Incumbent president Barack Obama has made no secret of his support for abortion. Not only does he openly support making abortion legal, he even opposed a bill requiring that babies who survive abortions be provided with medical care rather than being left to die. In fact, he promised to make preserving “women's rights” to abortions a priority as president. Although supports abortion, he is in favor of banning late-term abortions, with the usual exceptions for cases involving rape, incest, and the life of the mother. Obama also supports public funding for abortions, although with the exception of the abortifacient drugs covered under the HHS mandate and federal funding for Planned Parenthood (the largest abortion provider in the country), he has not been successful in implementing his desired policy while president. Although some have described him as the “most pro-abortion president,” this is not the case. His positions, however repugnant to those who value the lives of the unborn, is hardly exceptional among Democrats. Arguably Clinton's positions were significantly more pro-abortion—after all, Clinton vetoed a bill banning partial birth abortions while Obama, at least in theory, would have supported it. He has been one of the more pro-abortion presidents in history, but not the worst.
Republican contender Mitt Romney is ostensibly pro-life. He opposes abortion with the usual exceptions—rape, incest, and the life of the mother. Unfortunately, he has not always been pro-life and his history casts serious doubt on his sincerity. While running for senate in 1994 in Massachusetts, a liberal state, he claimed to be “to the left of Ted Kennedy” on social issues, including abortion. He repeatedly described himself as pro-choice and his wife, Ann, even donated to Planned Parenthood. By 2001 when contemplating a run at governor in conservative Utah, however, he was definitely not pro-choice. A year later, though, while running for governor of Massachusetts he strongly supported Roe v. Wade and pledged repeatedly to “respect and fully protect a woman's right to choose.” He went so far as to tell the ardently pro-choice NARAL that they needed “someone like him” in Washington and released a press release touting the Republican Majority for Choice's endorsement. In 2004, while eyeing the Republican presidential nod four years away, Romney decided to start labeling himself as pro-life. Surprisingly, then, the next year he appointed a pro-choice judge, continued to support publicly funded embryonic stem cell research, and even, according to an article from the Boston Globe, required all hospitals—including Catholic hospitals—to provide access to contraceptives and abortifacients through an executive order. Further, his landmark piece of legislation, “RomneyCare,” provided for abortions with only $50 co-pays. Despite using the line item veto liberally while tailoring the bill to his wishes, Romney refused to use it to block publicly-funded abortions. Even after his conversion he opposes federal attempts to protect the unborn, claiming that it is a state, not a national issue, and supports public funding of embryonic stem cell research. The Romney of today essentially falls into the middle of the abortion debate, while the Romney of earlier in the decade would have made a more pro-abortion president than Obama or Clinton.
Republican contender Mitt Romney is ostensibly pro-life. He opposes abortion with the usual exceptions—rape, incest, and the life of the mother. Unfortunately, he has not always been pro-life and his history casts serious doubt on his sincerity. While running for senate in 1994 in Massachusetts, a liberal state, he claimed to be “to the left of Ted Kennedy” on social issues, including abortion. He repeatedly described himself as pro-choice and his wife, Ann, even donated to Planned Parenthood. By 2001 when contemplating a run at governor in conservative Utah, however, he was definitely not pro-choice. A year later, though, while running for governor of Massachusetts he strongly supported Roe v. Wade and pledged repeatedly to “respect and fully protect a woman's right to choose.” He went so far as to tell the ardently pro-choice NARAL that they needed “someone like him” in Washington and released a press release touting the Republican Majority for Choice's endorsement. In 2004, while eyeing the Republican presidential nod four years away, Romney decided to start labeling himself as pro-life. Surprisingly, then, the next year he appointed a pro-choice judge, continued to support publicly funded embryonic stem cell research, and even, according to an article from the Boston Globe, required all hospitals—including Catholic hospitals—to provide access to contraceptives and abortifacients through an executive order. Further, his landmark piece of legislation, “RomneyCare,” provided for abortions with only $50 co-pays. Despite using the line item veto liberally while tailoring the bill to his wishes, Romney refused to use it to block publicly-funded abortions. Even after his conversion he opposes federal attempts to protect the unborn, claiming that it is a state, not a national issue, and supports public funding of embryonic stem cell research. The Romney of today essentially falls into the middle of the abortion debate, while the Romney of earlier in the decade would have made a more pro-abortion president than Obama or Clinton.
Tom Hoefling, America's Party's candidate for president, is unequivocally pro-life. He opposes abortion in all cases with no exceptions, unlike the other two candidates mentioned here. Although he has not held elected office and thus does not have a record to examine, he been consistent in his support for pro-life causes. He promises, if elected, to take steps immediately to close every abortion facility in the nation, based on the protections of the 14th amendment. In fact, not only is he the most pro-life candidate in the race, if elected he would arguably be the most pro-life president in the modern era.
Both Obama and Romney in the past have been very vocally pro-abortion. Eight years ago Romney “converted” to a pro-life position, but the circumstances surrounding that conversion and his previous inconstancy on the issue casts doubt on his sincerity. Today his supposedly pro-life stance seems to be limited to a personal position that would not influence policy. These three candidates present a choice between Obama, a radical abortion supporter, Romney, an untrustworthy pragmatist who has firmly held several different and completely contradictory positions on the issue within the last fifteen years, and Hoefling, who has never wavered in his support for life. The choice couldn't be any clearer.
For a new birth of freedom!
Both Obama and Romney in the past have been very vocally pro-abortion. Eight years ago Romney “converted” to a pro-life position, but the circumstances surrounding that conversion and his previous inconstancy on the issue casts doubt on his sincerity. Today his supposedly pro-life stance seems to be limited to a personal position that would not influence policy. These three candidates present a choice between Obama, a radical abortion supporter, Romney, an untrustworthy pragmatist who has firmly held several different and completely contradictory positions on the issue within the last fifteen years, and Hoefling, who has never wavered in his support for life. The choice couldn't be any clearer.
For a new birth of freedom!
No comments:
Post a Comment