Mitt Romney Explains His Changed Position on Abortion – Video 12/19/11

Here is video of Mitt Romney explaining that he has long been personally against abortion, but that until 2005, he took the position that Roe v. Wade was settled law, and that he would stand by current law as a public official. But he said that changed when he had to decide as Governor of Massachusetts whether or not to allow the creation of human embryos for the purpose of experimentation and ultimately, to be destroyed. Romney said when faced wit that decision, he simply could not order the killing of human life. Therefore, he vetoed that bill and has been actively Pro-Life ever since.

NOTE: I have heard Romney before essentially say he had not really thought deeply about the issue until that bill came before him in 2005. It is remarkable to think that he had never really thought that carefully about the issue of life and death! I’m glad Romney is now advocating a Pro-Life position, but the idea he had never thought that much about it until just six years ago is troubling.

Below is a video compilation of past statements by Mitt Romney on a host of issues he now has a different view on. It begins with abortion:

Posted by Brian on Tuesday, December 20th, 2011   |   5 Comments »
Tags: , , , ,
  • Anonymous

    I don’t find it that remarkable that he hadn’t thought in depth about abortion until he was faced with having to be responsible for it.  I suspect most people would say the same.  I didn’t realize how awful abortion is until I was pregnant with my first child, felt the miracle of a baby growing inside of me, and realized that some women callously use abortion as a means of birth control.  Your life’s circumstances make you more aware of various issues as they arise.  Consider this – how much have you pondered life and death in regard to capital punishment?  I used to be staunchly on the side of putting hardened criminals to death.  Now I know that DNA has shown some to be innocent, and I also know that it’s more expensive for us taxpayers to put someone to death as opposed to keeping them locked up forever with no chance of parole. Proponents say executions act as a deterrent, and it does to some extent, but we keep them on death row so long that the deterrent effect is lessened to almost nil.  (Personally, I’m conflicted about this, I still think the Ted Bundy’s of the world should be executed.) 

    And then there’s the Terri Schiavo case – were you on the side of life?  My first inclination was that the poor woman’s body should be allowed to die – but what of her parents?  It was their daughter and they were perfectly happy to take over her care and maintenance.  If it were your daughter, I assume you’d want that too. I would want to take care of either of my daughters.  

    Life and death questions get really tricky, and I really believe that most people don’t think in depth about them until they’re faced with them. I try really hard to not second guess Governors.  Perry made it a little hard when he said he’s never bothered about having ordered 234 executions, including juveniles, but I’m giving him the benefit of the doubt. I would never want to be a Governor and have to be responsible for executions or other life decisions.

  • Anonymous

    That is exactly Mitt Romney’s argument, Dixielea. You have expressed it well. I guess I have been so strongly Pro-Life from an early age that it is hard for me to grasp that someone could be nearly 60 years old, have run for political office and been in the public eye and have not yet thought deeply about the issue.

  • Anonymous

    At any rate, I’m glad Romney is now actively Pro-Life. From a practical standpoint, I suspect he would govern strongly Pro-Life because he knows he would need to prove to conservatives he really is Pro-Life – if he wants to get re-nominated and elected to a second term.

  • Blind Eye Jones

    Judging by this Mitt is all over the political map and maybe a good deal of it is because his state is so liberal. I think Mitt should admit that he was wrong on the stimulus — if he hasn’t done so.  But this could also damage his business credentials.  Concerning the other things he said, we don’t really know how accurate they are because at times he got cut off (guns issue, health care).  But Mitt has a lot of good points too — and I’m not a purist in the sense that only a conservative can beat Obama.  Why?  Look how far this country has come!  Now you can’t say “Merry Christmas” anymore without getting flak.  Do you think this would have happened in the 1950s?  Do you think in the 1950s university departments would be designing courses like Anti American Imperialism, Queer Theory, Post Colonialism, etc.?  Look how far secular socialism has taken this country down the godless path and how it has influenced generation after generation of citizens.  Follow its tentacles back to the monster’s lair in the university.  Like the Bible says, They are Legion.  Romney is not perfect but I think he can appeal to the middle and beat Obama, whereas a true conservative might not.  I think Romney is principled in his private life and that to me says a lot.  Even though his message is almost strictly “the economy” it seems that he is humble enough to mention he has made mistakes and that he knows, or has leaned, right from wrong. 

  • Brad

    His position on global warming here is incomprehensible.  He is essentially saying he has zero facts that man contributes to global warming and that past history argues against it but he has a hunch that it is happening so we have to make laws to limit it.  Meanwhile we have direct evidence that babies get killed but no legal argument to prevent that.  


Support the Wounded Warrior Project

Poll of the Week


Recent Comments

Powered by Disqus

Follow Us


on twitter   on facebook   by RSS feed

  • Blogroll