"Mitt Romney appeared to shift his position on abortion yesterday when, in a meeting with the Des Moines Register editorial board before an Iowa campaign event, he said that as president, he would not pass legislation relating to abortion."
“There’s no legislation with regards to abortion that I’m familiar with that would become part of my agenda,” Romney told the paper.
"But the Romney camp quickly worked to walk that statement back. Spokeswoman Andrea Saul said, per the DMR, that "Mitt Romney is proudly pro-life and will be a pro-life president.” And the candidate has said on numerous occasions that he thinks Roe v. Wade should be overturned and that Planned Parenthood should be defunded."
http://www.politico.com/blogs/burns-haberman/?hp=bh
It must be clear that the allegedly more moderate Mitt is no more moderate on abortion now than he was back in January when he said he hoped to be able to sign a bill that overturned Roe v. Wade:
"The Obama campaign quickly jumped on the incident, with a statement from spokeswoman Lis Smith saying it's proof that Romney can't be trusted:
“It’s troubling that Mitt Romney is so willing to play politics with such important issues. But we know the truth about where he stands on a woman’s right to choose – he’s said he’d be delighted to sign a bill banning all abortions, and called Roe v. Wade ‘one of the darkest moments in Supreme Court history’ while pledging to appoint Supreme Court justices who will overturn it. Women simply can’t trust him.”Notice that the way he phrases this- no abortion legislation "he's familiar with" that will become part of his agenda. This is classic obfuscation.
He leaves out abortion legislation that he may not be "familiar with." He's not promising that might not become "part of his agenda."
Really these comments like so many of his other starting with the debate are just part of a shell game-the talk about supporting some kinds of regulation-but of course not Dodd-Frank or any other actually existing legislation-helping make sure that those who have pre-existing conditions keep their insurance-however, it turns out that this was wrong and his campaign had to walk them back-no big tax cut for the rich, etc.
As the President he wouldn't himself craft anti-abortion legislation. However, what would he do if the Blunt amendment made it to his desk? That's a real question. What about the fact that his own running mate was a major supporter of the blunt amendment along with Todd Akin?
Romney's more moderate veneer obscured the fact that if he were to win it's likely there would be a GOP Senate and Congress. So it's not just about him personally, it's about radical GOP agenda that would be written in the House and passed in the Senate making it to his desk. If the Ryan budget makes it to his desk does he sign it?
Notice what he did not promise. He didn't say that he wouldn't make a pro-life position a litmus test for Supreme Court nominees. So in reality his comments seem to promise something that they don't. He won't himself write another Blunt amendment. However, he likely would sign some version of it. He won't overturn Roe v. Wade-how could he? The President can't overturn a judicial ruling. What he can do is nominate a Supreme Court Justice to do that.
He can also try to defund Planned Parenthood as he's promised to do on his first day and as George W. Bush did on his first day in office cut off funding for all international organizations who provide abortions among other services.
I just hope that the Obama team and Democrats in general understand this. Romney has not changed any of his positions. He's simply repackaging them and spinning them wildly. Let's hope the President will understand this better before next Tuesday's debate. Last week he seemed to truly believe Romney had changed his tax plan after Romney -fallaciously-claimed that his tax plan wouldn't cost $5 trillion and wouldn't cut taxes for the rich.
No comments:
Post a Comment