But how do you waffle when it's either right or wrong with no gray area? Romney's has said for some time that the states should be able to decide individually whether or not they'll permit abortions -- NOT a pro-life position. Then, before the Iowa caucus he pretends to support a federal amendment banning abortion. Next, he backtracks and says an amendment allowing state flexibility is good:
See LifeSite News (8-16-07):
Romney Supports Human Life Amendment, Then Qualifies Stance
. . . "I do support the Republican platform and I do support that big part of the Republican platform, and I am pro-life," Romney said during an August 6 Republican debate, when asked whether he affirmed the human life amendment, a key part of the 2004 Republican pro-life platform that was written by his pro-life advisor James Bopp, jr.
A human life amendment intends to change the US Constitution by expanding 14th Amendment protections - such as due process and equal protection clauses - to include unborn children. Such an amendment would ban abortions nationwide and repeal the 1973 Roe v. Wade decision.
However the Associated Press reports that Romney later qualified his support for a human life amendment. According to the AP, Romney said his advisor Bopp had told him "there are a wide range of possible human life amendments" ranging from a total ban on abortion to an amendment that let states make the decision. On top of that, getting both houses of Congress and 38 out of 50 states to support a constitutional amendment, Bopp told him, "is just not realistic."
Romney said he prefers a strategy of appointing strict constitutionalist judges, who might overturn Roe v. Wade, and allow the states to decide their policy regarding abortion.
