Romney Responds: Opposed to Taxpayer Funded Abortions
He's opposed, but moral questions linger
By Ben Domenech Posted in 2008 — Comments (29) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
In response to this morning's post on whether Mitt Romney's Massachusetts health care plan included taxpayer funding for abortions, the Romney campaign has posted this press release on Myths v. Facts. I encourage you all to read it.
I think one thing is clear, after speaking to the Romney camp and taking the release at face value: Governor Romney does not support taxpayer funded abortions. It was not Gov. Romney's decision to include the coverage for Abortion Services as part of his Commonwealth Care Benefit Services Package, but that of the Connector Authority. That's all good to hear, and was the main concern of my post.
But there are other questions that emerge from this, and other bloggers are already taking notice. Perhaps the most pressing is this: prior to the passage of Gov. Romney's plan, only Medicaid-eligible recipients in Massachusetts could receive taxpayer funded abortions, as required by the Massachusetts courts. After the passage of Gov. Romney's plan, it appears that this number expanded significantly, since all low and moderate-income citizens are now eligible. That's a serious increase in the number of abortions that will be paid for by the taxpayers, and for pro-lifers, a high price for reform.
If Gov. Romney's plan, "expanded taxpayer funded health care benefits," has the unintended but inevitable effect of meaning "expanded taxpayer funded abortions," we now know what choice he made. We can debate that choice. What I wonder, as a pro-lifer, is whether President Romney would make the same choice.
« Dueling June Obama fundraising claims? — Comments (2) | Does Romney Favor Taxpayer-Funded Abortions? — Comments (92) »
Romney Responds: Opposed to Taxpayer Funded Abortions 29 Comments (0 topical, 29 editorial, 0 hidden) Post a comment »
I have a feeling that Mitt Romney knows the import of the question and how much he needs to answer it comprehensively. I'm sure he also knows from very direct experience how much his power and leeway is constrained by the legislature in the state that he served as Governor. Now it's time for Romney to say something different: what he would do absent those constraints, as the President of the United States.
Although it's an answer we don't like.
It's been interesting watching the comments on Red State for all the candidates these last few weeks. Every candidate is going to change their ways when they are nominated and elected, and suddenly embrace every conservative idea, conservative judge, and conservative belief.
Everyone (Group-think) seems to believe this since a real conservative can't possibly win, no way, no how, since only someone who appeals to the mushy middle has any chance. (Where this group think comes from I don't know - maybe folks who don't want a conservative nominated?)
It's not everyone, but it's far too many people.
The answer for this party is not to nominate a Romney, or anyone else whose conservative portfolio is questionable, or in the case of giuliani, virtually non-existent. There are a lot of fine conservative republicans out there. How many might run for President in 2008, I don't know. But lets not make a choice sired out of some desperation we put on ourselves! Unite behind a conservative candidate and I think we will be pleasantly surprised in 2008. Again, enough of this defeatism before the primaries even begin. Its not yet time to compromise on a nominee!
This is the "Conservative Phoenix" theory. And so far I've seen absolutely no evidence that this country will vote for it, or that any Conservative in office or out of office right now believes it will work.
Gingrich is relying on his "I'm not really running" spiel until he has decided that the United States is ready to accept him as a candidate. Maybe that's smart. Maybe in a year people will be so disgusted with the current slate of candidates both Democrat and Republican that they'll be looking for someone new.
But who is newer than Mitt Romney? And look at what has already happened to him here on RedState. I don't think anybody likes him except for me.
Newt is waiting in the wings for a bomb to go off somewhere in America, I think. And where are the rest of these promising Conservatives who might win? I don't think there are any. I could be wrong.
There are a lot of fine conservative republicans out there.
I'd really like to know where you think they are, and if they're interested in running for President. I can't count any of them right now. Sure, there's Brownback. I like Brownback, but who else?
Umm... I think there is a lot of support for Romney on here. Probably more than most candidates with the exception of Rudy Giuliani.
Because I've been supporting Romney from the start of his campaign. I know we're in the trenches here, Ryan. What's sad is that people here in Republicana really believe that there is going to be a rescue patrol from the Conservatives that's going to come and snatch this thing away from the Donks.
It's not going to happen unless someone that I don't know about shows up out of the Blue. Some of these folks are behaving a little like the people who thought that Karl Rove was going to magically pull the Iraq WMD's out of his butt like an easter egg that he had hidden.
I want to disabuse them of that notion right now. Of course, in the future, anything can happen. But at this moment, I'll give even money that there ARE NOT GOING TO BE any new Conservative candidates who will rise from the ashes to take the title. The field is fixed and it's sitting right in front of you.
The problem is that this magical conservative figure they talk about has about as much chance of showing up as the French Army has of retaking Detroit.
I think that the American people are very, very skeptical right now of anything labeled "Conservative" because they've been conditioned by the media to think that "Conservative = War."
And that means that both Republicans and Conservatives alike if they have a lick of sense are going to choose from someone who is not ideologically pure. It's called making the best of what you're dealt.
I won't completely dismiss the possibility that a true Conservative like Brownback can win. But I want to see a lot more positive things said about ALL of our candidates, including Brownback, for the next year. In that I agree with Adam C.
Right now: From this point foward, someone else is going to have to criticize any of our candidates. I am *only* going to accentuate the positive and then let the opposition do their worst.
I think its not so much an anti-conservative bent, but an anti-ideologe bent. Americans want a practical leader or at least someone who appears to be such. This is what is fueling the support for Rudy Giuliani and Mitt Romney to a certain extent. Both are seen as pracitical leaders who clean up messes. Now I think one of them is seen as more conservative than the other, but still they are the practical leader Bush is perceived as not being.
Is a great "practical politician" simply because he's *had* to be practical in his home state. Meaning that he has picked his battles wisely even against an uncompromising legislature and managed to succeed. Now, let's ask the question of what Romney could do with an R/R Congress...
I think that's very promising. Let's not forget that Romney is first and foremost a venture capitalist. He absolutely did his best in Massachusetts and I think that with a strong Republican Congress he'd be much, much better than some of his detractors believe.
I think that the real measure of progress for the next President is going to be how well he or she works with the CONGRESS they're facing. Romney has my vote in the sense that even confronted with a legislature overwhelmingly opposed to him as a Republican, he was able to accomplish a lot.
And all of the Giuliani supporters swear that he will nominate supreme court justices in the mold of Scalia and Thomas. Men he does not agree with and who would likely make decisions he opposes. Take that one on faith.
I don't know that the person who finally gets nominated is even in the running yet. I think Brownback, Tancredo and Hunter are three solid conservatives. Each has certain drawbacks, but in my opinion none to equal the drawbacks of the current "big three".
There is still some time. Jimmy Carter, Bill Clinton, and George W. Bush were virtually unknown nationally when they began their run. One of the lessor known candidates may take off, or another candidate may still make an appearance. I think a Giuliani or McCain nomination could have the affect of running millions of Republicans toward third parties. I don't think Romney has that potential, but as we know he has his concerns.
I think the problem with the dark horse theory is that the primaries are so frontloaded now and this requires huge sums of money really quickly to get your message out over a vast area.
Unless this darkhorse jumps in the race soon, I do not think they will have enough feed.
further you'll find that he does agree with tem on what for him is the most important role of a judge, criminal and law enforcement issues and more recently national security and terrorism issues.
I'd agree that Giuliani probably doesn't care about abortion one way or the other, and that if it was up to him, Roe would probably remain, at leats in the first trimester and for life, rape and serious health risks thereafter.
That said, he does care about crime and security. It's probably his litmus test. As a prosecutor, and as someone who's had conviction overturned on appeals, I guarantee you he doesn't care for Judges who let criminals go on techinicalities and have expansive views of habeas proceedings and Brennan-like views on the Death Penalty.
Similarly, on nat'l security, I can safely say that there is absolutely no chance whatsoever that he would ever appoint a Judge to the Supreme Court who would have been with the majority in Rasul or Hamdan.
Now, coincidentally if you look at the dissenters in those two cases, and in the death penalty cases like Atkins and Roper and Habeas cases like Herrera and McCleskey et al, you'll tend to see that they are the very same Justices who would reverse Roe. In Hamdan and Rasul in particular, the dissenters were Scalia, Thomas, Rehnquist, Roberts and Alito. Again, I don't think that's just a coincidence. I'll tell you who won't find in any of those cases, pro Roe Judges ike Breyer, Ginsburg, Stevens, Souter, Brennan, Blackmun, etc... Even moderates like Kennedy and O'Connor were both in the majority in Hamdan and Rasul(well, O'Connor clearly would have been if she was still on the bench) so that eliminates their type from Rudy's consideration.
Don't forget, no other candidate on either side, and perhaps from any party in at least the last 50 years, has as much legal experience as Rudy from the DOJ level(Reagan's $3, the top federal prosecutor in the country(the SDNY is the #1 district in the country), clerking for a federal judge, arguing cases at districy, circuit and supreme court level, actually prosecuting cases and running them from investigation to indictment to trial to conviction. Has any other candidate from either party clerked for a federal judge? arguyed a case at SC? been a high level official at the DOJ? been a US Attorney at the highest level? Guys like Clinton were AGs at the state level but that's nothing compared to Rudy's experience. The last 3 GOP Presidents haven't even had law degrees. I think he understand the issues and the legal issues(and has the experience to back it up) better than any GOP candidate in quite some time.
So, even if he doesn't really care about abortion, which I don't think he does, his unyielding insistence on appointing tough on crime/tough on terrorists/pro law enforcement/pro military Justices will most likely have the unintended consequence of placing anti Roe Justices on the bench, whether he wants to or not.
I certainly think he's just as likely as McCain or Romney or even Bush to do so, perhaps even more based on his pro law enforcement leanings.
There's plenty of reasons to oppose him(abortion, gay rights, immigration, guns, stem cells, etc...), but I don't think Judges should be one of them.
I called for a real conservative candidate a year ago. A fusionist candidate who can ally both social and fiscal conservatives.
I believe a real conservative can win- and in fact is the best way to win... but he needs to be somebody- a Governor, a prominent political figure, heck even a prominent Senator.
But who do we have?
McCain, Guiliani, Romney...
Hutchinson isn't fiscally conservative enough, Brownback? I thought maybe, but now he's opposed the surge. Gingrich? That why I have a lingering hunger for his entry, but he's damaged goods.
The real conservative? Where is he? He's been disqualified by his last name: Jeb Bush.
So here we are stuck with Guiliani, McCain and Romney. I can survive McCain, and I can be satisfied with Romney.
Ergo, I'm supporting Romney, and trying to get excited about it.
Romney's response seems to play fast and loose with the facts.
MYTH: Under Governor Romney's Massachusetts Health Insurance Reform Plan, Abortion Services Are Offered As Part Of The Commonwealth Care Benefit Services Package.
Isn't this true? It may also be true that Romney personally does not favor taxpayer funded abortions and would have preferred to not include this provision in the Health Insurance Reform Plan, but that doesn't change the fact that the plan does in fact fund abortion services.
FACT: The Commonwealth Care Benefit Services Package Was Developed By The Connector Authority – An Independent Authority Separate From The Governor's Office.
[snip]
The Commonwealth Heath Insurance Connector Authority Is An Independent Public Authority And Their Decisions Were Made Separate Of The Romney Administration.
I suppose this is technically true. But, it reads like an attempt to avoid responsibility for taxpayer funded abortions when Romney knew abortions would be covered under the plan all along. It would be like me giving drugs to an addict and then disclaiming responsibility when he took them.
FACT: 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
The cases referred to do not say this. According to the description provided in the Romney response, the cases require funding for "medically necessary" aboritions. There is a big difference between medically necessary abortions and elective abortions.
I want to ask you a straight-up, honest question: who do you support for President on the Republican side?
Most of the Romney haters are Brownback supporters. They have the moral high ground because their guy flip-flopped on abortion 8 years before Romney did. :)
Well the only chance Brownback has is if Romney fails in the minds of some. Personally, I do not think Brownback has a chance for several reasons. Attacking Romney and hurting him severely might get him votes, but it also gives Romney the chance to articulate his view on abortion again and again so every knows where he stands now.
Furthermore, if Brownback can sink Romney, a really really really big if in my opinion, there is no evidence to support the theory that Brownback would gain most of his supporters. I think most of Romney's supporters would go to Giuliani before Brownback because he seems to be the compromise candidate of the Romney people. Knocking Romney out of the race might give Giuliani just enough to win a clear plurality or even majority.
"most of the Romney haters"...
I am a Romney hater, and I am not a Brownback supporter. Many I associate with are both Romney haters AND NOT Brownback supporters.
While it may be your goal in life to go around pimping Romney, be careful who you lump in with what.
The things Romney presided over are unforgiveable to some such as me, and Brownback is no less problematic...problem here is that Brownback wasn't a CEO of a state with veto power...he can cop a plea-Romney may be your poster boy, but that doesn't make him God of the GOP...
back off man...
my moral high ground...parental notification killed
gay marriage forced on the legislature
pro-life when he learned about 14 day old fetuses in a jar being killed, but never when they were 12 weeks old inside the mother where they were conceived.
I can keep going, you get the idea. Root for Mr. Brylcream all you like...stop assuming any who disagree are disingenuous or pimping some other attention whore-they are all scum...try to look at a bigger picture...if you are willing or able to dry the mist from your eyes.
What we do in life echoes in eternity.
-Maximus Decimus Meridius
Well considering that Brownback’s appeal is pretty limited to those “conservatives” who think that the most important job of the president is to tell us about his values and a “culture of life,” I’m sure that will be rather important to the people who otherwise would support Governor Huckabee (whose appeal is also limited to the same demographic).
But for those of us who would like a President who is strong on the War, supports reigning in spending, wants to reform health care and entitlement programs, and secure our borders . . .we’ll have to look elsewhere.
I'm not a South Park Republican, I'm a King of the Hill libertarian.
I hate to tell you, but Calvin Coolidge isn't going to be on the ballot.
But the good news is, a million kids will still be slaughtered a year!
-----------
Even those who learn from history are surrounded by those doomed to repeat it.
Of only having Romney supporters think he flip-flopped. He had to amazing good sense not to go on record in support of Roe.
Some others lack that good sense.
-----------
Even those who learn from history are surrounded by those doomed to repeat it.
Unfortunately he did not have the good fortune of avoiding pork spending, being pro-amnesty and now soft on the war.
He's done a lot of good things, but has his problems too.
A Romney supporter should know better than to be loose with his choice of words.
As to pork spending, I suspect guilty as charged is the right response -- noting that he was one of the young Turks who pushed for that disastrous government shutdown that drove the GOP to start spending. Had you paid attention to politics before Your Man Mitt began his hair minstrations, you might have noted that the entire GOP took note of this object lesson. Does that excuse Sam Brownback? I guess no more than Romney's expansion of abortion services as an unintended consequence of mandated health coverage can be excused as something he really felt needed doing, by gosh and by golly.
As to the War: I lose track. Does your Man Mitt even know which foreign policy advisors, consultants, experts, or whatever he's calling them, he agrees with yet?
-----------
Even those who learn from history are surrounded by those doomed to repeat it.
. . . can be found by reading the actual statute.
I'm not a South Park Republican, I'm a King of the Hill libertarian.
And that is the central question for pro-lifers regarding the Romney campaign.
If Gov. Romney's plan, "expanded taxpayer funded health care benefits," has the unintended but inevitable effect of meaning "expanded taxpayer funded abortions," we now know what choice he made. We can debate that choice. What I wonder, as a pro-lifer, is whether President Romney would make the same choice.
Indeed that is the centralmost question on this issue for the Romney campaign to answer as we go forward.