Skeptical Pro-Lifers: It’s Time to Embrace Mitt Romney


#1

lifenews.com/2012/06/21/skeptical-pro-lifers-its-time-to-embrace-mitt-romney/


#2

So pro-life types can forgive Romney for explicitly allowing funding for abortion in his health care bill but it is unforgivable that Obama’s health care plan didn’t include provisions to prevent every avenue for federal funding of abortion, no matter how far-fetched.

This sounds like rhetoric is more important than action.


#3

I thought this source wasn’t considered respectable enough to post? They’ve fabricated their “stories” before.


#4

Sometimes it’s credible and sometimes not. It depends on what they say. If one agrees with the article it credible, and vice versa.


#5

I think thats just an opinion piece. We all know about opinions.:wink:

Pro-life aside for the moment. There are many reasons not to vote for Romney. I’ll just have to pass.


#6

Life News is creditable… no sure what site you are talking about. Maybe Life Site News maybe ?


#7

[quote="TheTrueCentrist, post:2, topic:288905"]
So pro-life types can forgive Romney for explicitly allowing funding for abortion in his health care bill but it is unforgivable that Obama's health care plan didn't include provisions to prevent every avenue for federal funding of abortion, no matter how far-fetched.

This sounds like rhetoric is more important than action.

[/quote]

That is false. There was no abortion language anywhere in Romney's health care bill.

..

The state law itself does not specify what services are covered and what aren’t. Search the text of it, and "abortion" is nowhere to be found.

But because of a 1981 Supreme Judicial Court ruling in Massachusetts, the cost of abortions must be included in publicly subsidized plans. Most private insurance plans in the U.S. include abortion coverage, and the state-subsidized plans in Massachusetts do, too. That includes coverage for Massachusetts residents enrolled in Medicaid.

So it’s true that the plan makes abortion accessible through private insurance plans subsidized by the state. But that’s dictated by a court ruling that long predated Romney’s term as governor.

On the federal level, coverage of abortion is a bit more complicated.

Here’s how we’ve explained a similar claim: Since 1976, the federal government has been guided by the Hyde Amendment, a law that prohibits the use of federal funds for abortions except in cases of rape, incest or when the mother's life is in peril. Due to that amendment -- which must be renewed every year -- abortion services are not provided by Medicaid or in health care plans offered to federal employees and for active and retired military.

But the health care exchanges established by the law raised the question of whether private companies should be allowed to offer abortion coverage (as most already do) when operating through the exchanges. And what if the people buying policies are getting government subsidies to buy insurance?

What resulted was essentially a compromise. When the exchanges begin operating in 2014, some states will ban all abortion coverage entirely for any plan selling on that state’s exchange. Doing so is allowed by a state "opt-out" clause that is part of the health care law. Beyond that, every state must offer at least one plan on its exchange that doesn’t cover abortion. In addition, no private insurer will be forced to cover abortion.

Unless a state exercises the opt-out clause, insurers will be allowed to sell policies on the exchanges that include abortion coverage. To allow this, yet still abide by the Hyde Amendment, sponsors of the bill drafted a procedure to differentiate between dollars spent on abortion coverage and dollars spent for everything else. (Anti-abortion advocates have consistently argued that the approach doesn’t offer strong enough protections to prevent taxpayer funding of abortion.)

The complex funding mechanisms make the question of whether Obamacare covers abortion a little fuzzy. But clearly the law provides some access to the service.

politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2012/jun/18/facebook-posts/facebook-post-compares-elements-romneycare-obamaca

Whether RomneyCare existed or not, or the old health care system was in place there would of been this funding for abortion.


#8

[quote="Et_Cetera, post:3, topic:288905"]
I thought this source wasn't considered respectable enough to post? They've fabricated their "stories" before.

[/quote]

Evidence?


#9

I hate to sound like I am defending Romney, but what was he supposed to do with a veto-proof Democrat congress?


#10

And for Catholics, there is absolutely NO reason to vote for Obama, considering his blatant war on the Church.


#11

As long as they continue to keep funding one party only, I don’t see the point of contributing to such pro-life organizations. Abortion restrictions on the federal level can only be dealt with by bipartisan support IMO. Does anyone really believe the party which was responsible for making it the law of the land (in 1967 by Reagan in California and in 1973 by the Republican-appointed Supreme Court without censure by a Republican president) is going to fix things all by themselves? I certainly don’t.


#12

As long as they continue to keep funding one party only, I don’t see the point of contributing to such pro-life organizations. Abortion restrictions on the federal level can only be dealt with by bipartisan support IMO. Does anyone really believe the party which was responsible for making it the law of the land (in 1967 by Reagan in California and in 1973 by the Republican-appointed Supreme Court without censure from a Republican president) is going to fix things all by themselves? I certainly don’t.


#13

[quote="ProVobis, post:12, topic:288905"]
As long as they continue to keep funding one party only, I don't see the point of contributing to such pro-life organizations. Abortion restrictions on the federal level can only be dealt with by bipartisan support IMO. Does anyone really believe the party which was responsible for making it the law of the land (in 1967 by Reagan in California and in 1973 by the Republican-appointed Supreme Court without censure from a Republican president) is going to fix things all by themselves? I certainly don't.

[/quote]

Nobody saw Roe vs Wade coming, and that was 40 years ago. Let's look at now. The only present justices who have EVER voted prolife are Republican appointees. No Democrat appointee is prolife. Every Republican one but Kennedy is prolife. That's a major difference. The one Repub appointee presently who does not consistently vote prolife is Kennedy. But even Kennedy voted to uphold a ban on partial birth abortion. Every last Democrat appointee voted against it. Every one.

So, just because it's difficult to change Roe, that doesn't mean we have to accept the Democrat counsel of despair. We have to do what we can do on the political side to stop abortion, and right now voting against abortion supporters is one of them. Presently, nearly every Democrat is pro-abortion. A great number of Repubs are prolife.

Perhaps most importantly, we need to vote against Obama. In the next four years there is a good chance there will be another Supreme Court vacancy. We know Obama will appoint an abortion supporter. We know Romney won't because his support will evaporate totally if he does. So, even if we don't believe he is really prolife, (and we have no good reason to think that) we know he doesn't really have a choice. Obama's supporters are pro-abortion; perhaps not as rabidly as he is, but strongly enough that he won't lose a single supporter no matter how much he promotes abortion.

The next appointee to the Supreme Court will decide whether Roe is upheld for the entire next generation. Those who support Obama are voting to keep it in place, and must bear personal moral responsibility for the deaths of millions.


#14

Opinion article, not a news article


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