Mitt Romney has held many positions on abortion. He was pro-choice in his run for senate in Massachusetts, definitely not pro-choice when he considered a run for governor in Utah, pro-choice again when he ran for governor of Massachusetts, and came around to "calling" himself pro-life (his words) while eyeing the Republican presidential nomination. Since his conversion, however, his actions have been far from reassuring. He forced hospitals to provide abortifacients, apparently violating his belief that life begins at conception and should be protected, and oversaw the implementation of a healthcare plan that provided for abortions with co-pays of between $0 and $100. In the Republican primaries he strenuously maintained that he never was pro-choice and announced that his current position was that abortion was wrong except in cases of rape, incest, and the life of the mother, but that the decision to allow or regulate abortion should be left to the states. He further stated that the only way this could be done would be to have the Supreme Court overturn Roe v. Wade, since the Supreme Court was, in his mind, the ultimate arbiter of Constitutionality. It should be noted that, since the Supreme Court hasn't even overturned Dred Scott v. Sandford, it is highly unlikely that it would overturn Roe v. Wade at any point in the foreseeable future. Since the only way that decision was changed was to amend the Constitution, and Romney opposes the Human Life Amendment, Romney's public position, for all intents and purposes, is pro-abortion, whatever private qualms he may have had.
However, with the Republican nomination locked up, Romney went even further in his support for abortion. In an interview he stated that he opposed abortion except in cases of rape, incest, and the life and health of the mother, following it with his usual paean to states' rights and judicial supremacy. His campaign has since attempted to explain away the statement as a verbal gaff, however, a campaign spokesperson had already clarified - and said the exact same thing! While the insertion of "and health" may seem innocuous, to those familiar with the history of abortion in the United States it is nothing short of ominous. Justice Blackmun's majority opinion in Roe used as one of the pillars of its argument the assertion that abortion could be justified if the mother's health was in danger. Given that the mother and her doctor has the right to preserve the health of the mother, no government had the authority to infringe on that right. In essence, Romney restates the fundamental principle of Roe v. Wade while pretending to favor its repeal. An exception for the health of the mother can, as Justice Blackmun showed, be used to justify any abortion at any time, particularly when the emotional health of the mother is included in the general term "health," as has already been done.
So how does Romney's position compare with the majority opinion in Roe v. Wade? Both do not recognize a right to life for the fetus and assume, for all practical purposes, that life begins at birth, thus the pregnancy can be terminated at any time before that. For proof, consider how one would feel if someone proposed killing a one month old child because he endangered his mother's health--any sane person recognizes that life, once begun, demands at least rudimentary rights. That reaction is, one would hope, nothing like the reaction of Romney and Justice Blackmun to an abortion in a similar circumstance, thus neither man believes (or in the case of Blackmun, believed) that the unborn child is alive. Romney even specifically rejected the personhood of the unborn, contradicting his alleged position that life begins at conception. Further, both hold that the health of the mother is a more pressing matter than any life or potential for life in the unborn child. The only difference lies in Romney's advocacy of state control of abortion, while Roe v. Wade specifically rejected states' rights.
Many pro-life voters who have throughout their lives denounced and attacked Roe v. Wade as unconstitutional and an absurd abridgment of the child's right to life--warranted criticism indeed--have now lowered themselves to supporting the candidacy of a man whose position on abortion is precisely the same as Justice Blackmun's, had the latter had any understanding of federalism. It is high time that those who call themselves pro-life look beyond the label when examining candidates and actually understand the positions candidates take and the implications of those positions. We must not compromise or equivocate when it comes to the millions of helpless innocent lives taken by the abortion industry, and we must not let ourselves be taken in again by another politician who holds no position but that which gains him electoral success.
For a new birth of freedom!
No comments:
Post a Comment