubtlessly inflict) necessarily translates into a positive and glowing support of Romney in toto.
First, Jill Stanek’s endorsement of any political candidate carries no weight. Second, of course Jill Stanek supports the RINO. She will follow the herd and vote for the Liberal she doesn’t know (MR) to replace the Liberal she does know (BO).
To Ron Paul supporters:
I have do have a problem with Ron Paul since he’s for the liberalization of recreational drugs.
I sincerely think that we do have enough addictions and lack of clarity in our society already to justify more of them.
My preference has been from the beginning was for Michele Bachmann and then Rick Santorum, but since both are out of the race and I haven’t voted in my primaries yet, here’s my preferred lineup:
1. Newt Ginrgich
2. Ron Paul
3. Mitt Romney
since Romney currently has the majority of delegates, the general opinion is that he might be the one selected to represent GOP.
However, as I stated in my previous comments, in the end, in November I will vote for the person who will be selcted out of the GOP contenders.
@Jason, who stated…”I for one will not be voting for him and hope the GOP establishment wakes up to realize he will not beat Obama.”
Here’s a newsflash, the GOP uses pro-life language and Christians to shore up their base. If you believe the GOP is Pro-Life, then define, or re-define Pro-Life to suit your agenda.
Name one single current US Supreme Court Justice appointed by a GOP nominated and elected President that has ever once ruled in favor of the Pro-Life position at any level of any court.
GODISNOWHERE wrote:
Name one single current US Supreme Court Justice appointed by a GOP nominated and elected President that has ever once ruled in favor of the Pro-Life position at any level of any court.
Would George W. Bush, appointing Justices Alito and Roberts, ruling on the Gonzales v. Carhart case against partial birth abortion, do as a start?
Gonzales v. Carhart
Paladin – thank you
godisnowhere – would you call that a “newsflash” also? apparently it is for you
Paladin, I can guarantee you have never read the Gonzales v. Carhart ruling. I know that because you would have never posted it as a positive thing. It’s evil. It’s the most wicked ruling ever handed down by the SCOTUS. Click here http://americanrtl.org/partial-birth-abortion-ban-fiasco-saved-not-one#leaderscondemning for a long list of pro-life leaders that have condemned the ruling.
The ruling not only did not have the power to save even one innocent child, it contained a manual on how to brutally murder a child. The bill was the equivalent to a bill that said, “You can’t throw a Jew into an oven. If you want to kill a Jew, you need to gas them. It’s more humane that way.”
GODISNOWHERE is onto something. Not one sitting SCOTUS member believes in the right to life of the preborn child. Not one.
@Paladin who wrote…”Would George W. Bush, appointing Justices Alito and Roberts, ruling on the Gonzalez v Carhart case against partial birth abortion, do as a start?”
Umm, No. If you read Gonzalez v. Carhart you would not have replied with such a softball. Gonzalez v. Carhart proves my point. Did you find it at all interesting that even the once heralded James Dobson came out of the gates cheerleading the very ruling you were suckered into believing was a pro-life ruling and then, after actually reading the ruling and wiping the vomit (and egg) from his face, recanted when he wrote this about Gonzalez v. Carhart, and I quote, “Ending partial-birth abortion, which would more accurately name late-term murder, does not save a single human life.”
If that surprises you, then what about this quote from Dr. Dobson in the same letter? “Abortion is still legal throughout nine months of gestation. Justice Kennedy, who wrote the majority opinion for the court and cast the deciding vote, reminded us that it is still legal to kill at will: “In addition, the Act’s [the partial birth abortion ban] prohibition only applies to the delivery of a living fetus. If the intact D&E procedure is truly necessary in some circumstances, it appears likely an injection that kills the fetus is an alternative under the Act that allows the doctor to perform the procedure.” Dr. Dobson continues commenting on Justice Kennedy…”It appears that what he is referring to here is the killing of babies by injecting poison into their hearts. I’m not sure which is worse, collapsing the head of a viable baby and extracting his brains, or injecting a lethal dose into the baby’s body.”
This so-called pro-life court merely ruled on killing babies with Zyklon B instead of using Zyklon A. If that is unfamiliar to you, then I suggest you look it up before you reply. You have been fooled and will realize this after you actually read Gonzalez v. Carhart before ever callously using again it as a pro-life talking point…
Bryan: Beyond that, his approach to abortion is to return it to the states. That is no solution. For anyone that “wants it all” on the Life issue, Ron Paul is not your solution.
Bryan, even were Roe Versus Wade reversed, that is what would happen – it would then be an issue for the individual states. What “solution” are you seeing?
Not one sitting SCOTUS member believes in the right to life of the preborn child. Not one.
That doesn’t matter. All we need is five of them to agree that Roe v. Wade was a wrong decision and that the issue should be returned to the democratic system. Someone can hold this position and still think that abortion should be legal. As far as I’m concerned, a pro-abortion anti-Roe judge is every bit as good as a pro-life anti-Roe judge. They just have to do their jobs properly and vote to overturn Roe.
@Bryan who needs to read the newsflash in my previous post to Paladin. The unintelligent tend to come from the uninformed and thus are doomed to follow the unintelligent into the pits of hell. If you believe the following, you are uninformed;
1. George and Laura Bush are Pro-Life
2. Gonzalez v. Carhart is a Pro-life victory
3. Roe v. Wade was not written by a Republican appointed Justice.
4. Legal child killing was not instituted at the state level prior to Roe v. Wade by then Republican Colorado Governor John Love.
5. etc, etc etc…
(*sigh*)
The original question was a wide-open query about “any” nominated judge making “any” ruling “in favour of the pro-life position”. No one is pretending that Gonzales v. Carhart was ideal, or even an unalloyed victory; but (to the dismay of abortion-tolerant people from all walks of life) it forbade partial-birth abortion, and it narrowed the scope of the current slaughter by forbidding one of the worst methods of that slaughter. What, were you expecting an utter reversal of Roe v. Wade with the decision? The case didn’t even pretend to go in that direction!
As a side question: would you have preferred that partial-birth abortion had been allowed (as surely would have been the case with Obama appointees, for example)? If you were unsatisfied with the answer, then perhaps you should not have asked so sweeping (to the point of nonsense) a question, yes?
If you’d like to debate the general issue of “the point or futility of engaging the political process, vis-a-vis abortion”, we can have that. But if so, then do stick to well-defined questions, if you please.
Before Gonzales, there was Planned Parenthood v. Casey. This resulted in four judges (three of them GOP appointed) voting to overturn Roe and another three (also GOP appointed) who voted to give states greater ability to restrict abortion.
Facts do matter.
I really do have to mark these sorts of things on my calendar; I can’t help but think that there’s a pattern to these sorts of “troll swarms” (though they do seem to be coming in a variety of interesting colours!), who are content to stand atop desks (or other furniture/equipment which allows for a higher vantage than the floor) and howl/bay at whomever and whatever displeases them, without regard for any substantive additions of their own to the topic.
If I didn’t already know that Passover (which is always on a full moon) were not already a week past, I’d suspect a full moon. Ah, well…
I don’t trust Romney one bit but that being said, I will still take him over Obama.
Against Abortion, that mentality right there is what’s gotten us to Romney. It’s a downward spiral, not an upward spiral. Think about it. Bob Dole, George W. Bush, John McCain, and now, Mitt Romney. WE’RE GOING IN THE WRONG DIRECTION!! If the Christian pro-life movement were a football team, we’d be headed toward the wrong end zone, for crying out loud.
“The ruling not only did not have the power to save even one innocent child, it contained a manual on how to brutally murder a child.”
You beat me to that little fact about that ruling.
Anyway, Justice Scalia has publicly said “There is no prohibition in the Constitution for Abortion”, meaning it is a STATE issue. Let’s assume Roe is overturned. NJ does not ever enact an abortion ban. John’s wife Mary decides to have an abortion without his consent. John sues in US District Court alleging his unborn child’s rights are being violated for lack of protection from abortion.
Justice Scalia or Roberts writes the 9-0 decision saying “Sorry John, the Constitution contains no prohibitions on abortion”. Roe 2.0 is now “Supreme Law of the Land”.
Scalia is waiting and salivating to overturn Roe, annihilate and castrate the Commerce Clause, and beat down the Federal Government’s power with a baseball bat. Appointing more Scalias and Alitos just might give you the Federal Government’s inability to regulate illegal drugs, abortion, pornography, and who knows what else. Be careful what you wish for…
I love the people who say “Ron Paul has zero chance of being elected.” Why? Because the MEDIA says so? Because the ESTABLISHMENT has handed you the koolaid and you’re obviously drinking deeply?
I’m going to go out on a limb and say it’s because voters are not voting for him.
Ron Paul who was always against Abortion and voted against Roe vs Wade!!!
Wow. Ron Paul was on the Supreme Court? Why did he step down?
Bobby,
It appears no one actually answered your question yet. This link gives a pretty detailed history of his record and views on abortion:
http://www.aboutmittromney.com/abortion.htm
Candidate AChristianAgainst gay marriage
Candidate BCultistSupports gay marriage
Who should I pick Jill? Please answer.
Scott Evans…you must have been down on cousin Bob’s farm breathing heavy bs and it is affecting your ability to smell out lies. Romney is not for gay marriage. I see right through Dan D’s lies.
@truthseeker, your immature, junior high school style rhetoric has no effect on me so save your breath. If you truly are a truth seeker, check this out and then apologize for your foolish statement about Mitt Romney not being for gay marriage:
http://www.massresistance.org/docs/marriage/romney/dec_letter/letter.pdf
http://www.robertpaine.blogspot.com/
Blah, blah, blah! Will you people stop obsessing about specks in Romney’s eye? Obama’s got a Sequoia sticking out of his, if you hadn’t noticed. Get with the program. Romney’s the best shot we have, and he’ll probably be no worse than Bush. And that’s a darn sight better than what we’ve got.
^ This.
Scott,
Your regurgitation of Dan D’s insinuation that Romney “single handedly instituted homosexual marriage in Massachusetts” is way beyond a stretch. That type of bold-faced bs is rarely rarely heard outside of Democratic party strategists like Debbie Wasserman Schultz or from Obama himself. I see right through you.
George Bush may not be totally pro-life, but while he was President we weren’t paying for abortion, the government wasn’t trying to coerce religious organizations into paying for abortion and contraception, we weren’t paying for abortions overseas, etc. Clinton expanded the “pro-choice” reach, Bush reined it in again.
A good man (or woman) of character and charisma is hard to find. I so want a wise and courageous President who will lead the country to a new era of human rights, religious liberty, fiscal responsibility, etc. But it’s not like he could come with conquering armies and retake the throne; he has to be elected.
But the obstacles are immense. The truth has never been so well camouflaged, patriots have never been so weak and/or slandered, evildoers – layers and layers of evildoers – have never been so cunning. We need to throw ourselves on God’s mercy, pray like we’ve never prayed before, work for good and take whatever chances we can to make things better, including voting for a less-than perfect President if that’s all we can do and ask God to make up for his/her deficiencies (as well as our own), but meanwhile grooming ourselves and our chidren for leadership in the coming times.
In spite of everything, I still hope for a hero to arise in time for the Convention.
Scott,
To say Obama is agaist homosexual marriage is a also huge stretch too (lie). He instructed his Department of Justice NOT to fight to defend the Defense of Marriage Act against lawsuits being brought against it in federal court. And he says it is cause his position is evoling.
I do know that most of what comes out of Obama’s mouth is lies. I know he speaks lies all the time and people who do not know him well believe him. It is just a political calculation and he could give a rats ass about the truth.
Here is a video history of Romney expressing his position against gay marriage. BTW – He actually seemed to rally against gay marriage and to try and openly support the ideas expressed in the letter you reference earlier.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NTiA-ptqjjI
The truth is; I actually support him more after researching his position on marriage more closely
truthseeker, you actually support a mealy-mouthed politician like the one in this video?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L7Wn5NXhUjc
And you actually believe what he says as opposed to what he’s done?
This isn’t a position he has even flip-flopped on. He has always said he is against discrimination of homosexuals but that marriage is the union of one man and one woman. And he is right. Marriage is the union of one man and one woman. You might as well claim that the sun is now the orb during the night and the moon rises at dawn as say there is such a thing as homosexual marriage. What exactly do you say Mitt Romney has ‘done’ in support of homosexual marriage?
Saying marriage is the union of one man and one woman is inherently discriminatory against homosexuals, is it not?
If you read this that I posted earlier, you will have your answer. The court does not make law and Romney as Governor did not have to go along with the court’s decision, but he chose to anyway.
http://www.massresistance.org/docs/marriage/romney/dec_letter/letter.pdf
If Romney is pro-marriage equality I like him a bit better than I did, still not his biggest fan though, I doubt he will do much of note on the life issue.
I have a problem with the fact he seems to be almost laughably out of touch with the majority of his constituents, with his oh-so-amusing jokes about shutting down factories. Sigh.
No Scott, saying marriage is the union between one and one woman is not discrimitory and more then saying men are male or women are female. It is simply a definition. It would be just as silly if you were to support men in their quest to be called female because it discriminates them if we only allow one sex to be called female.
And the fact that Romney as governor did not take it upon himself to overturn the court means that he is not a power hungry dictator. Showing restraint in wielding his power as governor is actually a quality I would want in a president too. If the Massachusettes state assembly and senate were to pass a law defining marriage as the union of one man and one woman then Romney , as governor, would have signed it in a heartbeat.
Tell a homosexual it’s not discriminatory.
Too bad we didn’t have a “power hungry dictator” to overturn Roe v. Wade. If a governor or president overturns an ungodly, unconstitutional, court order, he is not a “power hungry dictator.” He is a righteous ruler.
And you don’t know if Romney would have done so or not. You simply cannot know that.
Scott, Would you consider it to be discrimination if society didn’t change the definition of male from one that includes men only to one that includes men and women?
Too bad we didn’t have a “power hungry dictator” to overturn Roe v. Wade. If a governor or president overturns an ungodly, unconstitutional, court order, he is not a “power hungry dictator.” He is a righteous ruler.
Scott
That is what governor Perry thought when he mandated minor girls get vacinnated. I disapproved of this even though his motives seemed righteous to him but it was still a dictatorial thing to do regardless of his intentions. Humility is a better trait for people in power to have imo.
Did anyone watch Fox News Sunday? Yesterday, Mr. Gillispie, an advisor for Mr. Romney said that giving money privately for the purposes of abortions was noble!!! Mr. Gillispie was very well spoken on the economy and other issues. Either he seriously misspoke or he has views on life issues that are completely morally repugnant to most social conservatives when he said the above statement about funding abortions done at PP being noble.
The Fox News Sunday show also said that PP does breast exams. I guess Fox News Sunday hasn’t gotten the memo that PP doesn’t do breast exams. Mr. Chris Wallace is a smart man, I expect he will be upset with his researchers who gave him such bad information.
It is these kind of mistakes that will doom the right. This is truly horrible.
The left is spinning the SAHM (stay-at-home-moms) issue. They are now arguing that Republicans don’t value SAHMs because they don’t support SAHMs via welfare programs such as TANF. The Left failed to mention that TANF helps all poor families, and not just single-parent families.
This Presidential race has the potential to be an unnecessary nightmare.
Comments like those by Mr. Gillispie which characterized privately funding abortions being done at PP as being noble are possible when a person doesn’t really care about social issues, but only “economic issues.” Economic issues are definitely the most important issues for this campaign; however, if a person has not developed opinions on the social issues of the day that person’s economic solutions will lack a vision of society that will orient’s those economic solutions in a complimentary, non-contradictory and redundant fashion. The Right must have a vision of society that is not a welfare state, but a vision of America as a civil society that is libertarian in process while republican in governance.
Economic issues are definitely the most important issues for this campaign; however, if a person has not developed opinions on the social issues of the day that person’s economic solutions will lack a vision of society that will orient’s those economic solutions in a complimentary, non-contradictory and non-redundant fashion
Here is Mr. Gillespie’s interview on Fox News Sunday:
http://www.foxnews.com/on-air/fox-news-sunday/index.html#/v/1563631007001/ed-gillespie-talks-general-election-strategy/?playlist_id=86913
The discussion about women’s issues starts around 1:10 of the video. At around 2:12 Mr. Wallace makes the comment about PP doing breast exams. Starting 2:45 Mr. Gillespie begins his statement that private donations to PP in support of abortions is noble. Mr. Gillespie does a good job of clearly stating the funds received by PP are fungible.
I suspect (and hope) this was merely a poor choice of words by Mr. Gillespie. I think it might to say that it is “legal” rather than “noble” to contribute to PP for the purposes of supporting abortion.
I suspect (and hope) this was merely a poor choice of words by Mr. Gillespie. I think Mr. Gillespie meant to say that it is “legal” rather than “noble” to contribute to PP for the purposes of supporting abortion.
The “noble” comments begins at around 2:30 of the video and not 2:45 as I thought earlier.
Tyler. I hope you are right and that he misspoke.
I will support Romney if they make Ms. Stanek an advisor to Mr. Romney on all life issues.
Sorry for volunteering you Jill. It just needs to be done – the Holy Spirit moved me.
There is a petition going around now addressed to Romney that seeks to ensure he will stick to his pro-life agenda if he is elected president. That includes stopping Planned Parenthood funding, stop Obamacare, and a commitment to sign pro-life legislation.
What a vile hypocrite is Jill Stanek.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m7-hmjlr7tk
The only pro-life candidate.