Romney Should Have Used Line-Item Veto on Taxpayer Funded Abortions in his Health Care Plan
By Jerry Zandstra Posted in 2008 — Comments (8) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
There is a great deal of discussion this week regarding various health care plans because of Senator McCain’s highly touted plan that he released yesterday, focused on controlling costs rather than government take-over plans. The Wall Street Journal praised the McCain plan in this editorial:
http://online.wsj.com/article_print/SB119215061923456842.html
For social conservatives, there is one primary question: Will the plans of the various candidates include taxpayer-funded abortions? In other words, will our tax dollars be used to end the life of an infant in its mother’s womb?
Other than Hillary Clinton’s failed attempt when First Lady, only one candidate has actually passed a state-controlled health care plan: Mitt Romney. Appalling, the Romney plan actually provides taxpayer-funded abortions.
October marks the first anniversary of Mitt Romney's state healthcare system becominig operational in Massachusetts in which taxpayers were forced to pay for abortions. Only one year ago, the first resident of Massachusetts was enrolled into the program. With typical flair, Gov. Romney declared, “Today, we celebrate a great beginning.”
Let’s examine this beginning. Gov. Romney now claims that he shifted to the pro-life position in 2004. And yet, in 2006, he signed legislation which:
- Forces taxpayers to fund abortion
- Mandates that one of the 14 members of the plan’s policy board be appointed by the Planned Parenthood League of Massachusetts
No true pro-life political person of any party stripe would have ever signed such legislation.
Gov. Romney could have vetoed these sections of the legislation. He had to power to do so and did, indeed, veto Sections 5, 27, 47, 112, 113, 134, and 137. Certainly he was aware of the abortion provision and the mandate of a Planned Parenthood-approved member of the policy board.
Gov. Romney’s defense is that tax-funded abortions were not part of the plan he originally submitted. He will argue that nothing could be done about the abortion provision because it was a pre-existing law, unless he wanted to actually try and fight the law to overturn it, which would have been an uphill battle in a state like Massachusetts.
This is a defense which amounts to: “we had to do this for the sake of the legislation.” But the law exists under Romney's signature and the end result is state-funded abortions. Few pro-life voters will let him pass on this.
Let's change the scenario. Gov. Romney becomes President Romney. A Supreme Court justice or two (or three) decides to retire. Appointing a pro-life judge will be an "uphill battle," and Gov. Romney would actually have to fight the US Senate, a much more substantial body than the MA legislature, to get a pro-life judge appointed. What will he do?
The question pro-life people want answered is whether or not he will fight, even when the fight is difficult. We are not interested in those who are pro-life when it is easy or politically expedient to be so.
The fact that he wouldn't fight in Massachusetts does not bode well for what will happen if he occupies the Oval Office. It is exactly this kind of maneuvering that makes conservatives uncomfortable. In this key fight over taxpayer funded abortions, he caved. What will he do in the much bigger battles as president?
Gov. Romney’s camp can put out all the memos they want as to why this would have been too tough for him or why he needed to compromise on state-funded abortions, but their explanations actually put him in a worse light. How does someone who is pro-life sign a bill that contains a provision for taxpayers paying for abortions? It is this kind of flopping that will doom his campaign.
Dr. Jerry Zandstra
President, Pro-Life Federation
Brownback National Steering Committee
The point here is not that Romney is not a pro-lifer, it's that he's shown that there are battles he won't fight for the cause - and, perhaps as importantly, it demonstrates that Romney's efforts to paint himself as the principled social conservative among the top tier candidates is inaccurate.
I'm supporting Rudy, so I certainly can't say this sort of thing is a disqualifier for me. But at least Rudy's campaign isn't built around a core of claims to be something he is not.
"No compromise with the main purpose, no peace till victory, no pact with unrepentant wrong." - Winston Churchill
Romney isn't running as a "principled" social conservative. He's running as an effective social/fiscal conservative. Rather than dive head first into every battle, he will effectively manage his political capital to maximize results.
The question comes down to: would you rather have a president who pushes an issue on three fronts and loses them all, or pushes on two fronts and wins them both?
If you think political battles are about vindicating principles through defeat, you might not like that. If you think they are about getting results, you should be excited about Romney's campaign.
any conservative "wins" in MA.
He did bring the state back from the brink of bankruptcy so they didn't have to deal with their socialist policies - none of which he actually changed.
He gave the left a state mandated health insurance plan that the left will be tinkering with and expanding forever.
He instituted exactly NO policy changes that reduced the intrusion of government.
He left the Republican Party in an even bigger shambles than he found it and would have gotten blown out if he'd run for reelection.
Yeah, heck of a job he did.
____
CongressCritter™: Never have so few felt like they were owed so much by so many for so little.
abortion alternative counseling in the MA law?
But we all know that those vetoes would have been overridden anyway.
How could one line item veto something that was NOT in the bill? It was law already on the books for over twenty reasons that health insurance plans in Massachusetts must provide coverage for abortions! So you want Mitt Romney to go back in time 20 years to line item veto a piece of unrelated legislation. Geez! So desperate to knock a guy that you have to make stuff up!
to see Social conservative after social conservative get behind him.
Good luck, you have a job until the Iowa caucuses as I understand it.
www.mymanmitt.com
www.race42008.com
Member of Romney for President Faith and Values Steering Committee-an unpaid advisory position, that does not require an endorsement.