Rubber Stamp Romney
Posted by Adam Graham in : AbortionOver at the Hotline, there’s the following story posted about South Dakota’s abortion bill:
WH Press Secretary Scott McClellan says Pres. Bush would not support the bill unless it contained exceptions for rape, incest and the life of the mother. Of the three potential ‘08 GOP candidates below, Sen. John McCain’s view is closest to Bush’s.
Sen. George Allen’sCoS, Dick Wadhams, tells the Hotline that “Sen. Allen has consistently supported the rights of the people in their states to pass laws which reflect their views and values.”
MA Gov. Mitt Romney has yet to be asked about the SD ban. Spokesperson Julie Teer: “If Governor Romney were the Governor of South Dakota he would sign it. The Governor believes that states should have the right to be pro-life if that is the will of the people.”
According to a spokesperson, McCain “would have signed the legislation, but would also take the appropriate steps under state law — in whatever state — to ensure that the exceptions of rape, incest or life of the mother were included.”
In a piece called, “Romney More Pro-Life than Bush, Allen, and McCain?” Stephen writes:
If I read this right, it means that Bush would not sign the bill, Allen wouldn’t although he’d let someone else (at least that seems the implicit conclusion of saying what others can do but not what he would), McCain would try to water it down, and Romney is the only one that would sign it as is.
I think that Stephen misunderstands, though one has to say the question is lousy. A bill like this should never reach the President. The question is whether a state should be allowed to regulate abortion as it sees fit, not as the President does. Romney and Allen got the answer right, with a nice pat on the head to McCain for the attempt.
One has to consider that Romney’s answer is not born of some deep committment to the pro-life cause. He’s been a charmelon on the issue. Declaring in 1994 that he was pro-choice because of the death of a family member from abortion, and now he’s moved to the pro-life side as the 2008 campaign has become closer. (See here for more.)
In Massachusetts, he declared that he would not sign any law changing the state abortion laws. He hasn’t, but the policy has created a certain incongruity. (In South Dakota, I’ll be strongly pro-life, In Massachusetts, I’ll be respectfully pro-choice.) I’m sorry, folks, I don’t call that leadership, certainly not pro-life leadership.
More to the point, if you’re also concerned about the out of control spending, the last thing America needs is a bobblehead president who simply nods and signs off any legislation passed without regards to his own core values.
Linked to Outside the Beltway
Comment by Stephen [Visitor]
I wrote tht I never thought I’d type those words in the title for all the reasons you listed. Within the question the hotline posed, though, Romney gave the best answer.
Comment by Adam Graham [Member]
I think he and Allen were both right. What we truly need is a President who will allow the states to handle this issue and in doing so, that is going to lead the nation in a more pro-life direction. I also think if we can’t trust the person, as is really the case with Romney, than it doesn’t matter how pro-life their rhetoric there is, if we don’t know they’ll follow through.