web analytics
≡ Menu

If legislation re abortion is not on his agenda, is Romney really pro-life?

Yesterday someone sent me the link to an essay in which a person well known for his pro-life convictions says that Mitt Romney is “pro-life and upholds the Biblical family…”  As stated this is simply untrue.  It would be accurate to say that Mitt Romney says that he is pro-life and claims to uphold the Biblical family.  His deeds, however, have consistently contradicted his claims.  People shilling for Romney who fail to take note of this fact can be said, at the very least, to co-operate in deception; unless, of course, they are simply ignorant of the facts.

Such ignorance is hardly excusable, however, since hardly a day passes without some new evidence that makes a mockery of the claim that Romney is pro-life.  Just this morning I read a report that has Romney telling the Des Moines Register’s leftist editorial board  “There’s no legislation with regards to abortion that I’m familiar with that would become part of my agenda.”  I immediately thought of the legislation that will be needed to repeal the coercion of conscience involved in Obamacare; and remove the unaccountable decision-making bodies it establishes, (with powers that deserve the “death panel” label often applied to them.)  Romney’s apologists say he will repeal Obamacare, but apparently he intends to do so without changing existing legislation.  (That’s a good trick if he can manage it, but I fear that tricking the conservatives who actually believe what he says about repealing Obamacare is the only trick he has in mind.)

Given Romney’s record as Governor of Massachusetts it also occurs to me to wonder what he means by legislation.  Whenever people like me point out that then Governor Romney abused his executive  power to impose ‘gay marriage’ in Massachusetts, Romney’s apologists respond by claiming that he had to follow the law laid down by the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court.  But the Court’s assertion of marriage rights for homosexuals had no basis in the Constitution or laws of  Massachusetts.  In fact the Massachusetts Constitution explicitly denies the State’s judiciary any share in the legislative power of government.  By claiming that his imposition of gay marriage was required by law, however, Romney treats the Court’s opinion as legislation.

Because he takes the view that judicial opinions have the force of law, when Romney says that “no legislation with regards to abortion…would become part of my agenda” it is reasonable to assume the his words encompass Court decisions that alter the current jurisprudence re abortion, .

One of the main arguments used by Romney’s apologists is that he will appoint pro-life judges and justices to the Federal Judiciary.  But it’s Romney’s view that in and of themselves judicial opinions have a force of law that supersedes existing legislation, i.e.,  judges and justices can legislate from the bench.  So the statement that his agenda includes no legislation with regards to abortion logically implies that it is not part of his agenda to appoint judges and justices likely to overturn Roe v. Wade.  Please keep in mind that the logic I refer to derives from what Romney includes in the meaning of legislation (judicial opinions per se), not what you or I (or common sense and constitutional reasoning, for that matter) include in that term.

Of course the fact that Romney speaks doesn’t mean that we should actually take his words seriously (i.e., think through their implications), right? We should just take the opinion of this or that supposedly pro-life leader as sufficient proof that, no matter what common sense and reason suggest, Romney is pro-life, and that’s all there is to it.  Just as the he’s for the traditional family, notwithstanding his unlawful, unconstitutional imposition of gay marriage in Massachusetts; his commitment to continuing Obama’s policy of commanding military personnel to accept open homosexuality in their ranks; his criticism of the Boy Scouts’ policy against homosexuality in scouting; his insistence that honoring Dan Cathy’s  support for the traditional family (Chik-fil-A day) is no part of his campaign, etc.

Apparently even though Romney wants no part of the effort to defend the unalienable right to life or the natural right of family life, we are supposed to accept him as pro-life and pro-family.  Whatever else Romney does or does not achieve, if he’s elected on this basis these heretofore conservative political causes will have no practical political substance.  Indeed, I think that’s the whole point. If Mitt Romney is pro-life, if he is a defender of marriage, then adherence to those causes no longer requires political action; they no longer involve any purpose or intention with respect to law and government in the United States. They are just rhetorical devices, used to gull the voters whose goodhearted faith they appeal to and exploit.  Romney keeps demonstrating this in various ways.  But his shills are counting on self-described conservative voters to be are like the people Christ described when he said: “…seeing they see not; hearing they hear not, neither do they understand.”

Sadly, what they willfully refuse to see is likely to deprive their children and grandchildren of their birthright of liberty, for the willful blindness of one generation becomes the helpless ignorance of the generations yet to come.  What a fateful, fatal surrender of America’s hope!  Why are some people so sure that the prospect of that surrender is “less evil” than the increasingly explicit political, legal and civil turmoil Obama’s re-election is likely to usher in?  Is it really less evil quietly to surrender liberty than boisterously to fight for it?  Or are these “lesser of evils” capitulators secretly certain only of this, that despite their professed love of decent liberty, they no longer have the faithful courage required to risk life and fortune for the sacred honor of upholding it?

[WILL YOU SAY NO TO OBAMA? WILL YOU SAY NO TO ROMNEY? WILL YOU SAY NO TO SOCIALISM, WHATEVER PARTY LABEL IT WEARS? WILL YOU JOIN IN GIVING AN UNMISTAKABLE, VISIBLE POLITICAL MANDATE TO THE GOP’S “PLATFORM REPUBLICANS”? IF YOU WILL CONSIDER THE “PLATFORM REPUBLICAN” VOTER STRATEGY FOR THE 2012 ELECTION, JUST SEND ME AN EMAIL AT ALAN@LOYALTOLIBERTY.COM. PUT “YES I WILL” IN THE SUBJECT LINE. NO FURTHER MESSAGE IS NEEDED. OF COURSE YOUR ADDITIONAL THOUGHTS AND SUGGESTIONS WILL BE WELCOMED. AS THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THIS APPROACH DEVELOPS, I’LL SEND EMAIL UPDATES TO THE REPLY ADDRESS YOU USE. ALSO, PLEASE SHARE THIS IDEA WITH OTHERS SO THEY CAN CONSIDER IT FOR THEMSELVES.]

Share
{ 4 comments }
{ 4 comments… add one }
  • Recovering Feminist October 13, 2012, 10:52 am

    I refuse to sell my vote for 30 pieces of silver.

    When the mega-Planned Parenthood abortuary was being built in Texas, some
    contractors boycotted and would not participate in building an Auschwitz under
    another name. Chances were very good that the killing center would still be
    built by those who were willing to violate their consciences, but that did not
    matter to the courageous contractors who refused to violate their consciences
    and help build something that would murder helpless children. It didn’t matter
    that those contractors may lose the earthly battle. What mattered is that they
    did the right thing. Anyone who boycotts a company because of their affiliations
    with pro-abortion or pro-sodomy organizations knows that their little sacrifice
    is not that much in the Grand Scheme of Things—but we boycott nonetheless,
    because our consciences tell us that if we can, we should boycott by withholding
    money and support and encourage others to do the same.

    Now we have the
    Republican Party demanding that their “customers” accept their company’s
    product—candidates that have stated publicly that they will not adhere to the
    (good) Republican Party Platform. What are our choices when we boycott? The
    majority of the time we can find a product that is similar to the one we’re
    boycotting—a “company” that doesn’t violate our consciences by aligning with
    anti-Catholic entities. In the case of candidates who will violate our
    well-formed consciences by voting for them, what other candidates may there be?
    And if there isn’t a candidate on the ballot, the write-in line is there for a
    reason. What better way to send a message to the Republican Party that we are
    boycotting their “product” by saying We will not violate our consciences by
    voting for anti-Catholic, pro-abortion, pro-sodomy, pro-socialist candidates.
    Until enough of us send a voting message to the GOP, we will continue to be
    asked to violate our consciences by voting for candidates who are anti-Christian.
    We may not win an “earthly” battle, but we will have tried. For me, I refuse to
    sell my vote for 30 Pieces of Silver.

    We’ve had enough of exhortations to
    be silent! Cry out with a hundred thousand tongues. I see that the world is
    rotten because of silence!~~St. Catherine of Siena

    If people are
    scandalized at the Truth, it is better to allow the birth of scandal, than to
    abandon the Truth.~~Pope St. Gregory the Great

    “… So we choose the
    lesser evil, thinking we have been saved from the great evil, when all the while
    satan’s real purpose was to bring about the evil we have chosen… .” “The
    Father’s Tale”, p. 496, Michael O’Brien

    Quid est
    Veritas?

    http://www.lesseroftwoevilsisstillevil.blogspot.com

  • Zaphenath_Paneah_II October 13, 2012, 7:47 am

    “Is it really less evil quietly to surrender liberty than boisterously to fight for it? Or are these “lesser of evils” capitulators secretly certain only of this, that despite their professed love of decent liberty, they no longer have the faithful courage required to risk life and fortune for the sacred honor of upholding it?”

    I weep at your words, for they are so sad and yet so true.

  • VR October 10, 2012, 6:52 pm

    The pattern is clear, and has been repeated numerous times on every important issue conservative constitutionalists care about. Romney makes a statement to a left leaning media outlet that directly contradicts a promise or position previously stated to the conservative base. Later, when his campaign reps are confronted with the flip-flop, they say he “misspoke,” “didn’t understand the question,” or “He didn’t really mean what he said. He still believes _____, etc.” And on cue the conservative base goes from alarm and concern to misgivings, and finally back to naive trust and hope that this latest betrayal will be the last. He really is our man after all, they assure themselves. This reminds me of the pattern of spousal abuse. The abuser assaults the victim, victim is shocked by the bad treatment and betrayal. Later the abuser says, “I misbehaved.” or “It was all a misunderstanding. I was drunk/high/confused…etc.” or “I didn’t really mean to do that. I still love you…”. And back the victim goes with the abuser. The abuser will often end his excuse making apology with what may be, at least for that moment, a real desire to reform. “I’ll never do it again,” he says. But that is something the conservatives so willing to forgive Romney’s every betrayal never hear. And that is because he has every intention of betraying them again.

Leave a Comment

Copyright Regulations

All original material on Loyal To Liberty is copyrighted and you will need to observe these regulations when you plan to distribute or use content from this blog. Copyright Regulations for Content on Loyal To Liberty You are free to share, distribute or transmit any work on this blog under the following conditions: * Attribution: You must attribute any content you use to Loyal To Liberty by including a link back to the specific content page. You must not suggest that Loyal To Liberty endorses you or your use of the content on this blog. Even with attribution, you do not have permission to republish the entire blog post on a website. Only excerpts of less than 500 words from each blog post may be published on other websites. A link back to the specific blog post must be included. * Noncommercial Usage: You may not use this work for commercial purposes unless authorized to do so by Alan Keyes. * Derivative Works:Within the limits heretofore specified, you may build upon the contents of Loyal To Liberty as long as proper attribution (see above) is made. If you want to syndicate or distribute the full blog post on your website, permission must be obtained before you do so. For permission, please email alan@loyaltoliberty.com.
%d bloggers like this:
\"Google