Moderate Mitt Backs 'Rape Pregnancies as God's Will' Mourdock

     Romney has tried to distance himself from Mourdock, but still is going to allow him to use his endorsement in an ad. And there are still women who think he's not so bad because they watched the Denver debate?

      That really is the crux of the problem. It's all well and good to say "Gee, I disagree that rape pregnancies are God's will and should not be tampered with" but what does it matter when you continue to support their candidacy and will be working with them if you win the White House?

      "Sen. Patty Murray (D-Wash.), the chair of the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee, issued a harsh statement calling on the Republican Party to stop "coddling" the "dangerous views" of Tea Party-backed candidates. She added that Romney is right to distance himself from Mourdock but echoed calls from Democrats to have his ad endorsing Mourdock's Senate bid removed from the air:

While Mitt Romney is rightly distancing himself from Richard Mourdock today, his ad endorsing Mourdock's extreme candidacy continues to air in Indiana. If Mitt Romney is serious about repudiating these heinous views on rape, he will take down this ad immediately. National Republicans cannot paper over Richard Mourdock's heinous views on rape. Enough is enough. The Republican Party needs to stop the coddling and take a stand against the horribly offensive and dangerous views of the Tea Party and their extreme candidates.

      "The Romney campaign did not respond when asked if Romney's endorsement for Mourdock still stands, and if the campaign has any plans to have Romney's ad for Mourdock taken off the air."

      http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/10/23/mitt-romney-richard-mourdock_n_2007559.html

      This is what tends to get lost when the the lastest Republican says a little too much about what they really think of women and their reproductive rights. Then everyone just says "Gee. I don't agree though. Let's change the subject back shall we?"

      "The trouble is that Mourdock and Akin have a hand in the relevant laws for a woman's right to choose and access to decent health care. Romney's running mate has worked with people like Mourdock, Akin, and Blunt before. If Romney says he shouldn't be judged by this will he work with Mourdock on abortion legislation that Mourdock and Akin-along with Blunt-in the House might send him? That is the real issue not just disavowing a few words.

      This comes at the worst time as Romney is hoping that female swing voters come down with a sudden acute case of Romnesia right about now and forget his plans to defund Planned Parenthood, Paul Ryan's support for the Blunt Amendment-which Romney also voiced support for-his claim that the day Roe v. Wade passed was a "dark day" and his vow to nominate only strongly prolife judges. Or for that matter, his plan to end ObamaCare and replace it with nothing taking away healthcare coverage from millions of women and their families.

      Yet this will have repercussions for all GOPers; according to Christie Todd Whitman, none more than Romney:

      "Mourdock's comments damage all Republicans and especially Romney as the fight for the woman's vote intensifies. This could be a defining moment for Romney and he should immediately denounce both Mourdock and the comment."

       http://www.politico.com/arena/?hp=ar

       He has tried to at least distance himself if not exactly denounce it. But what we really need to hear is what will he do if he receives the Blunt Amendment, the Akin Amendment, or the Mourdock Amendment, especially as Ryan is on the record as agreeing with such amendments and Romney himself has endorsed a number of things like the Blunt Amendment. It's not enough for Romney to play at being Moderate Mitt. He needs to explain what daylight there is, if any, between these other Republican anti-abortion firebrands.