You wouldn’t think it was possible, but Mitt Romney has changed his position on abortion rights yet again.
Just two weeks ago he said he favored a constitutional amendment to ban abortion nationwide. Now he says he’s wants to see Roe v. Wade overturned, after which the matter would be left up to the states.
The Romney campaign, naturally, denies that there’s any inconsistency here. And there isn’t: You never have any idea what position he’s going to take, and he’s been absolutely consistent about that. (Via the Weekly Dig.)
Discover more from Media Nation
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Abolition of a woman’s right to abortion, when and if she wants it, amounts to compulsory maternity: a form of rape by the State. ~Edward Abbey quotes on Abortion
Are you still worried Willard may be elected? Stop talking about him and he’ll go away. They worst thing you can do to a politician is ignore him.
You know what, Fluffy? You’re right. If only I would stop talking about him, the entire country would forget about him. Thank you for reminding me of what awesome powers I have at my disposal.Sheesh.
Who are you voting for Dan?You seem like a Clinton kind of guy.
Rick: I’m genuinely undecided. And though I make no secret about being a liberal, I’m old-fashioned enough about being a journalist that I wouldn’t tell you anyway. But, in all honestly, I don’t know.
Rick – that’s code for Hillary!
And when you read beyond the headlines, the reporter writes, “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.”Next, here’s Kathryn Jean Lopez of National Review:”I know it’s cool on all sides not to trust Romney, but this strikes me as no there there, despite the reporter’s contention otherwise. He supports a human life amendment but lives in the incremental real world. If Roe is overturned, states will take up the issue. If Roe is overturned, it would be helpful to have a president who supports a federal ban, and who will presumably support those trying to ban abortion in their states (something worth hearing him make clear he would). Romney’s position makes sense to me. Sorry, no “waffle.”A pro-life, pro-Romney friend on the Hill sends me this: The piece this morning is a regurgitated hit piece. The same “hit” took place on August 6 when Mitt appeared on GMA. Romney’s position is quite simple: Romney says, “I am pro-life, I support a ban on all-abortions, but since that doesn’t seem likely to pass, our immediate goal must be to overturn Roe V Wade and return the law to the states.”
I hope your political affiliation is not as obvious when you’re teaching journalism as in your writings…..which I always read.
“Political affiliation”? Registered independent, Rick. I believe that’s a public record. I’ve done plenty of straight journalism and plenty of opinion journalism. There’s no conflict, unless you try to do a straight piece on a subject about which you’ve already expressed an opinion.I make a point of trying to reach out to conservative students. There are very few of them, and I think they feel like outcasts sometimes.
That’s good to hear Dan, It’s got to be tough for conservative students. I should have said Liberal and not political affiliation. My apologies.