Hat tip to Kleinheider,
Kleinheider interviewed Governor Romney on 3/6/07 and asked him if he supported the Human Life amendment, point blank:
question at 5:15
TRANSCRIPT:
Kleinheider: On the issue of abortion I was wondering do you support just the repeal of Roe v. Wade or do you support a human life amendment? What steps are you prepared to take?
ROMNEY: Here’s my view, and that is that the Supreme Court should over time to allow states to have more influence over their decisions on abortion. I am not calling for a nationwide ban of abortion. What I am calling for is for states to have their choice.
November 16th, 2007 at 9:48 pm
Romney = Liar
November 16th, 2007 at 9:52 pm
Actually, he’s a phony, which is worse.
November 16th, 2007 at 10:08 pm
The first objective is to overturn Roe v. Wade, which will allow individual states to set their own policy on abortions. Eventually, when the culture becomes more civilized, we will be able to go for an outright, nation-wide ban. There is, unfortunately, very little chance that this level of societal evolution will occur during the next 8 years. Fortunately, all we need to overturn Roe is one vote. The 4 Supremes on the Left are all geriatric, and at least one of them will probably die or be forced to retire for medical reasons during the next 4 years.
November 16th, 2007 at 10:13 pm
We went over this back in March. He was calling for an overturning of Roe followed by an Right to Life Amendment.
Try again Tommy.
November 16th, 2007 at 10:16 pm
Thomas Alan,
That was a different interview. Not this one. The one you are talking about was the interview with Marc Ambinder. This one is different and where he specifically says ” I am not calling for a nationwide ban of abortion.”
He was asked specifically if he supported a human life amendment
November 16th, 2007 at 10:19 pm
People have tried to trip Gov. Romney up on this before. Nothing doing. His position has stayed pretty much the same. Overturn Roe in the near-term, start laying the groundwork for an Amendment in the longterm.
Which is exactly in line with the pro-life movement.
November 16th, 2007 at 10:20 pm
Dave, how do you presume to know how Roberts and Alito would vote on overturning Roe?
November 16th, 2007 at 10:22 pm
The scuttlebutt within the Federalist Society among people who know them is that Roberts, and probably Alito, would not overturn Roe because it’s the foundation of so much subsequent Constitutional law that it would cause the Constitutional chaos of the century. Not something modest judges are interested in doing.
Not to mention, it would destroy the GOP.
November 16th, 2007 at 10:23 pm
#5
Seems to me he didn’t answer that part of the question.
November 16th, 2007 at 10:27 pm
Metro,
i’m a member of the Federalist Society, and no, they wouldn’t support the HLA.
November 16th, 2007 at 10:28 pm
#8
Overturning Roe would cause little Constitutional chaos. Hell, the legal justifications for Roe pretty much went out the window during Casey.
November 16th, 2007 at 10:32 pm
Metro,
I misread your post. Yes, they would support overturning roe, but not a HLA
November 16th, 2007 at 10:35 pm
Giuliani, Romney, and Thompson are all effectively pro-choice. They just disagree on who gets to do the choosing.
November 16th, 2007 at 10:37 pm
You guys, this is completely consistent. Of course he will call for states to choose. Romney is realistic and knows you have to move one step at a time on this issue. His strategy is to get rid of Roe first.
However, he WILL work over the long term for a federal amendment. Romney’s federalism does not trump his pro-lifeness. Fred, on the other hand, wants CHOICE as the end goal. He wants choice for women, and for doctors to perform abortions as they see fit. His position on abortion is no different than Romney’s was when he ran for Massachusetts in 2002. I could see Fred running for Massachusetts and saying the exact things Romney stated (“states should chooseâ€, “I support you in your choiceâ€, “I’m personally against abortion but respect that you want is so I won’t work to overturn itâ€).
Fred is not pro-life, he’s a pro-choice federalist (who incidentally thinks abortion is your own CHOICE, though he’d apparently choice against it). In fact, he would be against a state making it a crime for a doctor to perform an abortion. There is no way to describe his position but to call it pro-choice. His federalism makes him a pro-life ally for the time being because he is against Roe, but his federalism trumps any pro-life sentiments he might hold.
In short, Fred’s long term goal stops at overturning Roe but not letting states make abortion illegal (not sure how that would work). Romney’s long-term goal is a life amendment, though his immediate goal is to not get distracted and overturn Roe. There is a big difference.
And it’s true that he doesn’t want a federal life amendment right now, he wants to overturn Roe, just like Fred. They’re allies…for now.
There, I’ve repeated the same thing about three times now, so I’ll stop.
November 16th, 2007 at 10:38 pm
#10
I’ve never heard that before and can’t find any record of it. I’m not even sure why they would have a position on such an Amendment.
November 16th, 2007 at 10:46 pm
Thomas Alan,
You’re not going to find any record on it. Metro was refering to a rumor within the Federalist society, adn I was correcting him on the rumor. We were discussing it recently at a meeting at the nashville chapter. I’ll see if I can find a podcast of one of the speeches.
November 16th, 2007 at 10:49 pm
Richard P.
That’s true. With the crying from Thompson people and lying over the $50 abortion, nothing obscures the facts that in the end Thompson doesn’t want women or doctors being penalized for an abortion. I see the women one, but the doctors? They perform an illegal procedure and it’s ok?
Not to mention I don’t think I have ever heard Thompson site a single example of where abortion should be illegal. All he talks about is state rights and not criminalizing. Tucker Carlson got it right, Fred is not pro-life.
November 16th, 2007 at 10:53 pm
So I guess I would be accurate in calling Mitt pro-choice….
November 16th, 2007 at 10:56 pm
Thomas Alan, with your link are you inviting us to write posts for your blog? I would gladly write one about Mitt, but I doubt it would make you happy.
November 16th, 2007 at 11:01 pm
Romney is like John Kerry…Flip Flop Flip…He can’t win a general because of this…
November 16th, 2007 at 11:05 pm
These anti-abortion zealots seem to be projecting their own views onto Mitt…
Why don’t you look at what he said instead of speaking for him?
November 16th, 2007 at 11:05 pm
Heh, oops. Must have opened the wrong window. One of the administrators feel like changing it:
http://www.politico.com/blogs/jonathanmartin/0807/Romneys_abortion_stance.html
November 16th, 2007 at 11:08 pm
#21
What’s to project? Anyone who has followed Gov. Romney for awhile knows that this has been his view.
November 16th, 2007 at 11:16 pm
“So I guess I would be accurate in calling Mitt pro-choice….”
Ultimately you must be in favor of a life amendment if you wish to call yourself pro-life. State choice is preferred to Roe by pro-lifers because it offers the opportunity for regional limitations on abortion.
But, if your end position is that states should choose, you are effectively acknowledging that people can have different opinions on when life starts and so while you and your state may be against it others may not be, so they should be able to choose for themselves. And that, my friends, is the definition of being pro-choice.
Prolifers say, no, a fetus is a life and thus it is protected by the constitution in all states. It will take a miracle to get there though, so for now we have to focus on overturning Roe and giving each states the right to determine abortion law.
I acknowledge that Romney and Fred are practically identical in there position for the immediate term. My beef is when people say that Fred is pro-life. He’s not, he’s a federalist, pro-choice ally to pro-lifers.
And don’t forget Fred is my number two guy, so it’s not that I don’t trust him on dealing with Roe. It’s just he’s not pro-life.
November 16th, 2007 at 11:25 pm
“Romney supports a two-step process in which states get authority over abortion after Roe v. Wade is overturned, followed eventually by a constitutional amendment that bans most abortions.
Romney shares the aspirations of the antiabortion movement while understanding that its goals will not be achieved overnight.â€
He’s said he supports overturning Roe vs. Wade 1st. Then when our society is ready, when we can actually get it passed, pass the Human Rights Amendment. Of course I paraphrase.
It’s not Mitt-fans projecting, we just know how he stands on the issues. Try attending on of his stump speeches. I have, and that’s what I recall.
November 16th, 2007 at 11:28 pm
Who among the “federalists” here think the morally correct position on slavery in 1861 was to let the states decide?
November 16th, 2007 at 11:30 pm
Here it is in simple terms:
Romney is pro-life
Huckabee is pro-life
McCain is pro-choice, but makes the right choice
Fred is pro-choice, but makes the right choice
Rudy is pro-choice, and apparently makes the right choice (riiight), but he’s also pro-choice on partial birth abortion, which I find unforgivable.
And they are all against Roe, except Rudy of course, though he’d appoint strict constructionists.
November 16th, 2007 at 11:31 pm
#26
What are you trying to say?
November 16th, 2007 at 11:31 pm
MWS, bingo!
November 16th, 2007 at 11:32 pm
Richard P,
You contradict yourself. On the one hand you say federalists who say let the issue return to the states are effectively pro-choice, but on the other you state “Prolifers say, no, a fetus is a life and thus it is protected by the constitution in all states.” Both statements can’t be true. Indeed the FLA would not be necessary if the supreme court ruled that life begins at conception or at viability.
November 16th, 2007 at 11:38 pm
In true Tommy Oliver form this is a recycled, trumped up, non-issue. It’s sad to see.
November 16th, 2007 at 11:39 pm
#30
He said it would take a miracle for the Supreme Court to acknowledge it. That’s not a contradiction, just reality.
November 16th, 2007 at 11:41 pm
…back to the Rudy/Mitt fight.
Rudy has a poor strategy for winning; he’s depending wholly on Florida.
November 16th, 2007 at 11:44 pm
33. OT: Rudy tops the CNN poll for NV
with 29%.
http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/11/16/nv.gop.poll/
November 16th, 2007 at 11:48 pm
Thanks Colin! Been waiting on that one. Surprised it came out so late in the day.
November 16th, 2007 at 11:54 pm
MWS,
The Civil War was unavoidable. You’re projecting emotional views into logic. There was going to be a war over the issue, and that was the only way to deal with the fact that slavery was the norm.
BTW, Are you a republican or a socially conservative democrat? Not to be out of line, but limited government is a somewhat popular idea among conservatives. More national government is usually a position associated with democrats/liberals/”progressives”
November 17th, 2007 at 12:26 am
Who among the “federalists†here think the morally correct position on slavery in 1861 was to let the states decide?
It was certainly the Constitutional option.
We fought a war over that, by the way, and eventually got the Constitution amended.
If you’d like to attempt either over abortion, be my guest.
November 17th, 2007 at 12:36 am
Tommy,
I’m not talking about the Civil War (though it did start in 1861). I’m talking about slavery. In other words, when slavery was still legal in half the country, do you think a states’ rights issue was the morally correct position?
To your other question, I am a registered Republican, and have only voted for one Democrat in my life (12 years of voting). I think “more national government” is sometimes necessary; for instance to end slavery, to end segregation, and to keep people from killing children.
November 17th, 2007 at 12:38 am
TLG,
“It was certainly the Constitutional option.”
That’s not what I asked. Obviously, the Constitution in 1861 allowed slavery in the states.
I’ll repeat my question:
Who among the “federalists†here think the MORALLY correct position on slavery in 1861 was to let the states decide? (emphasis added for TLG)
November 17th, 2007 at 12:43 am
Would anyone here take a “states rights” approach to any of the following issues:
1. Slavery
2. Segregation
3. Rape
4. Illegal Immigration
5. Marrying children
November 17th, 2007 at 12:50 am
Oddly, I’m with MWS.
November 17th, 2007 at 12:50 am
Romney’s sure worried about his general election numbers. Some of us over at race4′08 are too, Mitt.
November 17th, 2007 at 1:00 am
Tommy,
For further clarification re: # 38, the one Democrat I voted for was a pro-life Democrat (Glen Poshard) running for governor against the now felon George Ryan, here in Illinois, where we have more corrupt politicians than soybeans.
November 17th, 2007 at 1:01 am
#40
Actually, states control rape and age of consent laws.
November 17th, 2007 at 1:02 am
“Who among the “federalists†here think the MORALLY correct position on slavery in 1861 was to let the states decide? (emphasis added for TLG)”
What on Earth does this have to do with federalism if we’re talking about morals?
You know what I believe to be morally correct: a state that bars the initiation of force.
November 17th, 2007 at 1:06 am
Thomas,
“Actually, states control rape and age of consent laws.”
I understand. But for the sake of argument, if a state decided to make rape or marrying children legal, would there be cause for federal intervention?
November 17th, 2007 at 1:08 am
TLG,
“What on Earth does this have to do with federalism if we’re talking about morals?”
Because like with so much else in life, when crafting law there is often a morally right and a morally wrong position. Would it be morally right to leave slavery to the states in 1861?
Why is this such a difficult question for you to grasp?
November 17th, 2007 at 1:36 am
#46
It would be cause for people going ape-shit intervention.
BTW, most states don’t include males in rape laws. So technically, almost half the nation’s population is not protected by those laws (although separate laws can apply).
November 17th, 2007 at 7:53 am
I’m with MWS as well. I think alot of people in our party have a deeply misguided view of federalism. Federalism isn’t a catch-all cry for local control. You can’t simply invoke it whenever you’re uncomfortable applying a particular policy to the entire nation. It has a specific historical meaning, which doesn’t encapsulate everything under the sun. If someone wants to make a historical argument that federalism ought to apply to abortion, but not any number of issues where the idea has been wholesale abandoned, then I’m willing to hear them out. But, until then, I view federalism on abortion as a convenient wall that those squeamish on banning abortion can hide behind. That said, I don’t believe it’s at all unreasonable to take the position that the country isn’t ready for the human life amendment or that, for the moment, we’re forced to settle for legalized abortion. Abe Lincoln just wanted slavery’s expansion to stop; he genuinely no interest in immediately ending the institution, because he thought such an attempt would sunder the union (bad luck on that one I suppose). But, at some point you have to take a stand; draw a moral line in the sand. And refusing to support a national amendment on abortion, not out practical concerns, but out of some vague and arbitrary conception of federalism, is an absolute abdication of that obligation.
November 17th, 2007 at 10:51 am
That clip pretty much reminds me of why I distrust Romney. He’s too eager to shift and redefine his positions on just about anything. That’s the cumulative message I get. I have no reason to believe his evolution will stop once he’s taken stances that I can fully embrace, but he hasn’t even reached that stance yet. Guess I’ll just stay tuned: He’ll get there eventually. And then move on…
November 17th, 2007 at 11:28 am
This is just horrible.
Matthew, #49: Federalism is not a cop-out, and your “view” of it is completely wrong. Federalists (with a capital F) believe that the states are solely empowered to address those matters not expressly delegated to the federal government in the Constitution. Nowhere in the Constitution is there an express delegation of authority on the issue of abortion, sexuality, child-bearing, etc. Nor does a reasonable reading of the “Commerce Clause” create such authority by implication. Therefore, those issues are reserved to the states, or to the people (See the 10th Amendment).
Obviously, some take the position that the right to privacy abrogates the 10th Amendment on abortion. But, that’s not your position, Matthew Miller. So, what’s your justification for saying that “federalism doesn’t apply to abortion”???
Methinks that the answer is “I don’t like abortion and damn the Constitution if it creates a government system that allows people to disagree with my personal opinion.” I can respect people like Mitt and Fred and Rudy who actually UNDERSTAND the constitution and what judicial conservatism is about, and who give the correct constitutional answer to these questions. The problem is, there are so many yahoos out here saying that they favor “strict constructionists” or “judicial conservatism” but who don’t understand what those philosophies would actually do.
MWS, #40, this goes twice for you. You said:
I’ll repeat my question:
Who among the “federalists†here think the MORALLY correct position on slavery in 1861 was to let the states decide? (emphasis added for TLG)
Way to advocate for government based on your own moral opinions. The correct answer to your question, for better or worse, is that the federal government had no right to intervene in the affairs of the southern states on that issue, except by constitutional amendment. It frightens me that Bush has brought so many people like this into the party, who have literally ZERO concept of what republicanism and conservatism are about, and who instead would love to see an Iranian-style religious government with Bob Jones, Richard Land, and Dobson running the show telling us all how to live. It frightens me more that we probably need them to win.
November 17th, 2007 at 12:45 pm
Michael Lawrence,
Obviously you’re not familiar with my position on this issue. Here it is: the federal constitution absolutely does not allow the Congress to pass laws forbidding abortion under the Commerce Clause. I’ve said that before, and I hold to it. My hatred of abortion not-withstanding. The Constitution absolutely DOES allow the Congress, in concert with the states, to begin the amendment process specifically outlined in the Constitution, to take equivalent action at the national level. This process can be found in article 5, and entails either the formation of a national convention, at the direction of the states, or a 2/3’s vote by Congress, followed by ratification by 3/4’s of the state legislatures. And federalism has, on it’s face, nothing whatsoever to say about whether beginning such a process for the purpose of banning abortion, is a good idea. Thus, those who hide behind federalism must either explain why federalism ought to apply to this particular amendment (when it doesn’t apply to amendments writ large), or they must admit that their opposition practically only extends to national LAWS, and not to amendments.
November 17th, 2007 at 6:39 pm
‘I’m not calling for’ is a current situation. He has also said on numerous occasions, at a time in the future, after the hearts and minds of the public are changed sufficient to pass the constitutional amendment, he would push for that… But he, now do any of us believe that is currently on the table. A lot of hearts and minds have to be changed to get the required votes in Congress, and in the states.
November 17th, 2007 at 11:32 pm
Michael Lawrence,
I’m going to go out on a limb and guess that if you were a slave or someone who was part of a group that some states made it legal to kill, you wouldn’t give a rip about the 10th Amendment and all the high minded theories you now propose.
There are some things (like life itself) that are more precious and important than the Constituion. The Constitution is on the whole a good and noble thing, but don’t fetishize it to the point that you excuse the trampling of basic human rights.
I do NOT cede the premise that abortion is protected in the Constitution, or that the Constitution does not allow Congress to protect the lives of children. But even if it did- on that point- I wouldn’t give a rip what the Constitution said. I suppose that is where we part ways.