Report: Romney Refuses to Sign Pro-Life Pledge

Finally some sense. A person can object to abortion but not want his or her hands tied as to getting things done.

"Former Massachusetts Gov. and current GOP presidential frontrunner Mitt Romney is refusing to sign a pledge penned by the pro-life group ‘The Susan B. Anthony List.’ The pledge calls for the nomination of judges “who are committed to restraint and applying the original meaning of the Constitution, not legislating from the bench.”

It also demands the selection of pro-life appointees for cabinet positions and the advancement of “pro-life legislation to permanently end all taxpayer funding of abortion,” as well as the defunding of Planned Parenthood.

“Mitt Romney pledged in the last campaign that he would be a pro-life president and of course he pledges it today,” said Romney Campaign communications director Gail Gitcho. “However, this well-intentioned effort has some potentially unforeseen consequences and he does not feel he could in good conscience sign it.”

I’ve come to believe that an ‘activist judge’ means one with whom a person disagrees.

It should be mentioned that Herman Cain and former New Mexico Gov. Gary Johnson refused to sign the pledge as well.

“However, this well-intentioned effort has some potentially unforeseen consequences and he does not feel he could in good conscience sign it.”

This sentance doesn’t even make sense. You could say the same thing about any statement a politician makes.

If they are “unforseen” and “potential” you can’t say that the effort “has” these consequences. What do they think might happen?

It was too far-reaching. Certainly, it wouldn’t matter if a President selects a pro-choice Secretary of Defense. While I agree that people who believe that the killing of unborn humans should be legal are lacking in some rational thought, they can still function in other capacities.

That does seem to be the case.

The pledge reads (bolding mine):

  • Select pro-life appointees for relevant Cabinet and Executive Branch positions, **in particular **the head of National Institutes of Health, the Department of Health & Human Services, and the Department of Justice;

I don’t think Secretary of Defense would be considered a “relevant” cabinet position based on the wording of the pledge. Of course, in the true meaning of “pro-life” (conception to natural death and not just anti-abortion) wouldn’t we want a pro-life Secretary of Defense?

Thanks…missed that.

I am pro-life and believe that abortion should be limited to only instances of rape, incest, or to save the life of the mother.

I support the reversal of Roe v. Wade, because it is bad law and bad medicine. Roe was a misguided ruling that was a result of a small group of activist federal judges legislating from the bench.

I support the Hyde Amendment, which broadly bars the use of federal funds for abortions. And as president, I will support efforts to prohibit federal funding for any organization like Planned Parenthood, which primarily performs abortions or offers abortion-related services.

I will reinstate the Mexico City Policy to ensure that non-governmental organizations that receive funding from America refrain from performing or promoting abortion services, as a method of family planning, in other countries. This includes ending American funding for any United Nations or other foreign assistance program that promotes or performs abortions on women around the world.

I will advocate for and support a Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act to protect unborn children who are capable of feeling pain from abortion.

And perhaps most importantly, I will only appoint judges who adhere to the Constitution and the laws as they are written, not as they want them to be written.

As much as I share the goals of the Susan B. Anthony List, its well-meaning pledge is overly broad and would have unintended consequences. That is why I could not sign it. It is one thing to end federal funding for an organization like Planned Parenthood; it is entirely another to end all federal funding for thousands of hospitals across America. That is precisely what the pledge would demand and require of a president who signed it.

The pledge also unduly burdens a president’s ability to appoint the most qualified individuals to a broad array of key positions in the federal government. I would expect every one of my appointees to carry out my policies on abortion and every other issue, irrespective of their personal views.

If I have the opportunity to serve as our nation’s next president, I commit to doing everything in my power to cultivate, promote, and support a culture of life in America.

-Mitt Romney

I’ve come to believe that an ‘activist judge’ means one with whom a person disagrees.

Conservative judges do not participate in activism. I understand that the leftists here and elsewhere love to make that claim. There is nothing “activist,” however, in striking down laws or reversing pecedents that are clearly an afront to the constitution and its guiding principle - limited government.

Interestingly enough, just had a phone conversation with a friend last night in which we talked about how just because someone puts a piece of paper in front of you and asks you to sign it doesn’t mean you automatically have to sign it just because it’s expected of you. (We were not discussing this particular pro-life pledge issue.)

I would think that taking pro-life action means a whole lot more than simply signing a pro-life pledge.

Am open to learning more about this particular pro-life pledge and what effects signing it might have.

~~ the phoenix

[LEFT]I am disappointed that he did not sign the pledge this and this adds to the general uneasiness many of us involved in the pro-life ministry have about his commitment to pro-life issues. He will still be far preferable to Obama but I will have to admit this makes me less likely to vote for him in the primaries than I would have been.[/LEFT]

I’m not worried by this. I think some of the stipulations in that pledge might seem unrealistic to Romney from a practical standpoint. If it were me, I’d sign it, but I can see why a candidate who want to keep his options open in appointing pro-choice cabinet members. For bi-partisan purposes, Romney might find it advisable to include some democrats in his cabinet, and he will limit his options to only allow pro-life Democrats. Politics is like that.

Research AL Judge Roy Moore.

Overturning settled precedent is judicial activism; pure and simple. That is not a partisan view, either.

This tells it all. You can NOT be pro-life if you think it is OK to kiil a person because the mother was raped or because of incest. There is no side stepping this, NONE. The Church is firm on this issue.

There are many non-Catholics who call themselves Pro-Life who make various exceptions like this.

Sad Very Sad, but I kinda of knew he was NOT PRO-LIFE. For everyone that say’s I am against abortion but I can’t tell others what to do. Well I gues you are OK with a mom killing her 2 year old and a father killing his newborn. O what abou…t th dad that rapes his little girl, that is all OK. Everyyone know in their soul that abortion is wrong because it IS KILLING A HUMAN BABY. Tha is why you see them want to write so many laws saying it is OK, like it will all make the guilt go away, NOT.

Calling oneself pro-life does not make someone pro-life. “Pro-life” is not just a label, but a term that describes a particular ethic. That ethic is one in which human life is taken as a transcendent value, paramount value over and against any of the utilitarian arguments that are brought forward in defense of abortion, euthanaisa, etc. The moment a person grants that an abortion can be justified by some utilitarian concern, like avoiding part of the emotional anguish of rape (though I don’t see how an abortion would help that anyway) then human life is admitted to not be a transcendent value. It entails a denial of the foundations of the prolife ethic.

I would be very interested in hearing what exceptions in which the other self proclaimed “Pro-Life” candidates would allow abortions.

Yes true but that makes them pro-choice:sad_yes:

Herman Cain would allow abortion if the mother’s life is at stake:

Cain says his conservative credentials are impeccable. For example, he holds the position that, unless a mother’s life is threatened, all abortions should be illegal _ even if a woman became pregnant through rape or incest.


DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit