National Republican Pro-Life Group Contests Romney's Claims

Mitt Romney is running for the Republican nomination for President. It doesn't appear he'll be able to fool the real pro-life Republicans much longer. Killing human embryos for research and aborting babies resulting from rape or incest are both anathema to the true pro-lifer. The Republican National Coalition for Life reminds us that "The Republican Party was founded on the principle that no human being should be considered the property of another." And that includes babies.

From their "FaxNotes" (2-3-07):

MITT ROMNEY SUPPORTS KILLING HUMAN EMBRYOS FOR RESEARCH

Despite his recent professed conversion to the pro-life side of the debate after more than thirty years of supporting Roe v. Wade and legal abortion, when it comes to respect for the sanctity of human life, Mitt Romney is on the wrong side.

Governor Romney’s claim that he is “pro-life” is belied by his position on the “use” of human embryos for research purposes. We know that every one of us started life as an embryo. An embryois a human organism. An embryo is a human being at the earliest stage ofdevelopment. As such, human embryos deserve respect and protection under the law. They are denied that respect and protection in the United States of America. That is because it is legal to kill them and use their stem cells for scientific experiments, as long as it is done with private money.

It is a practice that ought to be banned in this country, as it has been in others. Instead, all that has been done on their behalf is to deny the expenditure offederal tax dollars for embryonic stem cell research (ESCR), except for the stem cell lines taken from embryos killed prior to August 9, 2001, a date chosen by President Bush in a Solomon-like compromise with the biotech industry which supports ESCR and those who warn of the ethical and moral implications of killing and using human beings in pursuit of some potential--but very likely unachievable--benefit to others.

Governor Romney, who has established an exploratory committee for the Republican presidential nomination in 2008, says he is now “pro-life”after more than thirty years of staunch support for Roe v. Wade. How can he make that claim when, on the one hand he says he opposes creating human embryos for research purposes (cloning), yet, on the other hand he says he supports using human embryos created for another purpose, that of in vitro fertilization? It’s a distinction without a difference! He sanctions the killing of embryos “left over” from IVF treatments “provided that those embryos are obtained after a rigorous parental consent process that includesadoption as an alternative.”

Mitt Romney’s position on embryonic stem cell research is not pro-life, and no one should say that it is. The embryos engendered through IVF are the children of the couples involved. Even though they can only be seen under a microscope, should their parents be allowed to have them killed? The answer to that would be YES if your views have been molded by 34 years ofthe effects of Roe v. Wade.
In addition, Mitt Romney justifies abortion for babies conceived through rape or incest. That is not a pro-life position. It is a pro-abortion-choice position that is held by Senator John McCain, another 2008 hopeful who also supports ESCR. The third candidate listed by the media as a “top-tier” contender for the nomination is former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani, a strong proponent of Roe and supporter of abortion on demand.

Pro-life voters should look elsewhere for a candidate to support. Never forget that you were once an embryo!

College Pro-Life Marchers Question Romney's Claims

Pro-life college students handed out about 10,000 flyers at the March for Life in Washington, D.C. last weekend, exposing Romney as a flip-flopping political opportunist from Massachusetts. They even included a photo of that other infamous Massachusetts flip-flopper, John Kerry.

Here's a PDF of the actual flyer that was being handed out.

And RightMarch.com PAC's press release on the Romney campaign's weak response.

In late 2005, Mitt Romney flip-flopped within the space of two days, finally saying that Catholic hospitals had to distribute "emergency contraception" abortion pills. That action alone disproves his claims of being "pro-life" . . . Period.

Addendum 1-24-07: The Boston Herald thought it newsworthy this morning:
"Conservative PAC rips Mitt as abortion flip-flopper"

Mass. Citizens for Life's Flip-Flop on Romney

Mass. Citizens for Life (MCFL) used to be disappointed in Gov. Romney's failure to support their pro-family efforts. The Globe reported in March 2005,

"Marie Sturgis, legislative director of Massachusetts Citizens for Life, said she hasn't detected any change in Romney's stance. The group considers Romney to be an abortion-rights supporter, as do national antiabortion groups such as the Family Research Council."

Then last week were surprised by this flip-flop by MCFL in its assessment of Romney. Regarding a letter signed by a few "conservative" leaders in Massachusetts supporting Romney, the new president of MCFL is quoted:

One activist who agreed to sign the letter was Joseph Reilly, president of the group Massachusetts Citizens for Life, a group that opposes abortion. "It just told the truth," Reilly said of the letter, describing Romney as "a man of honesty."

"I would describe the letter as a testimony of the help that Governor Romney has given to profamily values during his tenure," added Tom Shields, chairman of the Coalition for Marriage and Family [the group behind the VoteOnMarriage amendment].

Shields is a close personal friend of Romney's.

Then we read this on yesterday's Pro-Life Romney Watch blog (1-11-07):

Update
I spoke with Marie Sturgis [former president] at Mass Citizens for Life earlier this afternoon. She confirmed for me that Romney wrote a check to [MCFL] just before Christmas in the amount of $15,000.

I told her that I saw her quote at National Review Online ... and that that quote was contrary to what she has been saying about Romney all along – and that her statements on the record about his proabort record were consistent with the truth. Because her name does now not appear on the Romney endorsement, I asked her whether the Romney camp had asked her to refrain from signing it. She would neither confirm nor deny - and said she would "rather not open that can of worms".

She also told me that she has been fielding phone calls from irate Catholics who are very upset that Joe Reilly (wife is Evelyn Reilly who works with Kris Mineau [head of Mass. Family Institute and spokeman for VoteOnMarriage] ) has signed onto the letter. She said "This might not be an issue if Sam Brownback were not running – but everyone is upset because Sam has the stronger prolife/profamily record."

Of course. If prolifers do not back the man with the stronger prolife record – what message does that send to future politicians?

This all has nothing to do with whether or not Romney's conversion is genuine or it is not genuine. It's immaterial. Three months ago, Romney appointed an anti family judge on his court to rule against us. This is not a man we can trust at this juncture. For fifteen thousand dollars, Joe Reilly was willing to contradict their previous statements on the record.

That's pretty discouraging to people who are relying on the integrity that this is about advancing the best prolife environment for our country.

Mass. Pro-Lifers Support Brownback, Not Romney

If you want to decide whether Romney can be trusted on life issues, look at who pro-life activists in Massachusetts are supporting: Sen. Sam Brownback. Brownback just sent out a press release:

U.S. Senator Sam Brownback received endorsements today from key social conservative leaders in Massachusetts. The following individuals announced their strong support of Brownback for President and pledged their help in educating social conservatives around the country that Senator Brownback is the true choice for those who care about the right to life and the sanctity of marriage: In announcing their endorsement, Mr. Rod Murphy issued the following statement on behalf of the group: "As residents of Massachusetts and leaders in the ongoing struggle to preserve the institution of marriage and uphold the sanctity of life, we have seen the efforts of the liberal left here in Massachusetts to impose their agenda through judicial mandate. They have been able to impose their liberal agenda on the people because of the failure of our elected officials to stand up and fight. In order to preserve traditional values and actually win back ground in the ongoing fight for our culture, we need a leader who can articulate and fight for our values with compassion, optimism, and consistency. We know consistent leadership when we see it. For this reason, Senator Brownback is the clear choice."

See the Brody Files on CBN, "EXCLUSIVE: Romney vs. Brownback: Who's 'Right?' "(1-8-07):

Let me be clear. There is a race between Republican candidates for President right now as to who is going to be to the 'right" of John McCain and Rudy Giuliani. Mitt Romney wants to be that guy. Sam Brownback wants to be that guy. Only one of them will.

Today, Senator Brownback pulled an interesting move. He announced that he's received support from some key social conservative leaders. But these aren't just any social conservative leaders. These folks live in Massachusetts, the state where Romney was Governor.

Read the list below:
· Professor Dwight Duncan of Cambridge, South New England School of Law
· Anne Fox of Needham, Past Chairman, Massachusetts Citizens for Life
· Linda Kinsey of North Adams, Past Chairman, Berkshire Citizens for Life
· Carol McKinley of Pembroke, Founder, Faithful Voice
· Christine Milbury of Sharon, Director, Pregnancy Services
· Roderick Murphy of Southbridge, Treasurer, Life-Guard PAC
· R.T. Neary of Medfield, Past President, Massachusetts Citizens for Life ...

More Romney on Abortion

Time to reread this interview by Chris Wallace (FoxNews Sunday) with Romney from last February, posted on the NewsBusters blog:

Rough on Romney: Wallace Forces Mitt to Admit Abortion Position "Evolved"
Posted by Mark Finkelstein on February 26, 2006

Wallace was implacable when Romney stretched credulity by suggesting that somehow his own view of when life begins was crystallized in the context of a recent debate in his home state over stem cell research.

Wallace didn't hide his skepticism: "I don't understand governor. . . the question of harvesting eggs to be used for stem cells, that isn't why most women get abortions. There's a division there, isn't there?"

Hoping to change the uncomfortable subject, Romney suggested that he was "happy to talk about stem cell research."

Unfortunately for Romney, Wallace wasn't. "But I'm asking about abortion. And the vast majority of women aren't getting an abortion so they can sell their fetus." He again reminded Romney that when running for governor, "you did say women should have the right to make their own choice." Then, clearly skeptical, Wallace asked: "Are you saying you only came to the conclusion about when life begins - this has been an issue for 30, 40 years - in the last three years?"

Romney, cornered, was finally forced to admit: "I'm saying my position has evolved and it changed from where it was before."