Mitt Romney explains why he did not sign the pro-life pledge
As much as I share the goals of the Susan B. Anthony List, its well-meaning pledge is overly broad and would have unintended consequences. That is why I could not sign it. It is one thing to end federal funding for an organization like Planned Parenthood; it is entirely another to end all federal funding for thousands of hospitals across America. That is precisely what the pledge would demand and require of a president who signed it.
~ Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney explaining why he would not sign a presidential pledge by the Susan B. Anthony Group, National Review, June 18
Jun.20, 2011 6:00 am |
Political anti-life bias |
Jill Stanek is a nurse turned speaker, columnist and blogger, a national figure in the effort to protect both preborn and postborn innocent human life.
I do not like or trust Mitt Romney. He appears to be much more motivated by personal ambition than underlying principles and beliefs.
Either abortion is wrong or it’s not there Mitt. It’s not *just* wrong if it’s in a PP or stand-alone abortion clinic. Abortion takes a life violently regardless of where it’s carried out.
Maureen, I agree completely. He is trying to be a politician in the ugly sense of the word and keep everyone happy so that he can get elected. In other words, he is trying to be the lukewarm moderate. And he will not get my vote that way. Right now, I am still favoring Santorum.
Honestly, the next part of his statement is the one I find much more alarming. “The pledge also unduly burdens a president’s ability to appoint the most qualified individuals to a broad array of key positions in the federal government. I would expect every one of my appointees to carry out my policies on abortion and every other issue, irrespective of their personal views.” !!!
Not only does this demonstrate a staggering incomprehension of how our government functions, it indicates that he is willing to do precisely what the SBA pledge is asking a president not to: put pro-abortion people in key government positions. There is no way to make that okay. We can not trust Romney to be the pro-life leader we need.
Bull. Romney is hedging his bets. He wants “choice”es. Shame on us if we trust him.
SANTORUM 2012
Meh, the guy’s a RINO, what else is new?
I like Tim Pawlenty. He’s a humble, down to earth guy, and he may just have an outside chance.
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/opinions/opinion/a-reaganesque-presidential-hopeful/article2065965/comments/
“Not only does this demonstrate a staggering incomprehension of how our government functions, it indicates that he is willing to do precisely what the SBA pledge is asking a president not to: put pro-abortion people in key government positions.”
The “pledge” demands that literally all appointments to the president’s cabinet oppose abortion, regardless of whether abortion even has any relevance to their particular job. Why would the Susan B. Anthony List even care what the secretary of agriculture, for example, or the secretary of transportation, thinks about abortion?
Joan – is there any other cause you are wedded to as closely as you are abortion? Just wondering.
And as they transport women for sexual trafficking, you bet the secretary of transportation would be interested in abortion – especially if they force young girls into the sex trade, and then force an abortion on her to ‘help her keep the money flowing.”
Abortion is a big industry – affecting the nation at it’s roots. And while I agree that people can do their jobs while being pro-choice — being pro-choice colors their world view in a negative way, since at it’s core, it denies rights to some of our most vulnerable members of the human family.
I’d rather have people who have big hearts – championing all humans instead of some – doing the big jobs. It’s only natural.
Actually, the SBA pledge does not require that “all appointments to the President’s cabonet oppose abortion”. Instead it pledges that only those “relevant Cabinet and Executive Branch positions, in particular the head of National Institutes of Health, the Department of Justice, and the Department of Health & Human Services” oppose abortion.
That being said, why would anyone think that someone proposed for Secretary of Transportation would be the “best qualified individual” if he or she supported abortion?
Supporting abortion indicates a very severely malformed judgement, so I would not expect such an individual to be able to make good judgements about “relevant” issues.
Just another piece of proof to ad to the heap of evidence that Romney is a lying puke politician and his phony “conversion” to the prolife side, which conveniently happened right before the last election, is merely his shrewd response to the rising numbers of active pro-life voters within the Republican party.
He’s a dirty politician, and nothing more. That man is a snake in more ways than one – voters be ye warned.
Bachman for Pres!!!!! Just sayin :)
I will vote for whoever the Media hates the most, thats good indication on who will be the best pro-life candidate