GOP Nominee
Former Candidates
Is He Being Honest With the American People About His Position Regarding the Human Life Amendment?
In February of 2007, James Bopp, who had endorsed Mitt Romney for the Republican nomination, wrote in the National Review that Romney “has fought for a federal marriage amendment and McCain and Giuliani oppose one.”
This was, at the time, seen as damage control after Governor Romney had given an interview with Marc Ambinder for the National Journal. Here is the transcript of that interview:
Ambinder: You would favor a constitutional amendment banning abortion with exceptions for the life of the mother, rape and incest. Is that correct?
Romney: What I’ve indicated is that I am pro-life, and that my hope is that the Supreme Court will give to the states over time or give to the states soon or give to the states their own ability to make their own decisions with regard to their own abortion law.
Ambinder: If a state wanted unlimited abortion?
Romney: The state would fall into restrictions that had been imposed at the federal level, so they couldn’t be more expansive in abortion than currently exists under the law, but they could become more restrictive in abortion provisions. So states like Massachusetts could stay like they are if they so desire, and states that have a different view could take that course. And it would be up to the citizens of the individual states. My view is not to impose a single federal rule on the entire nation — a one-size-fits-all approach — but instead allow states to make their own decisions in this regard.
Now, this type of retraction happens on a fairly regular basis in politics, where a spokesman has to clarify a candidate’s statement. Opponents will regularly catch one candidate misspeaking, and then try to capitalize on their misfortune. Mr. Bopp, a lawyer, helped write the 2004 Republican Party Platform which supports the Human Life Amendment. It was later revealed that Mr. Bopp advised the governor that,” 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 is unrealistic.” Ramesh Ponnuru (NRO) recently said that Romney does support a constitutional ban.
Later on in the summer, when Governor Romney gave an interview with ABC News, he went further in stating his support for the amendment to outlaw abortion on a federal level when he indicated that he supported the pro-life plank of the GOP platform, which means he would support establishing legal personhood for all unborn children in all 50 states.
The date of that story was August 8, 2007. Since then, Romney’s advisers and supporters have used this to champion their candidate in numerous instances- riding it to strong showings in straw polls and surveys. The campaign has used the momentum to define its “3 legged stool” of conservatism, and Governor Romney, himself, has claimed to speak for “The Republican Wing.” The candidate’s numbers have risen in the polls, and he is now seen as possibly the most conservative candidate in the field. When Fred Thompson received the endorsement of the National Right to Life Committee this week, the Romney campaign was up in arms, and his supporters cried foul. They wondered why the leading grassroots pro-life organization would snub their favored candidate for someone who refused to support a federal ban on abortion.
Romney supporters truly believe that he supports a Human Life Amendment, but at the same time, it was always advisors or supporters who were actually saying that. Paul Weyrich, the co-founder of the Moral Majority, stated that he believed Romney’s recent conversion to the pro-life cause to be “sincere.” Romney also won the endorsement of Bob Jones III, the president of the evangelical university that carries his name.
However, besides Romney’s interview with ABC news, the candidate has never actually stated that he supports the amendment. The actual interview transcript says:
“You know, I do support the Republican platform, and I support that being part of the Republican platform and I’m pro-life.”
The former Governor said that he would support the platform of the party, as has all the other candidates. The question is… ” Just how up front is Romney actually being with the voters?”
The answer may lie in a statement he made in South Carolina, on April 13, 2007. This date was well after James Bopp’s clarification in February that Romney does support the amendment. On that day, while speaking to a small group of business owners, Romney said:
“I would like to see each state be able to make its own law with regard to abortion. I think the Roe v. Wade one-size-fits-all approach is wrong.”
Let’s repeat that again…
I think the Roe v. Wade one-size-fits-all approach is wrong.”
The question remains… When I read the statement, he says that a one size fits all approach is wrong. One could make the argument that Romney is saying that Roe Vs. Wade is wrong, but then he used the words “one size fits all is wrong.” He didn’t have to go this far, but he did. In April, while James Bobb and Hugh Hewitt were arguing that Romney supported this amendment, the candidate said the opposite.
Somebody was telling the truth, but it is impossible to know who was. It was either Romney, or his advisors/high profile supporters. The real problem is that it further muddies how much one can trust the candidate, or the people who either represent or speak for him. If Romney was disavowing Bopp’s claim, then how is one not to suspect that he changed his mind when he saw that it only hurt him more, opening him to attacks from then-candidate Sam Brownback.
It’s difficult for the Governor to distance himself from a statement this blunt. Of course, one could consider that he meant “Roe vs. Wade” is a one size fits all approach that is wrong, and a human life amendment would not be. The problem with this theory is that it directly contradicts the sentence before it. Let’s look one more time at the statement.
“I would like to see each state be able to make its own law with regard to abortion.”
First, he said that he would “like to see each state be able to make its own law with regard to abortion.” That’s a pretty straight forward, federalist approach:
“I think the Roe v. Wade one-size-fits-all approach is wrong.”
Strict Federalism. Romney says that a “one-size-fits-all approach is wrong.” That he would say “one-size-fits-all” when making a statement about Roe vs. Wade, but then turn around a support the Human Life Amendment, is very unlikely, at least on that date.
What happened? Only Governor Romney really knows, but it’s a direct contradiction that dates from 2007, not 1994 or 2002. Other than saying he wouldn’t overturn the platform in his ABC interview, he didn’t say that he would support a Human Life Amendment. If he has said that since, it easily could have been a political calculation.
Authors note: I stumbled onto this quote while researching each candidates position on the HLA for a post to further explain the NRLC endorsement.
November 15th, 2007 at 11:10 am
[...] crossposted from here [...]
November 15th, 2007 at 11:11 am
[...] Posted by tommyd4 on November 15, 2007 crossposted from here [...]
November 15th, 2007 at 11:12 am
Romney wants to have it both ways - pro-life and pro-choice. Problem is, he doesn’t have the 9/11 thing to fall back on like Rudy.
http://www.political-buzz.com/
November 15th, 2007 at 11:13 am
[...] crossposted from here [...]
November 15th, 2007 at 11:26 am
Pro-lifers want a Human Life Amendment, but most of us realize that it will be a long process to get there. The first step is to get rid of Roe. Allowing states to decide is much more preferable to what we currently have. The hope would be that eventually America would get to a place where the Human Life Amendment would be widely supported. It’s not a conflict to support getting rid of Roe (allowing states to decide for now) while also supporting the passage of a Human Life Amendment. Both are pro-life goals and we’ll take whatever we can get.
November 15th, 2007 at 11:28 am
Tommy, Romney is in favor of both because both. First we get rid of Roe, then we go for a federal amendment.
The problem with Fred is that he agrees with Romney on giving the states the right to decide, but will go no further. This is because Fred is a federalist, and not pro life. Romney is pro-life, and so will fight for States to decide, as a better alternative than what we have, but he will also go further and fight for a federal amendment.
Fred is a pro choice federalist (who I can support because his federalism makes him an ally), however, Romney is pro life.
His “one size fits all comment” is only relevant when discussing eliminating Roe. I agree he can be a bit of a salesman sometimes, but he’s a good one.
November 15th, 2007 at 11:30 am
Oops!
…because both are better than what we have now.
November 15th, 2007 at 11:30 am
mitt had no choice but to try and be the ultra conservative candidate. he couldnt be the moderate “get things done” guy, because rudy had that. it was a political calculation, but hes a politician, thats what they do.
November 15th, 2007 at 11:31 am
joe, BINGO.
November 15th, 2007 at 11:34 am
The Brownback campaign made the HLA an issue, especially for Romney.
November 15th, 2007 at 11:34 am
Tommy,
I think we both would like to see abortions ended with the exceptions of rape, incest, and threat to a mother’s life. Anyone who has read any of my past posts regarding abortion, would not doubt my pro-life credentials on this subject. Would I like to ultimately see a constitutional amendment banning abortion with exceptions for the life of the mother, rape and incest? You bet I would.
Romney’s approach takes us a step closer to that goal, even if it never gets implemented. View it as a means to an end. The nation cannot jump directly to a constitutional amendment banning this everywhere at this point in time. Even Bobb admits that “getting both houses of Congress and 38 out of 50 states to support a constitutional amendment is unrealistic.” ..as you pointed out. Since I agree with that, the whole constitutional amendment thing is not feasible. Since even people like Bopp think this way, support regarding a constitutional amendment are not practical and nearly irrelevant.
So, I ask myself: Which is worse? Leaving current abortion law as it is or turning it over to the states where some of them may restrict it more. Romney’s position is to get Roe v Wade overturned so that some states may restrict it more. That is the next winnable battle in the war on abortion. It is the most practical battle for pro-lifers to fight next.
November 15th, 2007 at 11:35 am
Holy crap! New ARG Iowa poll out and Huck is ALREADY 2 points away from Mitt!!!
November 15th, 2007 at 11:36 am
ARG Iowa:
Mitt 26
Huck 24
Rudy 11
Fred 11
JMac 10
Paul 3
November 15th, 2007 at 11:37 am
Who predicted this, folks? Who predicted this?
Actually, I predicted it wouldn’t happen til January, but this is even better.
November 15th, 2007 at 11:38 am
And, for sake of consistently, I’ll still refer to the RCP average as the best indicator of where the race stands:
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/ia/iowa_republican_caucus-207.html
Check out that black line!
November 15th, 2007 at 11:42 am
Yesterday, Dave referred to Romney’s -4 nationally in ARG as definitive.
Dave, will you call this ARG poll definitive, too?
Because, as you’ve told us, the early state polls are everything, while the national polls are meaningless…..
November 15th, 2007 at 11:42 am
Richard P - “The problem with Fred is that he agrees with Romney on giving the states the right to decide, but will go no further. This is because Fred is a federalist, and not pro life. Romney is pro-life, and so will fight for States to decide, as a better alternative than what we have, but he will also go further and fight for a federal amendment.
Fred is a pro choice federalist (who I can support because his federalism makes him an ally), however, Romney is pro life.”
Richard… Fred Thompson has a 100% pro-life voting record in the senate and has firmly stated that he is pro-life in his heart especially since seeing his daughter’s ultrasound. How much more clear can that be? He is a federalist and wants Roe v. Wade overturned. That is step 1. Step 2 is for each state to be in control and only then will we begin to see abortion abolished.
So Richard, don’t split hairs! It is what it is. Fred has a 100% voting record that cannot be disputed and he hasn’t changed his story depending on the political wind!
November 15th, 2007 at 11:43 am
Heck, I predicted Huck might peak at 19 in Iowa in January, and was royally ridiculed by the Rombots here.
Now he’s 19.8 in the RCP average in mid-Novemeber.
Apologies accepted.
November 15th, 2007 at 11:43 am
Good for Huck moving up in Iowa, it’s going to be an interesting race. Of course, Huck doesn’t stand a chance to win, but that’s ok, he can have some points in Iowa.
November 15th, 2007 at 11:44 am
Emtee, doesn’t have a chance to win Iowa, or the nomination?
November 15th, 2007 at 11:45 am
Metro, the nomination. Of course you agree with me, which is why you love Huck right now.
November 15th, 2007 at 11:46 am
Due to consistent waffling and triangulating Romney will probably have his head handed to him by Huckabee in Iowa.
November 15th, 2007 at 11:47 am
Good call on the numbers Metro. I think Huck is definitely looking like a dark horse in IA, but the trouble is I don’t think he goes anywhere from there. If anything this ARG poll is going to be the MSM play of the week. That is the only headline we will read about for the next week or so, because right now, Huck is their Golden Boy. I sure hope Mitt can steal some of his thunder and solidify his support there in IA.
November 15th, 2007 at 11:48 am
What’s interesting is Huck could take much of the so-con support from Romney, since Huck comes across as genuine about it (and likeable). In every contested Iowa caucus for the last 20 years, 23-31% of Iowa GOPers have voted for combos of Robertson/Bauer/Keyes/Buchanan. Clearly they weren’t too concerned about their supply-side or executive credentials, or campaign budget.
If Rudy makes a push in Iowa for 2nd, he could peel away more of the econ-cons and security-cons, since he comes across as genuine about them (and likeable).
This is more plausible after the reading the internals of the CBS/NYT Iowa poll, which showed Romney leading, but 2/3 of his supporters unsure and concerned about whole lot of things about him.
November 15th, 2007 at 11:50 am
Richard P,
“Tommy, Romney is in favor of both because both. First we get rid of Roe, then we go for a federal amendment.”
But that’s not what Romney said. He didn’t say, “Federalism now, Human Life Amendment later.” He said he is against a one size fits all approach, and allowing the states to decide. Period. Presumably, this is a matter of principle…..
….If Romney has any…..
This guy has had more positions on abortion than Hillary has had hair styles. So why doesn’t Romney “settle” the issue “once and and more all” and give us his NEWEST new up-to-the-minute stance on abortion? If Romney is the nominee, he’ll be squirming like a worm on a hot skillet when this issue comes up in the fall debates, and he’s presented with his 759 different positions (all in the last year!).
November 15th, 2007 at 11:51 am
It’s good for Romney that Huck is surging early and not at the last minute. Romney now gets to react and fight it out to the end in a heated head-to-head. If they are civil, this will play well for both I think. Fred is now even more marginalized, as he will get little attention.
November 15th, 2007 at 11:56 am
You know, Fox News and CNN should include Romney’s latest positions on abortion in their news scroll at the bottom of the screen. Maybe they could assign a color code- like the terror threat- and update it daily.
“Today Romney’s abortion position is ‘yellow,’ indicating a federalist approach. This is a downgrade from yesterday’s green, indicating support for a Human Life Amdendment. Tune in again for tomorrow’s update. Experts predict that Romney’s position will be re-elevated to green, as he will be campaigning in South Carolina.”
November 15th, 2007 at 12:03 pm
Metro,
Don’t get too excited. It’s only an ARG poll, remember? I’m very selective about the ARG polls that I put full faith and credit in. This isn’t one of them. When one comes along that is totally accurate and done with scientific precision, like yesterday’s national poll that had Mitt at 21%, I’ll let you know. Left to your own limited devices, there’s no way you could tell the difference without my help. I’m here for ya Buddy!
November 15th, 2007 at 12:05 pm
please allow me to do a little creative editing with MWS’s #25
If [Huckabee/Rudy] is the nominee, they’ll be squirming like a worm on a hot skillet when [the immigration] issue comes up in the fall debates.
[Both Huckabee and Rudy have] had more positions on [immigration] than Hillary has had hair styles.
November 15th, 2007 at 12:05 pm
Dave, that would be funnier if you hadn’t actually made a post accepting yesterday’s poll as definitive.
November 15th, 2007 at 12:06 pm
ARG aside, just look at that RCP graph, folks.
We’ll see how much confidence the Rombots have when we keep pointing out the shape of that graph:
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/ia/iowa_republican_caucus-207.html
November 15th, 2007 at 12:11 pm
“Richard… Fred Thompson has a 100% pro-life voting record in the senate and has firmly stated that he is pro-life in his heart especially since seeing his daughter’s ultrasound.”
Oh please! Fred is a federalist, period. He opposes Roe on federalist grounds. If he were pro life he’d be in favor of the Federal Life amendment. Fred has and will always emphasize CHOICE. States should choose, women should choose with their doctors (no criminalization), abortion will be won in the hearts and minds of Americans. He never has and likely never will emphasize LIFE. In short he’s a pro choice ally to the pro life cause so long as we have Roe.
Why are so many in denial on this, he states it plainly.
November 15th, 2007 at 12:17 pm
OMG!!! In that ARG poll, among Republican likely caucus goers, the actual results are:
Huck 24
Mitt 23
http://www.americanresearchgroup.com/pres08/iarep8-712.html
So what if it’s morning, I’m breaking out the champagne!!!
November 15th, 2007 at 12:19 pm
Richard P,
“If he were pro life he’d be in favor of the Federal Life amendment.”
Does Romney support a Federal Life Amendment? If so, how do you square that with his stated opposition to a “one-size-fits-all approach?”
“States should choose”
Apparently, that is (one of) Romney’s (contradicting) stated positions as well, as referenced in the opening of this thread.
November 15th, 2007 at 12:30 pm
[...] Oliver has a very interesting post on Mitt Romney’s abortion position and the endorsement of Fred Thompson by the NRLC, a [...]
November 15th, 2007 at 12:50 pm
Metro,
I hope (even more than you) than ARG is right.
But it is ARG…….
November 15th, 2007 at 3:11 pm
Tommy, may I suggest you start watching the debates and viewing video from his stump speeches before posting. Romney covered using a two step process; 1) overturn Roe vs. Wade 2) Human Life Amendment, a long time ago.
November 15th, 2007 at 4:35 pm
[...] aloof and imperious Willard Milton Romney himself, in a race42008.com post titled, appropriately, Mitt Romney’s Social Distortion That he would say “one-size-fits-all†when making a statement about Roe vs. Wade, but then turn [...]
November 15th, 2007 at 6:06 pm
Romney has made it crystal clear, numerous times, on the trail, during debates, during interviews, that we first have to get rid of Roe vs Wade. He said that after that we will have to change the hearts and minds of the people in order to get the support for a Constitutional Amendment to protect life in all fifty states. This piece was written as a ‘gotcha Mitt’ when he has been perfecty clear for a very long time on what he would do as President. It’s a shame that people resort to these tactics of distortion to try to get people confused about Mitt’s stands.
November 18th, 2007 at 9:18 am
Actually, Thompson’s campaign has stated that he would not try to remove the HLA plank from the GOP platform. The bottom line is that the votes for a HLA are not there, nor will they be in the next 4 years when hopefully he’s president.
The Brody file