Does Romney Favor Taxpayer-Funded Abortions?
His taxpayer-funded Massachusetts health plan covers Abortions?
By Ben Domenech Posted in 2008 — Comments (92) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
Lip service can be a dangerous thing. When it comes to a candidate’s position on abortion, many pro-lifers are used to feeling like they’re pandered to, often by candidates who have little in the way of a genuine record on this life or death issue.
The experience with Mitt Romney has been little different. Personally, I don’t believe Romney would be a terrible president on the issue – I think he’s savvy enough that he wouldn’t appoint his own versions of Harriet Miers – yet I can’t help but feel that his overcompensation is a bad sign, and a constant reminder of his weak credibility in this important area.
Until now, all we’ve had to evaluate is Romney’s words and a handful of Massachusetts judicial nominations. But I learned yesterday that this wasn’t the case: that in Romney’s Massachusetts healthcare plan, a plan touted as a sign of his conservative credentials, there was a specific provision for taxpayer coverage of “Abortion Services.”
Read on.
A lot of folks have debated whether it's a good idea (or a conservative one) to force individuals to buy health insurance. I actually thought Romney’s plan was, all things considered, a step in the right direction. Until now.
The cornerstone of Romney's plan is called "Commonwealth Care", and the Massachusetts Government site has information concerning it here and here (warning, .doc).
Commonwealth Care, as I understand it, allows low and moderate-income Massachusetts citizens to have access to private healthcare plans – but the program itself is "funded by the state."
This wouldn’t be a problem…except that, right here and on page 6 of the .doc FAQ file, it indicates very clearly that “Abortion Services” are covered by Commonwealth Care.
One of the firewalls in abortion politics is taxpayer coverage. Even as opinions on the freedom to abort have shifted, there has always been overwhelming opposition to taxpayer funded abortions – one of the reasons that only the most radical Democrats publicly support such measures. And yet it appears that, as a component of Governor Romney’s health care plan, taxpayer money is used for just that purpose.
Supporters of the Governor may argue that, in Massachusetts, you have to include this kind of step if you want to get any legislation passed. That’s a fine argument in many cases. But in this case, it logically leads to a disturbing thought: that Governor Romney views mandatory universal health coverage, and gaining a political victory in that area, as more important than protecting life.
I’m very troubled by this. I hope the Romney campaign will respond to this issue. Either there’s something missing here, which I hope is the case, or Governor Romney must be willing to explain how he can be proud of his healthcare plan if it includes taxpayer funded abortions...and at the same time state that every action he has taken as Governor of Massachusetts has been "on the side of life."
Update by Erick: Massachusetts law, prior to enactment of the healthcare initiative, required insurance coverage for abortion. Upon passage of Gov. Romney's initiative, the Massachusetts Supreme Court held that the new law had to be read consistent with the old law and, as a result, abortion must be covered. Gov. Romney did not attempt to place into the new law restrictions to stop abortion coverage. Check out Eyeon08 here for more information.
« Dueling June Obama fundraising claims? — Comments (2) | The Romney Taxpayer Funded Abortion Plan — Comments (0) »
Does Romney Favor Taxpayer-Funded Abortions? 92 Comments (0 topical, 92 editorial, 0 hidden) Post a comment »
Did he compromise on it in order to pass the heath legislation or was it mandated by some other previous law he couldn’t get changed. I'm interested to know the answer to that question as well.
A Constitution of Government once changed from Freedom, can never be restored. Liberty, once lost, is lost forever. -John Adams
In some states, private healthcare companies are required to pay for reproductive services including abortions. I know specifically New Jersey requires such coverage because my father's employer is from New Jersey and their health plan has to cover reproductive services as they phrase it.
It is very likely that existing law required abortions to be covered so any plan involved in Romney's plan would have to follow existing law.
The Title should be "Romney favors expansion of taxpayer-funded abortions"?
------------
[F]or by the fundamental law of Nature, man being to be preserved as much as possible, when all cannot be preserved, the safety of the innocent is to be preferred...
-John Locke
Ryan is saying that private insurance was already required to provide abortion coverage.
Doesn't surprise me:
Massachusetts: We use Socialism to kill babies!
The point is that Romney pushed aggressively for the expansion of this coverage, even at taxpayer expense. So in other words, if Ryan (and others) are correct that private insurance has to provide abortion coverage, then a necessary and unavoidable consequence of passing a healthcare coverage plan which included taxpayer funding for this insurance would be an expansion of taxpayer funding for abortion. There's no way around that.
Now, for someone for whom the abortion issue is no big deal or even a marginal deal, this might not deter them from going ahead and ramming a program like this through anyway. For someone who claims to be "strongly pro-life," it's a deal-breaker.
------------
[F]or by the fundamental law of Nature, man being to be preserved as much as possible, when all cannot be preserved, the safety of the innocent is to be preferred...
-John Locke
Well I think most people would say its the law of unintended consquences. Unless you are constantly thinking about pro-life issues and nothing else, its fairly easy to let something like this occur.
Now I say the proper thing to do is oppose the existing law and get it repealed. This would cut healthcare costs. What are the chances the Legislature would pass such a thing? Below Zero.
But Romney isn't attempting to frame himself as someone who's especially in tune with "most people," he's trying to frame himself as someone who's especially in tune with strong pro-lifers, who I guarantee you would consider this to be a very big deal. Henry Hyde is not a pro-life legend for nothing.
------------
[F]or by the fundamental law of Nature, man being to be preserved as much as possible, when all cannot be preserved, the safety of the innocent is to be preferred...
-John Locke
I think its easy to be pro-life, but it does not guide every movement you do during the day. For example, Leon if I shop at a store who voluntarily provides reproductive service benefits to its employees, am I hurting the pro-life movement on purpose.
Again, this mentality just hurts the pro-life cause in the eyes of the public and drives people away from it.
A Constitution of Government once changed from Freedom, can never be restored. Liberty, once lost, is lost forever. -John Adams
I agree with Leon here, if Romney had made noise about the provision, but in the end signed the bill I might view it differently, but I don't think Romney's hands were tied from at the least using the bully pulpit of his position to advocate the original law, if it exists be changed, or a way to exempt taxpayer dollars from covering that service.
Instead Romney is pretty proud of the plan he signed-so this is another thing that just sort of makes me wonder how heartfelt Romney's pro life position really is.
From some digging at the Blue Cross MA website, it appears the plans I looked at all carry reproductive services.
Now again, I think it is a reasonable assumption that the state required insurance providers previously to provide reproductive services. In fact, from experience in the Mid-Atlantic and New England, I say its probably safe enough to assume they are required until I see some other evidence.
Under Massachusetts law private health insurance companies were already required to pay for abortion services and Massachusetts paid for abortion services in part through the State-funded portion of the Medicaid program.
Commonwealth Care did nothing to change this fact nor did it, by using State funds to help low income people purchase health insurance instead of paying for those services directly with Medicaid, “expan[d] taxpayer-funded abortions.”
I'm not a South Park Republican, I'm a King of the Hill libertarian.
"Using State funds" (a term which is directly synonymous with taxpayer money) to pay for health insurance which pays for abortion is not an "expan[sion of] taxpayer-funded abortions." I'd give you one of your own sanctimonious lectures about at least attempting intellectual honesty, but I don't think I could do it without slapping myself in the process.
------------
[F]or by the fundamental law of Nature, man being to be preserved as much as possible, when all cannot be preserved, the safety of the innocent is to be preferred...
-John Locke
because paying for abortions under Medicare, which is what the alternative would have been prior to this, was likely already covered by taxpayer money.
Also, pretty much any health care plan out there is going to cover abortions.
So if I work at company that provides abortions in their health care plans, am I supporting abortions? If I were to work in the HR department of a company, am I supporting abortions? Is there any state government that doesn't have health care plans that cover abortions? Any of them, anywhere? Does that mean all of our GOP governors are closet pro-abortionists?
Of course not, it's part of what is the norm in health care plans these days. Is it good? No, but I don't think its the main front in the pro-life agenda. The main front is and will continue to be the Supreme Court and ONCE the Supreme Court turns things back over to the states, then it will be time to fight that battle.
*******
As for logic, the only logic that I find dizzying is that of the anti-Romney forces who will admit on the one hand that they think Romney would be good on the issue, but on the other hand feel he is over compenstating such as the author:
Personally, I don’t believe Romney would be a terrible president on the issue – I think he’s savvy enough that he wouldn’t appoint his own versions of Harriet Miers – yet I can’t help but feel that his overcompensation is a bad sign, and a constant reminder of his weak credibility in this important area.
*****
He's already admitted to having a conversion on the issue while dealing with the stems cells in office as governor(answering Leon and others early calls to "deal with things honestly") ... okay so now he's dealt with it honestly and now is trying to reassure you and he gets an "I'm worried that's he's overcompensating" ...
I mean first he's not doing enough and then he's doing too much ... which hoop do you want him to jump through.
provided insurance.
In the end, it appears that this coverage is a requirement by law, but why didn't Romney use his position with the bully pulpit ot advocate against the coverage? I can understand an "I tried, but I lost, and thought more good would happen with me signing the bill than vetoing it" argument more than a "I am proud of this plan" and never mentioning the fact that the state is funding abortions.
Also, I think Leon is at least right about the expansion, since the new program brings in people not previously covered by medicaid who were previously not covered.
So while the true number of abortions may not have changed, the number the people of Massachussette's are paying for will grow-because more people would be brought in under the government funded program where they previously would have been without.
Or did Mass. already provide taxpayer funded "reproductive" services?
From my understand, they did fund reproductive services under their existing government healthcare programs.
But I've also been told that the prior taxpayer funding for abortion services was only for low-income, not low and moderate-income.
So it wasn't out of nowhere, but if that was the case, Romney's plan would be an expansion. Even if that wasn't his intention.
And I wasn't party to the negotiations that went into the creation of the Massachusetts Commonwealth health plan because I just moved to the state. Planned Parenthood of Massachusetts was probably very active in the negotiations behind the final version of the plan: they tout it on their website, and note that MassHealth will fund it.
I'll do some searching and see if this was ever discussed in any newspapers here in Mass. My sense is that abortion care was an absolute "must have" in the MA legislature. There is NO WAY that this legislature would pass a low-mid income health insurance plan without REQUIRING that it covered abortions. My guess is that public support for that among the population of Massachusetts would run somewhere in the 3:1 "for" range. Romney could have threatened to veto it and he would have been laughed right out of the state house, if I know this state. But I'll do some research and find out more, and of course I await the Team Romney response.
BTW I don't qualify for MassHealth so my family pays for its own private insurance, as it is required to do under Massachusetts law -- $18,000 a year for three people.
$18k? Yikes.
I think that's probably true. But as said above, I think it may represent an expansion of taxpayer funded abortions, since prior coverage was apparently only for low-income.
against it without the Veto, and the very least he could say he tried, but lost, but it doesn't even appear he tried.
Although, it is also possible that he didn't notice or didn't care about that portion of the bill, since laws requiring abortion be provided by other insurerers was probably on the books long before Romney got elected.
But to be honest, while I am not in government, I can't say that if faced with a similar situation I would have tossed my hands in the air and said-"I don't care, I can't do anything about it anyway" on issues of life. To some degree that appears to be the way Romney views his position, maybe that is okay to some, but it wouldn't be my style and it does make me wonder whether his pro life position is more political expediency than something heartfelt.
This piece is a little bit less violent than your first one about Romney, but it's very thin on background. Once again you want to place the burden on Romney to explain the actions of the People of Massachusetts as expressed through their overwhelmingly liberal legislature.
That's fine. These are hardball tactics and it's an important issue, and it's certainly your right to raise all the skepticism you want. But I'd at least appreciate from here on out of you tried to at least entertain the possibility that in an overwhelmingly liberal state, the Republican governor does NOT make the laws, and his power to influcnce the lawmaking process is limited, especially on an issue like abortion.
I'll try to find the demographics, but I can tell you right now that my initial hunch is that the overwhelming majority of voters in this state are in favor of publicly-funded abortions.
Perhaps you missed this paragraph:
Supporters of the Governor may argue that, in Massachusetts, you have to include this kind of step if you want to get any legislation passed. That’s a fine argument in many cases. But in this case, it logically leads to a disturbing thought: that Governor Romney views mandatory universal health coverage, and gaining a political victory in that area, as more important than protecting life.
Which, I think squarely addressed your argument.
------------
[F]or by the fundamental law of Nature, man being to be preserved as much as possible, when all cannot be preserved, the safety of the innocent is to be preferred...
-John Locke
Ben is operating from a position of almost complete skepticism (dare I say cynicism) about Romney. That paragraph does nothing to exonerate Romney -- instead it raises another "disturbing question" about his "unstated views." It advances a big, spooky question of whether or not Romney was really behind the whole thing. It collapses the entire process of making law in Massachusetts into a single frightening thought and lays the burden of proof at the Governor's feet.
Now that Ben has put this question out there, I guess there's nothing for Romney to do but answer it. And that's fine. I just think that Ben is treating Romney as the enemy in his line and style of questioning and "fact finding." That's his right -- that's what American politics is all about, after all. And I'll have to do some more digging to help refute Ben to whatever extent I can. That's also fine. But that paragraph doesn't "address my argument" so much as it advances a new line of attack against Romney.
Of course there's a certain amount of realpolitik that goes on in Massachusetts, and Ben recognized that. But the point that Ben raised is this: "Okay, so let's suppose that Romney can't get any healthcare plan through at all unless it includes this provision for the expansion of taxpayer-funded abortions. At this point, a person who is as strongly pro-life as Romney claims would just decide that it would be better to not have universal healthcare coverage than to go ahead and pass it anyway, even if it means an expansion of taxpayer-funded abortions."
------------
[F]or by the fundamental law of Nature, man being to be preserved as much as possible, when all cannot be preserved, the safety of the innocent is to be preferred...
-John Locke
Well there is a interesting question this debate brings up. Is it more pro-life to help people get health insurance they at least pay partially that will help them be healthy for or prevent abortions? Personally, I say protect the existing life first as its the greater vehicle for success.
you want anyway.
See, that is where this gets touchy.
You set up the-it has to be either or, but the better position is that why not compromise and let people save their own money for abortions, after all if the taxpayer is funding their insurance, the cost of having the baby is going to be covered anyway.
I'm saying:
At this point, a person who is as strongly pro-life as Romney claims would just decide that it would be better to not have universal healthcare coverage than to go ahead and pass it anyway, even if it means an expansion of taxpayer-funded abortions."
I'm saying that you can believe in the tooth fairy if you'd like, at least insofar as the Governor's ability to make that statement in Massachusetts. Now I'll have to do the work to provide some background. Ben did a good job of propping up some strawmen for me to work on.
Glib and hyperbolic here, Leon, but from the past year I have lived in this state, I think I can say with confidence that if the Lord himself appeared on the statehouse grounds and implored the People of Massachusetts not to pass universal health coverage if it included taxpayer funding for abortion care, the Legislature would laugh at Him, and the people of the state would tell him to move to Montana.
Because hypotheticals involving Jesus as the Governor of Massachusetts always get sticky.
For all I know, you may be right, Kowalski. But we've been led to believe that not only did Romney not oppose it, but he actually supported it, and is currently bragging about it on the campaign trail. It is one thing entirely to say, "these commies up here in Taxachusetts forced it through over my veto," it is another thing entirely to say, "look at the magnificent healthcare plan I have wrought." Romney's doing the latter, not the former, and there's a significant difference.
------------
[F]or by the fundamental law of Nature, man being to be preserved as much as possible, when all cannot be preserved, the safety of the innocent is to be preferred...
-John Locke
He needs to talk about this more, and I need to do some more background digging on the process that created this healthcare plan. Then people will (hopefully) be able to make up their minds.
If Romney cut a deal to get this passed, I want to know it. If this is something that was impossible to change, I want to know it. Either way, I think this is important enough to find an answer.
the hit? Sure in the end he may have lost the battle, but he never appeared to even engage in it, and this pro lifer doesn't "get" that.
If you are sorta kinda sorta pro life, you probably don't do much wave making, but if you are truly pro life, you at least make a few waves, at least bring up the question, and at least try to advocate for life.
Maybe in the end you sign the bill, but at least in this circumstance you can make the "I fought the good fight" defense, but it doesn't even seem as if Romney tried to fight any fight at all.
Leon, I think your statements on this issue show why the pro-life movement continues to lose support and that only 29% of Americans want Roe v. Wade overturned according to the latest poll. Constantly focusing on an issue that does not affect the electorate like abortion in such a fashion just turns people off.
I would have to say that the recent actions of the pro-life movement have driven me away from really caring about the issue myself. Yes abortion is a bad thing and the fewer that occur the better, but in the grand scheme of things, how does this issue affect me? Once you are born, abortion is no longer an issue that directly affects my life. Focusing specifically on this issue, which is not going to change anytime soon, just drives people away from the cause.
Look, I'm really unconcerned about your opinion of me or of the pro-life movement. I can point to stuff like this, which is the most comprehensive, accurate, trackable, and scientific measure of the public's opinion on abortion, and it clearly indicates that the country is growing more pro-life, not less, whatever pop poll you may be quoting from now (which you mysteriously fail to cite).
Here's the point, though: you don't have to give a flip about abortion. Romney doesn't have to give a flip about abortion. He could well have made the strategic choice to give pro-lifers the finger and go with pretty much what he said in 2002, that he'd respect Roe v. Wade, not change anything, etc. etc. However, that's not how it went down.
Romney was the one who took a look at the field, and decided that the most viable place to wedge his candidacy in order to pre-empt the huge advantage McCain and Giuliani had going in was to run as the strong pro-lifer in the campaign. It was his choice to paint himself this way, and if he now wants to say, "Just kidding," that's also his choice. At least we'll know where he really stands.
P.S. As I've said before, some people get all worked about about the fact that 3,000 humans are killed legally every day in this country, some people get all worked up about marginal income tax rates, or how successfully the Olympics went off. Good luck getting me to feel ashamed about what's important to me, sparky.
------------
[F]or by the fundamental law of Nature, man being to be preserved as much as possible, when all cannot be preserved, the safety of the innocent is to be preferred...
-John Locke
has yet to affect your life. Theft? Burglary? Indecent exposure? Parking tickets? How about global warming?
Envisioning when all that is Left is the Right.
Those can affect my life. Abortion cannot. This is a simple calculation that most people make. Most people might have strong feelings on abortion, but they do not do every act of their life based on it because it does not affect their life like other things can.
There are so many issues we don't run into on a day-to-day basis. On issues like welfare reform, prison reform, inner-city education, genocide and slavery around the world, the explosion of AIDS in Africa, or even the conflict against Islamism, I doubt there's a tangible effect on your daily life. But it seems shortsighted to me to ignore them for that reason. If we all did, all most Americans would ever care about would be the DMV, the town hall, and their local school board.
As for "cannot" on abortion - you might think that, until you get into the adoption process. That's what my family learned.
they view it as something sacred or something worthless, or somewhere in between.
So while abortion itself may not personally touch me, I know what I believe about life, and I know what I think about the sacredness and the preciousness of that life. I know what it is like to have a life growing inside me, and to be honest after having that life grow inside me, and bring that life into the world, and watch that life grow into a child and into a teenager, I have a real feeling that worthless or insignificant, or even dispensible doesn't really come across my mind to describe it.
People who can't see or advocate for the worthiness of every life, especially those who are innocent and have no voice has a worldview I struggle to understand.
all those SE Asians being killed after VietNam and their current seemingly willingness to toss a few million Middle Easterners on the skull piles with them?
Envisioning when all that is Left is the Right.
The fact that people who are deeply pro-life are raising these questions is perfectly fine with me. As a person who changed his own mind on life issues, I know that I would expect to be treated with skepticism. I'm not saying that Leon and Ben are totally out of bounds with their *skepticism* of Romney, nor am I questioning the fundamental underlying premise, which I share.
What I am saying is that they are applying some very harsh standards to Romney, who was by definition *never* going to be a pro-life Conservative standard-bearer of a governor in an overwhelmingly liberal state.
Even the staunchest pro-life advocates in this state realize that they are at an overwhelming numerical disadvantage here. I really hope Governor Romney can explain his views about this in a way that will blunt some of the criticism. I'll try to provide some more concrete background myself. But the *last* thing I want to do is disparage Leon or Ben for their views, or say they've made me disinterested or turned off.
Let's clarify the issue.
I suspect that you are correct that any taxpayer funded healthcare plan in Massachusetts would have to include abortion services. So, Romney only had a couple of options:
1. Embrace the reality of Massachusetts politics and support an expansion of taxpayer funded abortions.
2. Stand firm on pro-life principles and oppose any plan that expanded taxpayer funded abortions.
So, if Romney is strongly pro-life, then it certainly appears that he chose to compromise his principles; would you agree?
But that does a disservice to Romney as the Governor to characterize it that way. I really get annoyed when people who are Federalists who purport to believe in the Rule of Law founded on the Will of the People become indignant when a governor recognizes that the Will of the People of a state trumps his authority as Governor. It's happened a couple of times now in Massachusetts regarding Romney. You can scream from the rooftops that Romney "compromised his principles" and narrowly speaking, that meme might fly, but not with me.
Anyone who has ever participated in politics above the junior varsity level knows that as the Executive you will occasionally take decisions that go against your principles because the "shareholders" vote overwhelmingly in the other direction. That's a fact of adult life.
More later...
It's one thing for Romney to say "I am personally opposed to this healthcare plan because it expands taxpayer funded abortions, but I recognize that the overwhelming number of Massachusetts citizens support it, so, as a representative of the people, I feel bound to carry out the public will and sign this bill."
It's quite another for Romney to brag on his role in creating this law.
You seem to put Romney in the first category. Problem is, however, Romney puts himself the second.
I'm also not buying the "the Rule of Law founded on the Will of the People" and "when a governor recognizes that the Will of the People of a state trumps his authority as Governor" lines.
There is a big difference between following a law that you disagree with and signing a bill that you disagree with. Romney was perfectly within his constitutional and legal rights to oppose and/or veto the healthcare law. It may have been politically futile, but it is silly to suggest that Romney was somehow bound by the "Rule of Law" or "Will of the People" to support the bill. Would you argue that Bush violates the Rule of Law or must submit to the Will of the People on the issue of increasing troop levels in Iraq?
I'd also agree with you that sometimes executives make decisions that go against their personal beliefs. But, I'd also suggest that there are some issues that the best executives do not compromise on, even when facing overwhelming public opposition. Not every issue should be up for compromise.
This President isn't running for reelection for any office, anywhere, ever again. After this Presidency, I seriously doubt that GWB could be elected to Dog Catcher -- and that goes for the rest of the Bush family.
As far as Romney "compromising" his principles and signing that law is concerned, I think that's a bunch of hooey. The more appropriate comparison would be if there had been a law passed by Congress saying that the President of the United States Should Never Go to War in Iraq Again. That's essentially what Romney was facing in Massachusetts. But nevermind, dude, you're right.
In any case it's sad that the State of Massachusetts and its liberal legislature are doing so much damage to Mitt Romney's candidacy. He just can't seem to extricate himself from their influence among Republicans and Conservatives who should know better. I've said it before, and I'll say it again: you're going to be faced with much more unpleasant choices because of your cynicism.
I predict right now that this Presidential race is going to come down to a John McCain/Hillary Clinton faceoff and that Hillary Clinton is going to win.
You'll also note that Romney's "signing the bill" was DICTATED by the law. It wasn't a legal option.
Are you saying that he vetoed this, and his veto was overridden? Because that's kind of not the impression I've been getting from his own campaign speeches about this bill.
------------
[F]or by the fundamental law of Nature, man being to be preserved as much as possible, when all cannot be preserved, the safety of the innocent is to be preferred...
-John Locke
Are you saying that Massachusetts law required Romney to support the healthcare plan? That, if he had vetoed the law, that would have been an illegal action? That's awfully bizarre, but I won't put anything past Massachusetts, although I would like a link to verify such an extraordinary claim.
Ryan, er, have you not been paying attention to Harris or Gallup lately? From the last issue of The Critical:
Wall Street Journal Headline, May 4, 2006: “Support for Roe v. Wade Hits New Low, Poll Shows.” The article details the latest findings with medical detachment. “U.S. support for Roe v. Wade is at its lowest level in decades, according to a new Harris poll…The latest telephone survey of 1,016 adults indicates Roe v. Wade is supported by a slim 49% to 47% plurality, compared with 52% who favored the decision in 2005 and 57% in 1998…40% of those polled favor laws that would make it more difficult for a woman to get an abortion, while another 40% say no change should be made to existing abortion laws, and 15% favor laws that would make it easier to get an abortion.”
According to Harris, the percentage of Americans who support abortion on demand—that is, the current law, which gives the right to obtain an abortion under any circumstance—has remained at a steady 24% for the past decade. That is the plateau of support that the abortion defenders turn to—but it is clearly the limit of their ability to convince, and polls other than Harris support the conclusion that this support is shrinking.
The key to this growing sentiment against abortion on demand is easily discovered: the changing attitudes of young people.
In 2003, a poll by CBS News and the New York Times found that Americans between 18 and 29 had drastically decreased their support for the general availability of abortion from the respondents a decade earlier—a margin that fell from 48% to 39%. And a UCLA study of college freshman at 437 universities found a similar dropoff—54% of the teenagers supported legalized abortion, versus 67% in 1993.
The youthful nature of the pro-life crowds and the aging population on the other side of the street isn’t just the stuff of anecdotes or promotional material—it’s the truth. The forces that favor abortion on demand have outstayed their welcome, failing to react to changing cultural norms and expanding scientific knowledge.
Here is a poll saying only 29% of Americans want Roe v Wade overturned.
http://www.angus-reid.com/polls/index.cfm/fuseaction/viewItem/itemID/145...
Or a badly-written question. The Harris, Gallup, and other numbers have been very consistent. Is there a backup for this?
Yes abortion is a bad thing and the fewer that occur the better, but in the grand scheme of things, how does this issue affect me? Once you are born, abortion is no longer an issue that directly affects my life.
Is it fair to say that you would not be strenously opposed to infanticide (parent's choice of course) as well?
But as Will Saletan has documented in a number of places, the NATIONAL numbers are overwhelmingly against it. Even those who support the right don't support taxpayer funding.
I understand that this could merely be a pro-abortion legislature imposing its will. But I want to hear that from Romney. This is a key piece of his conservative resume, and I think pro-lifers deserve an explanation on this.
I understand that this could merely be a pro-abortion legislature imposing its will. But I want to hear that from Romney. This is a key piece of his conservative resume, and I think pro-lifers deserve an explanation on this.
And I always have. My main criticism of the Romney campaign thusfar has been their flatfootedness in understanding and really dealing with the people who are absolutely going to hold his feet to the fire on the issues they care about. It has infuriated me, with the possible exception of his appearance at the SHOT covention on 2nd Amendment issues. It has infuriated me because I want those answers, too. I like Romney but I don't want to support a chimera.
Romney's clearly not my guy, but that doesn't mean that I couldn't vote for him. The problem is that I feel Team Romney is overcompensating here, as if they feel if they say good things often enough, it'll be fine...and yes, we have enough chimeras in government already.
As for the SHOT convention - ugh. We've won so much ground on guns and life over the past several years...sad to see candidates give it up.
My support for Romney would have been *severely* compromised if instead of attending the SHOT convention he had come out in support of any of the (actually) antigun-rights people who are operating through front organizations that claim to be in favor of a "centrist approach" toward gun control to try and undermine the NRA. That would have absolutely been the Death Knell for me, but he didn't do that, to his credit.
He hasn't answered all of my questions on THAT issue, either, but that was a very wise move in my opinion. Call it being a "good politician" or not, I don't care: if he's moving in my direction I'll take it -- but I'll also hold him to it.
Since Romney's healthplan in MA has been touted by some as the prototype for a "natioanl plan", I'm guessing that those same "reproductive services" will be included in a national plan. After all, since some states require private insurers to include it, we must be federalists and make sure they get to keep it.
Or so, I think, the argument will go.
___________________
If "pro" is the opposite of "con", what is the opposite of "progress"...
Senior Writer
Not quite, Romney has been pretty upfront that there were a number of things in the plan he signed into law that he disagreed with namely (a) the mandated coverage of certain benefits (which was already the law) and (b) the charge on employers who don’t provide coverage for their employees. A better model would be on that would allow consumers to purchase a policy that covers catastrophic illness and long-term care rather than all of the mandates while allowing those who want pre-paid health care to pay for a more expensive policy that did so.
I'm not a South Park Republican, I'm a King of the Hill libertarian.
...That's my thinking. As I understand the Mass. health care reform legislation of last year, it expands access to coverage for the uninsured in two key ways: making sure that those who are eligible for Medicaid are enrolled; making private insurance more affordable and then making it a mandate for each person to have insurance. In short, the legislation makes it more likely that those uninsured will become insured, but it doesn't create a new system of coverage -- people either climb onto the existing Medicaid program, or join an existing commercial health care plan. I suspect that both Medicaid and most commercial plans pay for abortions. In the case of this threads topic, Medicaid in Mass. already covers abortions. That's my hunch. I could be wrong.
And full disclosure, I was contacted by Team Romney™ about this post. But here is what they have now on their website. It's worth a read, at the very least, and it should help the discussion (or at least give people something more substantive to shoot at):
I sent Stephen Smith a question about this, and when he responds, I'll post this prominently so everyone can see it.
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)
In 1997, The Supreme Judicial Court Reaffirmed Its Position That A State-Subsidized Plan Must Offer "Medically Necessary Abortions." In Moe, "[W]e concluded that the State's failure to fund medically necessary abortions, while funding all other medically necessary procedures (including services in connection with childbirth), invaded a woman's constitutional right of choice to a degree that was not counterbalanced by the State's interest in the preservation of potential life." (Planned Parenthood League of Massachusetts, Inc. v. Attorney General, 1997)
abortion payments, and abortion on demand.
Of course the people of Massachussettes may actually want funding for all abortions no matter what the reason funded by the state, but the case appears to only require funding for those that are medically neccessary, so Romney could have easily turned that into his bully pulpit, even if in the end he lost the battle.
But that would be an interesting debate to see, especially since you could really explore just where people stand on the issue, what medically necessary means, and whether the case law requires that the taxpayer pay for an abortion for a women 18 weeks gestation that decided she just didn't much want to be pregnant anymore.
Is liberal speak for abortion on demand.
I see no reason to doubt any other meaning in the Court's interpretation.
The Romney healthcare plan provides taxpayer funds for elective abortions, correct?
The Moe decision requires the state to provide taxpayer funds for "medically necessary" abotions for medicaid-eligible women.
It doesn't seem to me that "medically necessary" abortions is the same as elective abortions. Of course, I would have to read the Moe decision before I was confident that the Mass Supreme Court didn't mean it that way. I searched for the Moe decision but was not able to find it online. If anyone has a link, I'd appreciate it.
having a "doctor" certify that a medical necessity exists. Like, you know, the woman is depressed about her pregnancy. Or upset that she'll put on weight. Or the sky is blue.
___________________
If "pro" is the opposite of "con", what is the opposite of "progress"...
Senior Writer
Although I didn’t have the exact name of the case which required the State of Massachusetts to provide taxpayer-funded abortion services under Mass Care (Minnesota had a similar ruling under Doe v Gomez).
There was simply no excuse for posting this crap when the actual facts were readily available to anyone who cared enough about the integrity of their blogging to do even the most cursory of research.
I'm not a South Park Republican, I'm a King of the Hill libertarian.
Since when do Romney opponents care about facts? I think its pretty clear that the campaigns of the third tier candidates (Brownback, Huckabee, etc) are trying to gain some traction by bringing down the leaders in our party. I can almost guarantee you the author of this entry is a hack for another bumb running for the Presidency. Fortunately for everyone, when these unsubstantiated attacks occur, it only goes to show the intellectual shallowness in the "rest" in the field.
I have been disturbed by the number of Romney supporters who fall into sheer boosterism, and ignore that Romney has flaws.
I have also been disturbed at the intense opposition Romney has received- much of it based on torturous readings of Romney's statements, and unreasonable demands of perfect political purity. They now both are more unreasonable and outnumber the attacks on McCain. This is crazy, McCain's support of McCain-Feingold is blatantly in violation of tradition conservative opposition to big government- and McCain has no ultra-liberal Mass. legislature/Supreme Court as an excuse.
I stand by my original assessment: As a conservative, Romney is a solid B to B+
Of those candidates who I feel have a significant chance of winning both the primary and the general election, Romney is the best.
That's a rather lukewarm endorsement, but there it is.
Now, despite my endorsement of Romney I am still open to another candidate proving me wrong.
However, neither Rudy nor McCain are likely to change my assessment of their politics, which means I won't vote for either in the primary, and will vote for McCain in the general, (I give him a C+ to B-). I don't know how I'll vote if Rudy (D+) wins the primary.
This leaves either Newt to convince me both that he can win the general and to overlook his personal flaws, or for one of the other candidates to prove they can win both the primary and the general.
I was keeping an eye on Brownback (B+, but I felt he was unelectable), now don't know what to think because of his opposition to the surge.
This leaves me going back to Romney. Which is why I am disturbed by the harshness of the intra-party attacks on him. Please, can Romney opponents be a little more good natured in their attacks? He just might end up being our nominee.
I know many of you are upset by the blind devotion by some of Romney's supporters, but harsh and irrational nitpicking attacks are not an effective response.
We are about picking the best available nominee, not the perfect nominee.
"There was simply no excuse for posting this crap"
You know, if you'd prefer to go else where, feel free to. But there is no reason to call this "crap."
My reference to “crap” was to the main post of this thread (and not Kowalski’s post) which you have now corrected in part.
I'm not a South Park Republican, I'm a King of the Hill libertarian.
I thought that since Romney was the one being hauled into the spotlight and whose credentials and credibility and commitment and record were being called into question, it might be appropriate to at least post a link to the Romney response. I guess that's just crap, though.
But forgive me for not having the links close at hand to refute some of the charges myself, Thorley. But I don't think posting a single link to Romney's rebuttal is that bad. People should do more research on their own, of course. I wish I had the time to do it before I get confronted with a piece like this one today, which didn't do much research of its own, frankly.
My first paragraph was in support of yours as in I had found out much of the same information myself through googling.
My second paragraph was directed at the main post of the thread in which the author didn’t even bother to do any cursory research in which he could have easily found the same information I did (or gotten it from the Romney campaign as you did) but instead posted what amounts to a smear attack on Romney and is only now “waiting for confirmation” before correcting it.
I'm not a South Park Republican, I'm a King of the Hill libertarian.
Perhaps, if you deign to respond to the actual substance put forth by the purveyors of "crap" who are the folks who administer this site, you could explain how this:
Supporters of the Governor may argue that, in Massachusetts, you have to include this kind of step if you want to get any legislation passed. That’s a fine argument in many cases. But in this case, it logically leads to a disturbing thought: that Governor Romney views mandatory universal health coverage, and gaining a political victory in that area, as more important than protecting life.
Does not nonetheless apply. As Erick pointed out in his "correction," it's ridiculous for the non-sanctimonious to pretend that this answers all the questions.
------------
[F]or by the fundamental law of Nature, man being to be preserved as much as possible, when all cannot be preserved, the safety of the innocent is to be preferred...
-John Locke
The actual benefits covered by Commonwealth Care aren’t set by the governor or the legislature – they’re set by the Control Authority which is independent of the governor’s office.
If you or Ben had bothered to look at the statute creating Commonwealth Care , you’d see that the words “abortion” or “contraceptive” or “reproductive” or whatever other euphemism for abortion you think they would used instead are nowhere to be found.
I'm not a South Park Republican, I'm a King of the Hill libertarian.
Do you think Romney knew all along that the Control Authority would include abortion services among the covered benefits? If so, I don't see how this exonerates Romney of responsibility for the results of the legislation he supported.
It involves at once sanctimoniously pointing out that according to the law, any expansion of healthcare coverage would have necessary involved funding abortion, and at the same time sanctimoniously pointing out that the statute the governor passed did not expand taxpayer-funded abortions, without any recognition that you've sanctimoniously contradicted yourself.
------------
[F]or by the fundamental law of Nature, man being to be preserved as much as possible, when all cannot be preserved, the safety of the innocent is to be preferred...
-John Locke
it seems to me your point here has become trying to indicate how smart you are or would be had you decided not to succumb up to the Romney flu.
Given even a dummy could find out thru google, I guess even a dummy can see the games Romney played to convince the pro-lifers he was on our side, even though he successfully governed in a state that is anything BUT pro-life.
Given, as well, your insistence the post is crap and by implication the poster is crap, why the heck are you even still in here?
Trying to continue establishing how smart you are?
What we do in life echoes in eternity.
-Maximus Decimus Meridius
Aside from the cold, things are going pretty good right now.
Romney is on my shortlist for presidential contenders in part because he did come up with a creative way of expanding health care coverage while keeping it privately run and minimizing the burden on the taxpayer. I don’t agree with all aspects of Commonwealth Care and to his credit, Romney has been pretty clear where he disagreed as well particularly in stating that he opposed mandated benefits required by Massachusetts law (which would already exist regardless of whether Commonwealth Care had ever been created).
As far as the post in question, it was inflammatory and misleading (as were the two diaries that followed it) at best. Upon actually reading the enabling statute which created Commonwealth Care, it became obvious that it wasn’t even true. So yes, I would indeed consider that be “crap” particularly as how the poster in question was both a director of this site and put it on the front page before (belatedly) issuing a correction and how a correction could have been avoided had he bothered to do any research on the topic before posting it.
I'm not a South Park Republican, I'm a King of the Hill libertarian.
Come on gang; going from a law requiring health care plans to include abortions to a massive state-funded abortion plan is a DRAMATIC increase in state-funded abortion; I predict a ten fold increase. And yes, Romney could have placed restrictions on abortion coverage and still not be in violation of existing law.
But he refused to fight that battle and instead put Planned Parenthood on the plan's advisory board. This is consistent with Romney's history on this issue, from appointing pro-abortion judges to favoring some forms of stem cell research to forcing private catholic hospitals to pass out the abortion pill (instead of fighting this unconstitutional infringement of religious liberty). And all this happened SINCE his "conversion."
Lets bear in mind that Romney has never claimed any moral opposition to the abortion procedure itself, but rather he wants the abortion issue to be decided by the states. That is a procedural position and not a moral position nor is it one held by most pro-life leaders.
Steve
For those who say that he supports taxpayer funded abortions because he wants to get more qualifying people on the Medicaid roles or covered through private insurance and those both pay for abortions.
Using the same logic, someone opposed to the plan must be against expanding access to heart medication and chemotherapy, since those insurance plans cover those as well. Logically, that doesn't work.
You can oppose the plan for a lot of reasons (I certainly have problems with it) but "expanding taxpayer funded abortions" isn't one of them.
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman
What’s next – someone who supports Health Savings Accounts which enable people to use pretax dollars to pay for any health care costs is accused of “providing a tax break for abortions” because someone might use an HSA to pay for one?
I'm not a South Park Republican, I'm a King of the Hill libertarian.
I just can't believe how weak the Romney response to this issue is. The court decision Romney's response refers to only requires that the state fund "medically necessary" abortions while the Romney health care plan appears to cover any kind of abortion for any reason. Therefore, the Romney plan constitutes a dramatic expansion of state-funded abortion.
The other points in the response are weak as well: Romney cut abstinence funding and gave funds to an AIDS group that promotes the "have sex with anyone for any reason" type of program, he forced the morning after pill on Catholic hospitals, and the parental consent laws he's referring to have been repeatedly violated by his education bureaucrats (Remember the David Parker case?).
He also says the decisions about the design of the health care plan were made "independent" of him and this bald-face lie is repeated by Thorley. Here's a quote from a email with the Heritage Foundation policy anaylst who worked with the Governor Romney on his plan:
"My collegues and I at Heritage were contacted by the Govenor and his staff for advice and counsel in two crucual areas.....the second instance involved the design of a health insurance market reform that would enable individuals and families to choose their private health insurance....."
Romney and his team worte this law and still boast about it at every campaign stop. Thorley thinks he's clever because he found no mention of abortion in the statute, but anyone who knows anything about legislation knows that the actual
implementation details are in the implemention documents. Just visit the Commonwealth Care website and you'll easily find the
words "abortion" and "Planned Parenthood" which Romney enlisted to help him craft this policy. It's clear; Romney went beyond what was legally required.
Besides, as conservatives, we should be blasting Romney for his socialized health care plan to begin with. It has already begun to unravel and free market health care experts across the board have condemned it as a huge government boondoogle. Just talk to CATO or the Health Freedom Alliance.
Steve
But the Massachusetts legislature definitely does.