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 Reid 5 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 for?http://blog.thephoenix.com/BLOGS/talkin … g.facebook
by Leslie McCowen 6 years ago
By Alex Seitz-Wald on Oct 3, 2011 at 11:10 am"Former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney (R) told Fox News host Mike Huckabee this weekend that he would support an amendment to his state’s constitution to define life as beginning at conception, which would outlaw abortion and potentially many...
by SEXYLADYDEE 5 years ago
Yesterday marked the 40 year anniversary of Roe vs Wade. Are women in a better place today?My Mother was a nurse from 1960 until 1986. During that time she described how woman came into the emergency rooms with coat hangers or knitting needles stuck in them, septic, bleeding and worse. She was a...
by Grace Marguerite Williams 5 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 Kansas senate blocked the bill on a 28/10 vote. Republican and staunchly...
by Susan Reid 5 years ago
This is from FORBES. I am posting the whole article for your consideration:In tonight’s debate we saw a transformed Barack Obama, and it made a very big difference. In the first debate Governor Mitt Romney was relaxed and confident and in command; Obama was practically absent. Tonight, Obama was...
by Laura Tykarski 5 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
Copyright © 2018 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.
|HubPages Device ID||This is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons.|
|Login||This is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.|
|HubPages Traffic Pixel||This is used to collect data on traffic to articles and other pages on our site. Unless you are signed in to a HubPages account, all personally identifiable information is anonymized.|
|Remarketing Pixels||We may use remarketing pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to advertise the HubPages Service to people that have visited our sites.|
|Conversion Tracking Pixels||We may use conversion tracking pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to identify when an advertisement has successfully resulted in the desired action, such as signing up for the HubPages Service or publishing an article on the HubPages Service.|