What does Mitt Romney believe about abortion? He’s had the same view from 1994 to 2008, when he decided to run for President.
From the 1994 Massachusetts Senate debate between Mitt Romney and Edward Kennedy.
Here he is again in 2002 in his run for government of Massachusetts:
And again in May 2005, as governor of Massachusetts:
And on embryonic stem cell research in 2005:
If he says any different today, it’s not because he has a record to run on – his record has been pro-abortion since 1994.
From Life News.
Excerpt:
The House approved legislation, the Protect Life Act, to stop abortion funding in Obamacare. Senate Democrats are not expected to approve the bill and, pro-abortion President Barack Obama is expected to veto the measure if it reaches his desk.
Members voted 251-172 for the pro-life legislation, with 236 Republicans and 15 Democrats supporting the bill and 170 Democrats and two Republicans voting against it. (See how your member voted here).
H.R. 358, Protect Life Act, makes it clear that no funds authorized or appropriated by the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA), including tax credits and cost-sharing reductions, may be used to pay for abortion or abortion coverage. It specifies that individual people or state or local governments must purchase a separate elective abortion rider or insurance coverage that includes elective abortion but only as long as that is done with private funds and not monies authorized by Obamacare.
[…]The bill also specifies that insurance issuers may offer health plans that include elective abortion and may offer separate elective abortion riders, so long as they ensure PPACA funds are not used for premiums or administrative costs. The bill also clarifies that issuers who offer elective abortion coverage must also offer a qualified health benefits plan that is identical except that it does not cover elective abortion.
The pro-life measure also ensures that state laws “protecting conscience rights, restricting or prohibiting abortion or coverage or funding of abortion, or establishing procedural requirements on abortion” are not abrogated by Obamacare. It also makes it so any state or local governments receiving funding under Obamacare may not subject any health care entity to discrimination or require any health plan to subject any entity to discrimination on the basis that it refuses to undergo abortion training, refuses to require abortion training, refuses to perform or pay for abortions, or refuses to provide abortion referrals.
The Democrats will block this bill in the Senate, or Obama will not sign it if it somehow gets through. And do you know why? Because the Democrats are committing to subsidizing baby-killing with taxpayer dollars. Pro-life taxpayer dollars.
Nancy Pelosi doesn’t like the bill. She thinks that this bill will cause women to “die on the floor”.
Excerpt:
Former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi took her pro-abortion rhetoric to a new level, today saying Republicans “want women to die on the floor” in expressing her opposition to a bill stopping taxpayer funding of abortions in Obamacare.
“For a moment, I want to get back to what was asked about the issue on the floor today that Mr. Hoyer address,” Pelosi said. “He made a point and I want to emphasize it. Under this bill, when the Republicans vote for this bill today, they will be voting to say that women can die on the floor and health care providers do not have to intervene if this bill is passed. It’s just appalling.”
This is the same woman ran up 5.34 trillion dollars of debt while she was Speaker of the House from 2007 to 2011. The Republicans want to stop spending taxpayer money on elective abortion to stop the national debt from growing, and this woman thinks that not spending that money would cause people to die on the floor. I wonder if we will ever get spending cut when people on the left use rhetoric like this to stop spending cuts.
I do think it is encouraging that nearly all Republicans voted for this bill. They truly are a pro-life party.
From Life News.
Excerpt:
Showing pro-life legislation protecting women and unborn children has a tremendous impact in saving lives, new figures from Arizona show a new pro-life law has resulted in dropping abortions 30 percent.
Last week, Cathi Herrod of the Center for Arizona Policy indicated the state released new abortion figures comparing the number of abortions in September 2011 with those done in September 2010.
“In September of 2010, 1,053 abortions were performed in Arizona. This September, 729 abortions – that’s 324 fewer abortions – a 30% decrease,” Herrod explained. “That number is also down from 1,069 abortions in August of this year. Simply incredible.”
The news follows on the heels of an appeals court upholding a pro-life law that protects the health and safety of women and their unborn children by giving them information they don’t normally receive. The Arizona Court of Appeals heard oral arguments in June in Planned Parenthood Arizona v. Horne, a case the abortion business filed which challenges key aspects of the 2009 Abortion Consent Act. The law is a pro-life measure Governor Jan Brewer signed which tells women of the risks associated with and alternatives to abortion. Planned Parenthood sued the state soon after its signing and a Superior Court judge blocked the law from taking effect while the case moves forward.
The law makes it so Arizona will require a notarized parental signature before an abortion can be performed on a minor child, women will be provided with full and accurate information by a doctor in person at least 24 hours before an abortion, medical professionals cannot be forced to perform abortions if it contradicts their sincerely held religious or moral beliefs and non-doctors will not be permitted by law to perform surgical abortions.
Responding to the decision, Planned Parenthood announced it will no longer do abortions at seven locations — including communities outside of Phoenix and Tucson rather than comply with the law.
Herrod says the new law and its effects are responsible for the abortion decline.
What could possibly be wrong with providing women with more information about abortion before they have an abortion? Shouldn’t they know what they are choosing before they choose? Even pro-choicers should support more information.
WINTERY KNIGHT 