Romney gets called a flip-flopper a lot, but let's talk about abortion.
2002, running for Governor - Mitt said that personally he is against abortion, but as governor he would protect the laws of the commonwealth, and that he wouldn't seek to change the laws.
2004, still as Governor(this is important for those who say Romney flipped for the right for his presidential bid), Romney decided while discussing stem-cell research with someone at Harvard, that Roe v Wade had cheapened the sanctity of life. At that point, Romney started calling himself pro-life, but said that he would honor his promise to protect the laws of the commonwealth.
This is where Romney stands. He didn't change his point of view for this election at all, his view remains unchanged since 2004. He has always been against abortion, but now he is against Rowe v Wade and wants abortion to only be in the case of rape, incest, or health. His personal view hasn't changed, his view on Rowe v Wade has.
Politicians are allowed to evolve in their way of thinking.
I thought it was only okay for Dems to "evolve"?
Jaxson, You said, (Romney)He has always been against abortion, but now he is against Rowe v Wade and wants abortion to only be in the case of rape, incest, or health. His personal view hasn't changed, his view on Rowe v Wade has
The GOP platform is conspicuous in the absence of the exceptions, which indicate that they don't intend for there to be any. So let's stop playing patty cake and lets get that out to the female population of America and ask them if they like to be treated as school children?
The GOP platform is inconsistent with the nominee. You think I care what Romney says when the GOPreactionary machine creates a platform which is the guide for GOP candidates and office holders across the nation? Your platform is your playbook, which one do you think I am going to put credence into?(no pun intended)
No, candidates are not required to do what their platform asks.
Romney's policies don't indicate that he would remove all exceptions.
Romney's actions don't indicate that he would remove all exceptions.
Nothing indicates that. To say so is worse than baseless conjecture, it flies in the face of all the evidence to the contrary.
Seriously, look at it.
Evidence that Romney won't remove exceptions: Polices, promises, record.
Evidence that Romney will remove exceptions: None.
Go ahead and think the way you want... but it's clearly not based in any fact.
by Susan Reid3 years ago
A binder full of women is bad enough.But the truth is, Romney didn't even ASK for the binder.It was supplied before he took office by women's activists.Is there anything this guy will not take credit...
by Susan Reid3 years ago
NJ Governor Chris Christie, who as recently as a week ago was a harsh critic of Obama's leadership has a new BFF: Barack Obama.He's been effusive (some believe TOO effusive) in his praise for the POTUS and his handling...
by Laura Tykarski3 years ago
It has been forty years but this ruling still troubles some people. What are your personal views?http://news.yahoo.com/roe-v-wade-turns- … 45029.html
by Holle Abee4 years ago
To Obama, I'd say to be more engaged and show a little more passion. Act like you WANT to be POTUS for 4 more years.To Romney, I'd say, "Calm down!" I thought he did a good job in the last debate, but at...
by R. Fritz23 months ago
Is it right or wrong even though it is legal?
by Grace Marguerite Williams3 years ago
According to Huffington Post and Reuters, the Kansas House of Representatives passed a bill on Friday, April 5, 2013 on a 90/30 vote declaring that "life" now begins at fertilization. This is after the...
Copyright © 2016 HubPages Inc. and respective owners.
Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners.
HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc.
HubPages and Hubbers (authors) may earn revenue on this page based on affiliate relationships and advertisements with partners including Amazon, Google, and others.