During this past Sunday’s interview on Meet The Press, Mitt Romney made this quote:

“…every piece of legislation which came to my desk in the coming years as a Governor, I came down on the side of preserving the sanctity of life.”

Sen. Thompson has issued this blistering, detailed refutation of Gov. Romney’s statement:

Romney’s health care legislation provides taxpayer-funded abortions for a co-pay of just $50. Romney vetoed EIGHT provisions in his health care bill that he deemed objectionable, including the expansion of dental benefits to Medicaid recipients. He did not veto Planned Parenthoods’ guaranteed position on the Advisory Board or ensure that abortions were covered only in medically necessary situations (as required by MA court ruling). All abortions are covered in the Commonwealth Care program with no medically necessary limitation. Under the program, abortions are available for a copay of $50. (Menu of Health Care Services: http://www.mass. gov/Qhic/docs/cc_benefits1220_pt234.pdf; “Romney’s Health Care Vetoes,” Associated Press, 4/12/06)

When Stephen Smith from Gov. Romney’s campaign emailed me last week, he provided confirmation that abortion need only be covered in state-offered insurance programs if they’re deemed medically necessary:

And, under Massachusetts law and court precedent, if the state is funding health care benefits, as it is with the subsidized Commonwealth Care products, it cannot refuse to fund abortions.

In 1981, The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court Ruled That The Massachusetts Constitution Required Payment For Abortions For Medicaid-Eligible Women. (Moe v. Secretary of Admin & Finance, 1981)

According To The Decision, When A State Subsidizes Medical Care, It Cannot Infringe On “The Exercise Of A Fundamental Right” Which The Court Interpreted As Access To Medically Necessary Abortion Services. (Moe v. Secretary of Admin & Finance, 1981)

As far as I can tell, Commonwealth Care doesn’t limit abortion coverage to “medically necessary abortion services.” Here’s another tidbit of information that reflects badly on Gov. Romney:

Romney included in his health care legislation a guarantee that Planned Parenthood would have a representative on his MassHealth Payment Policy Advisory Board. No such provision was included for a pro-life representative. “You cannot be personally opposed to abortion and then contribute money to an organization whose purpose is to provide abortions,” said Jerry Zandstra. “Given the Romney family’s support of Planned Parenthood, it now makes sense why he mandated that a member of the RomneyCare Policy board be appointed by the Planned Parenthood League of Massachusetts.” (RepealRomneyCare.com, “Pro-Life Leaders Denounce Romney’s Planned Parenthood Connections,” Press Release, 5/10/07)

Gov. Romney’s assertions that he’s experienced a pro-life transformation ring extremely hollow. If this fits into the definition of pro-life, then the term pro-life doesn’t mean anything. As awful as that information is, this is worse:

Romney forced private Catholic hospitals to provide the morning-after-pill, a position applauded by Democrats and pro-abortions groups. “Governor Mitt Romney reversed course on the state’s new emergency contraception law yesterday, saying that all hospitals in the state will be obligated to provide the morning-after pill to rape victims. The decision overturns a ruling made public this week by the state Department of Public Health that privately run hospitals could opt out of the requirement if they objected on moral or religious grounds. Romney had initially supported that interpretation, but he said yesterday that he had changed direction after his legal counsel, Mark D. Nielsen, concluded Wednesday that the new law supersedes a preexisting statute that says private hospitals cannot be forced to provide abortions or contraception. ‘And on that basis, I have instructed the Department of Public Health to follow the conclusion of my own legal counsel and to adopt that sounder view,’ Romney said…” (Scott Helman, “Romney Says No Hospitals Are Exempt From Pill Law,” Boston Globe, 12/9/05)

Why didn’t Gov. Romney keep the exception in and let the courts decide instead of his legal counsel making that decision? That’s what a pro-life governor would’ve done. Of course, I’d welcome a true abortion transformation by Gov. Romney. I just hope it happens sometime soon.

Here’s how the Catholic Action League of Massachusetts responded to the news that Gov. Romney had flip-flopped again:

Catholic leaders urged hospitals to reject Romney’s mandate or risk “compromising their religious integrity and Catholic identity.” “C.J. Doyle, executive director of the Catholic Action League of Massachusetts, a conservative Catholic organization, said Catholic hospitals should refuse to abide by the law. ‘The appropriate response for Catholic hospitals is noncompliance. Otherwise, they would be compromising their religious integrity and Catholic identity,’ he said.” (Steve LeBlanc, “Confusion Over New Emergency Contraception Law Deepens,” Associated Press, 12/9/05)

I’ve always thought that Gov. Romney’s religious beliefs shouldn’t be reason for rejecting him as a GOP presidential candidate. That’s why I haven’t even mentioned his his faith on this blog until now. While he’s sensitive to his beliefs, it appears as though he doesn’t object to ramming this controversial provision down the Catholic hospitals’ throats. That’s the definition of a hypocrite. It’s entirely unacceptable.

Remember that we wouldn’t be having this discussion if Gov. Romney hadn’t signed that bill into law. Having failed that test, he could’ve at least vetoed several of these provisions. These aren’t the hallmarks of a pro-life politician. They’re the mark of what might be called a ‘bill of goods’ politician, one who’ll say one thing while believing another.

We already had an administration that governed that way. We certainly don’t need another administration like that.

Technorati: , , , , ,
Cross-posted at California Conservative

Leave a Reply