More on Romney's Health Insurance Disaster

Two must-read posts on Romney's disastrous Massachusetts health insurance plan below. Romney is trying to blame the plan's skyrocketing costs entirely on the current administration. Even if Romney has a good sense of the business world, his health plan disaster demonstrates his lack of foresight on the inevitable course of big-government bureaucracies. Needless to say, the mainstream media and establishment Republicans are ignoring this huge black mark in Romney's record.

I. Gregg Jackson, PunditReview:
No Wonder Romney Never Discusses His Healthcare Plan…
Shikha Dalmia, senior analyst at the Reason Foundation has the latest figures on RomneyCare, and they don’t look pretty....
I have said many times that Mr. Romney’s healthcare plan that he signed on his way out the door in Massachusetts (billed as his “signature accomplishment” at the time) was inherently anti-competitive/anti-free market and would inevitably lead to contrived scarcities, inflated costs, and higher prices for consumers- the same things that always result from socialistic/command style systems- not to mention that inconvenient little fact that it established $50 dollars a pop abortions as a “healthcare benefit.”With all the talk about Romney being the only “economic conservative” it bears mentioning that his actual record tells a very different story.

II. Tom Blumer, BizzyBlog:
‘Universal’ Health Care ‘Terminated’? Yes, in California. But RomneyCare Is Alive in Massachusetts (and WE Are Paying for It)
Okay, I get that California is our most populous state, the land of uber-liberalism, and deserving of a shot or two when it tries, and fortunately fails, to pass something dumb.
But if the Editorial Board of the Wall Street Journal is going to exult in the Golden State’s inability to enact a “universal” health-care plan, the least it could do is spend more than about 30 words on the one such plan that exists — especially when it was the brainchild of a GOP presidential candidate now pretending to be a conservative.
I am, of course, referring to Massachusetts, its former governor, Willard Objectively Unfit Mitt Romney, and the already-imploding Commonwealth Care aka RomneyCare....
UPDATE 2: Gregg Jackson just e-mailed and confirmed something I wasn’t sure of. While Mitt Romney is fond of saying how difficult it was to try to govern in a liberal state, the fact is that RomneyCare was an unforced error. No one was clamoring for it, and there citizen or legislative pressure to “do something.” The Mittster apparently felt that “universal” healthcare would be his signature accomplishment, and that referring to it would be a winning strategy in a presidential campaign. Uh, not exactly....

Roe v Wade and Fuzzy Thinking on the "Rule of Law"

Matt Barber of Concerned Women for America has another good piece in WorldNetDaily: "Do You Really Know Roe"? The better people understand what this 35-year-old ruling actually said, the more likely they are to oppose it, he explains. But here's another point Barber does not make:

This horrible Supreme Court ruling did not actually "legalize" abortion, but in fact just ushered in an era of fuzzy "thinking" across America about the power of the Court and the true meaning of words. A whole nation (in including nominal Republicans and "conservatives") has been trained by the media to say and believe that "a woman's right to choose" to murder her own child is the "law of the land."

Roe v. Wade laid the groundwork for the public's acceptance of future outrageous court rulings, including the Goodridge homosexual "marriage" ruling here in Massachusetts. It allowed former Gov. Mitt Romney to enact this radical social plan now transforming all of America -- while claiming he was just "following the law."

From Barber's article:

Due to circumstances beyond our control, the term "September 11th" almost instantly became a household phrase. It represents a day of great tragedy and outrage wherein over 3,000 people were murdered at the hands of Islamic extremists who callously chose to sacrifice innocent human life to further a narrow and selfish political agenda.
But another date, Jan. 22, which is not so well-known, signifies an equally outrageous and solemn occasion. Jan. 22, 2008, marks the 35th anniversary of what is, unquestionably, one of the U.S. Supreme Court's most highly controversial and divisive rulings in its 200-plus year history – Roe v. Wade.
The Roe decision, authored by Justice Harry Blackmun, found for the first time that the U.S. Constitution somehow guaranteed the phantom "right" for a mother to have the innocent child which grew within her summarily killed.
Since that time, what seems an endless string of misguided women and innocent children have been victimized by this much more subtle, yet equally deadly form of politically motivated violence. And those to blame are, once again, extremists with an almost religious zeal who callously "choose" to sacrifice innocent human life to further a narrow and selfish political agenda. ...
The number of those slaughtered as a direct result of Roe far exceeds that of Americans killed in all U.S. wars combined. Yet, in this war – the war for our culture – it is innocent children whose bodies are strewn across the battlefield, buried – unceremoniously – in mass graves behind the local Planned Parenthood. ...
Matt Barber is one of the "like-minded men" with Concerned Women for America. He is an attorney concentrating in constitutional law and serves as CWA's policy director for cultural issues.

Romney Will Stiff Values Voter Debate Monday; Will Hold Own Web Forum Instead

Romney is doing his best to deflect possible supporters' attention from the Values Voter Republican debate set for tomorrow night (Monday, 9-17, at 7:30 p.m.), in which he's refused to participate.

It's telling that four Republican candidates have now declined to take part in that event: Romney, Giuliani, McCain, and Thompson. (And all the Democrat candidates refused a Values Voter debate.) Clearly they don't want to have to answer pointed questions on abortion, homosexual "marriage", illegal immigration, etc.

Romney has the gall to set his "first town meeting on the Web" at exactly the same time as the Values Voter debate. We'll be watching the latter, streamed live on http://www.valuesvoterdebate.com/ and http://www.afa.net/.

From the Boston Globe (9-16-07):
Romney plans his first town meeting on Web
Mitt Romney, already one of the more eager presidential candidates when it comes to working the Web, plans his first online-only town meeting tomorrow. It will be held live at 7:30 p.m. via streaming video, giving people anywhere in the country a chance to ask Romney about issues and priorities. Web surfers will have to register by 7:15 p.m. to take part, the Romney campaign said. Tomorrow is also the deadline to submit entries in a TV ad contest that Romney touts as the first time an amateur-produced spot will air on behalf of a presidential candidate.

For those who choose to tune into the Romney web meeting, here's where you can submit your questions: http://www.visualwebcaster.com/Romney/42280/reg.html And we suggest you ask:

- Why did you order Justices of the Peace and Town Clerks to implement homosexual "marriage" in Massachusetts, when the Constitution and current statutes don't allow it? Since the Court (without authority!) told only the Legislature to change the statutes, why did you step in? Weren't you violating the Constitution with your order?

- Do you, or do you not, believe homosexuality is immoral? How does your belief impact your public policy positions on homosexuality? Homosexual "marriage"? Adoption of children by homosexual couples?

Romney Still Waffling on Abortion

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.