In the Book, A Mormon in the White House? by Hugh Hewitt, he mentions a pro-choice quote of Romney when he ran for Senate in 1994 against Ted Kennedy. Mitt gravitated toward the pro-choice view through 2002 when he ran for Governor of Massacusetts. Because I am his County Co-coordinator, I wondered about the statement in his literature that says that: " And, as Governor, Mitt Romney always sided with life in the fight to protect the unborn."
The answer is that while he was Governor, he did always take the pro-life position and stated his reasons when he vetoed a pro-choice bill as governor. (page 108) I think this might make for an interesting discussion, so I will reproduce the reason that were stated in the Boston Globe.
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 dicated by judicial mandate.
Because Massachusetts is decidedly pro-choice, I have respected the state's democratically held view. I have not attempted to impose my own views on the pro-choice majority. For all the conflicting views on this issue, it speaks well of our country that we recognize abortion as a problem. The law may call it a right, but no one ever called it a good, and, in the quiet of conscience people of both political parties know that more than a million abortions a year cannot be squared with the good heart of America.
You can't be a pro-llife governor in a pro-choice state without understanding that there are heartfelt and thoughtful arguments on both sides of the question. Many women considering abortions face terrible pressures, hurts, and fears; we should come to their aid with all the resourcefulness and empathy we can offer. At the same time, the starting point should be the innocence and vulnerability of the child waiting to be born.
Being the Romney County Coordinator, I reserved a "Romney Table" at the Republican Christmas party. A supporter of another candidate asked me the question at the party: "Will Romney change his mind again and revert to pro-choice?
I am a divorced Catholic. My wife is a Protestant and a social worker that was an Administrative Case Reviewer for DCFS. During my first marriage I was one of a very few Republicans on the ultra liberal Urbana City Council. Being an attorney, I am pretty good at flip flopping. I was formerly the hand picked County Coordinator for Judy Baar Topinka, who was pro-choice. HMMMMM-I am stalling. Ok-here is how I think Governor Romney would react to that question when it came up during his presidency. This is not his view, but I am guessing it is pretty close.
Roe vs. Wade determined that a woman had the right to an abortion based upon her right to privacy. This was a very very weak judicial argument which almost every attorney who has read the case and its multiple concurring opinions would probably agree. The privacy argument was totally unnecessary and the justices could have just as easily used freedom of religion as a more rational basis, or even the rights of the States to set health and safety standards.
Their unfortunate reasoning led to let the pro-choice lobby to stretch the privacy rights into areas that no-one ever dreamed. Now we argue whether the CIA can monitor phone calls to stop terrorists. Now it seems we would rather have someone die from a terrible medical condition rather than reveal to anyone they might have it. And it was so unnecessary.
The right to an abortion during the first tri-mester could have been allowed by the Supreme Court based upon the religious view of when "life begins". Catholics believe that the Pope, speaking from the chair, declared that a child receives an immortal soul at the moment of conception. But some believe that an immortal soul is present only at the first fetal heart beat.
During the second tri-mester, is when a fetal heart beat occurs. During this time and in many cases during the last tri-mester, there are health and safety issues which the States have every right to regulate.
This view would not be easy to explain in a 30 second sound bite, so this is why I suspect he simply states that it should be up to the States to regulate the whole issue for heath and safety reasons. As a matter of public policy, it is a vast improvement over the slippery slope that the "right of privacy" has sent us over.
