This is a non-issue, relative to Romney:
The current misleading assertion from the Obama campaign that people parrot and use it create a fear of his taking away abortion rights via signing a federal bill passed by both the Senate and the House. It is preposterous. What he actually said during a 2009 debate was: he’d be “delighted to sign it,” if there was a national consensus for it. But, he said, “that’s not where America is today.” (FactCheck.org)
He believes it is an issue that ought to be left to individual states to determine if the court overturns Roe V. Wade. .
He would only sign such a law if it were the consensus of the country - just as it is in any country.
However, this is a non-issue, besides Romney being no threat, as the country, though he cannot control what the states do (as that would be illegal!), will not ever get to the level where we are as a majority against abortion, as the trend is toward more being "for it" and the polls show a formidably huge percentage of the citizens approve of allowing abortions in the first trimester, with a mere 29% opposing it.
Paranoia or extreme fear of states approving abortion bans is, of course, not reasonable but also cannot logically be related to Romney as President of the federal government!!! (This is a "logic" thinking error, where something non-causal is feared because of labels or something related - and then a political party takes advantage of the lack of logic and then distorts the facts or lies about them. There is no danger to "women's rights" due to who is President, though some will irrationally hold to that belief, with no logical connection.)
Those who keep repeating the "soundbite" are not engaged in using rational thinking bases on facts and reasoning. Since there is so much at stake in hiring a highly competent person to manage the US, it is vital that people give up being stuck on political ideology and that they base their votes on actual facts and reasoning.
Romney is committed to the democratic process, period!
________________________________________________________________________________
The essence: Romney’s so-called abortion ‘flip-flop’ came after thoughtful investigation. It definitely was not a "flip-flop". It was a well-considered change based on facts and increased understanding.
See the evidence below, if you want to make a fact-based, reasoned conclusion and need further proof.
___________________________________________________________________________________
Romney is concerned about taking away a life. And certainly we should respect others' beliefs about an area that nobody can determine what is "the truth". Who is right? I personally believe that abortion rights make sense as a tradeoff to assure that the mother's (and father's) life are not negatively affected with a burden.
The key question that is of concern to a voter is whether someone else will impose their beliefs on others. Romney would never do that, as it is his personal belief or credo that he is a steward of the stakeholders who hire him to do a job - he must do as directed. He honors what their wishes are and would never impose his any of his beliefs on others. Absolutely. Period. Definite.
The issue is pretty much moot, as he must go with the public's wishes, which are overwhelmingly not in favor of banning abortion in the first trimester, so it'll never happen - there is nothing to worry about with regard to losing abortion rights. See the poll results in Pro-life Versus Pro-Choice. Note that there is currrently a law that will persist that no federal money can go to abortions, which means that those who can't afford it will receive the necessary dollars from private sources, in a charitable format where people contribute to support their own cause. It is also, for him and for a majority of people, a state's rights issue, where they are the ones determining it.
It is a non-issue with regard to hiring Romney, period!
_________________________________________________________________________________
THE "MADE UP" FLIP FLOPPER CONVERSATION
"Oh, he is a big flip-flopper." is the label opponents have invented for him.
ASSERTIONS
Asserted: He built in abortion rights into Romney care." Gingrich - Super-Pinochio!, lack of checking facts and/or outright lying,
Truth: Courts forced it in, nothing he could do.
His position: "I am pro-life. I believe that abortion is the wrong choice except in cases of incest, rape, and to save the life of the mother. I wish the people of America agreed, and that the laws of our nation could reflect that view. But while the nation remains so divided over abortion, I believe that the states, through the democratic process, should determine their own abortion laws and not have them dictated by judicial mandate."
The only thing I can detect in his position that extreme conservatives might not like is that he will not force or suppress people into losing the right to have their laws reflect their democratic wishes. Such suppression violate the conservative principle of not having the government control things beyond their basic function. I would purport that this is an overriding principle and that anyone blending the two is wise, prudent, and doing what is most workable to maintain conservative principles, with harming others. (I.e. ethics)
Asserted: Romney's health care plan "has written into it Planned Parenthood, the largest abortion provider in the country, by name." Gingrich - Wrong in substance.
Truth: A search of the text of the law turns up one mention of Planned Parenthood, and all it says is that someone from the group will be appointed to a payment policy advisory board, along with a number of others; could have made a difference with the Democratic controlled legislature, so could have been a practical very slight compromise in order to get the bigger benefit. (Those he stick to ideology to tech extent of cutting of their noses to spite their faces, end up losing any progress that could have been. A wise battle won brings one closer to the ability to make more progress in that direction. An unwise, non-compomising battle provides no gain. I think substantial gain is better than no gain and "being right" about it.
Romney did manage to make a co-pay for abortions that was palatable to and passed by the 85% Democratic legislature, slipping it in, wisely.
"You can count on me, as president of the United States, to pursue a policy that protects the life of the unborn, whether here in this country or overseas."
I believe him as a man of great integrity. An evolving way of dealing with things is not a flip-flop, but, if in the right direction, a sign of thinking, ultimately creating progress.
He honors the state's rights to make its own conclusions. It is unintelligent to think that conservatives could impose their will on the states (which violated the conservative principle of limited federal government and having the states do that which they can do). Having the Federal Government not intervene in what states can do is a conservative principle.
He does not support oppressive federal government. A nonoppressive, nonintrusive government is a conservative principle, but some seek to use force to change the law of the land and to force their will upon the majority who believe otherwise, in a holier than thou stance - which is anti-conservative. Conservatives honor the constitution and the separation of powers, even if imperfect, and do not attempt to circumvent that to mix church and state.
So I would live within the law, within the Constitution as I understand it, without creating a constitutional crisis. But I do believe Roe v. Wade should be reversed to allow states to make that decision.’’
There is a "I'm right and I can rule over others" conservative, in a non-winning stance that is unwise and unintelligent and there is an "effective conservative who makes progress one step at a time, with fairness and comprehensive perspective for the betterment of all."
he keeps the right to be able to make decisions as he goes, not signing pledges that may create stupid or incorrect, unsuitable actions.
Is family planning and counseling a bad idea or a good idea?
Romney's own change of heart evolved not from personal experience but rather from a purposeful course of study.
"I know this because I know the man who instructed him in 2005 on the basics of embryonic life during the stem-cell-research debate then taking place in Massachusetts. As governor at the time, Romney was under intense pressure to help flip a state law that protected embryos from stem-cell research. Some of that pressure came from Harvard University, Romney's alma mater, where scientists hoped to assume a leading role in stem-cell research.
The politically expedient choice was obvious, but Romney sought to educate himself before staking out a position. He met for many hours with William Hurlbut, a physician and professor of biomedical ethics at Stanford University Medical School, going through the dynamics of conception, embryonic development and the repercussions of research that targets nascent human life. It was not a light lunch.
The result of that conversation and others was a pro-life Romney, who, though he kept his campaign promise to honor the state's democratically asserted preference for abortion choice, began a new personal path that happened to serve him well, at least theoretically, among social conservatives. Was his conversion sincere? No one can know another's heart, but Hurlbut is convinced that it was.
"Several things about our conversation still stand out strongly in my mind," Hurlbut told me. "First, he clearly recognized the significance of the issue, not just as a current controversy, but as a matter that would define the character of our culture way into the future.
"Second, it was obvious that he had put in a real effort to understand both the scientific prospects and the broader social implications. Finally, I was impressed by both his clarity of mind and sincerity of heart. … He recognized that this was not a matter of purely abstract theory or merely pragmatic governance, but a crucial moment in how we are to regard nascent human life and the broader meaning of medicine in the service of life."
Romney’s so-called abortion ‘flip-flop’ came after thoughtful investigation. It definitely was not a "flip-flop". It was a well-considered change based on facts and increased understanding.
Side notes for later:
Read more: http://azstarnet.com/news/opinion/a-closer-look-at-romney-s-flip-flop-on-abortion/article_6f8a7553-529f-5835-91a5-aa6a3ff00e1b.html#ixzz1kV2NXug2
for laws protecting the safety of abortion clinics for late-term abortions when the mother's health is at risk - what cruelty it would be to risk the mother's life for ideology!
romney pledged his support for Roe v Wade as a matter of his position of supporting existing law (until it can be changed)
He doesn't support abortions, but he doesn't support abortions being done in a harmful way, so he supports doing it in a safe way - who wouldn't..
Governor Romney simply does not believe that federal taxpayer dollars should be used to fund groups that provide abortions or abortion-related services
Romney supports "a Human Life Amendment that overturns Roe vs. Wade and sends the issue back to the states" -- not necessarily a federal ban on abortion.
