America...where has your integrity gone?

I believe in doing my best to find and support the best candidates locally, statewide as well as nationally to reign in the freedoms this country was indeed founded on. Those are good things.

Yesterday my son Cory got a call from the Huntsman group that was supposedly doing a poll. They asked questions that were obviously directed at lead dog Mitt Romney. I think Cory was appalled  because they were lying and misrepresenting things. He basically told them some of the things they were presenting was basically not true.

My dad, Don Carlos Thompson was of the "great" generation. He was also in the battle of the bulge. He put it all on the line for his country when WWII broke out. He left family and friends to participate in a  War that probably no one understood at the time. They just believed what they were told, got in line and followed orders.

Granted, that can be good or bad. Over the years I do not question what the original intention of the founding fathers regarding the United States of America. I do however question many of the people at all levels commitment to representing the people and the best interests of the people. It is obvious that this has culminated in the horrific Presidency of B. Obama. One which I believe is intentional and meant to destroy the fibers of America.

One could go all day speaking about Obama, his socialistic failed policies, his treading on the Constitution. That is really obvious. However integrity? We are so readily wanting to believe all of these smears without taking a long look at if they are true or not.
This bothers me more than the obvious. We have issues.

1] Deficit Spending
2] Unemployment
3] Foreign Affairs
4] Illegal Immigration Costs to America

Do you know what kind of record if any that the candidates actually have regarding this stuff? How about any ideas that they would have to deal with these things that does not include more taxes or bigger Government. It is easy to stand and make speeches. I can do that. But to have viable answers that have been used and proven is another thing. If you do not know, you could be hiring someone just as incompetent as what we have. The issues are much worse right now than when he took office.

                        There is no room for error.

Can You take the Healthcare truth?

Recently Mitt Romney explained the Massachusetts Health Care Plan. This is a great explanation of the vast difference between that states Health Care Plan and the Obama Care. You can just go along, allow people to say what they wish to say, or you can hear an in-depth explanation of the here's and why fores of the thing people wish to call bad. Why do you not look at what it actually is instead of thinking you know.

Here is the VIDEO on C-SPAN

Here is your chance to  hear it from the horses mouth. Here is a chance to be intellectually honest instead of emotional opinions. Here is your chance to learn about problem solving and why some decisions are made. This takes 49 minutes and gives you what happened and why. It also in his words allows you to see why there is no need to apologize for what they have in Massachusetts . It is nothing like Obama Care.

If you take the time and listen to his words and stop with just accepting what people have to say, you just might take a step back and go, yeah this makes sense. What he did was not such a bad thing after all. I hope that you take the time. If you do not, do not bug me because I have taken the time to listen to this, as well as research what he did do as in vetoes. I also know Governors are not kings and there is such thing as due process. Intellectual Honesty is the only real answer.

Crush, Kill....Destroy

Facebook is am interesting place. You will find as they say "all kinds" there. I have had many different types of friends there in the 2 plus years I have been active there.

A lot of my friends have either been fellow Christians or they have been friends in the political realm. I have  cut back to having less than 500 friends on there for diverse reasons. Common sense has a lot to do with it. One thing that has not went out of style over the years is extremism. 20 years ago I was prone to the thoughts of conspiracies. It was the only thing that made sense if you were angry and thought that things had to have this deep dark side to every little thing that you had no control over. Its easier to point this out than to actually do some research and put 2 and 2 together.

Do conspiracies exist? Of course they do. Is everything that we do not understand a conspiracy? Of course not. It is like when things mysteriously happen around your house. Usually there is an explanation for it if you take the time to use a well thought out process of deductions. But, its much easier to come up with a loony concept and makes for interesting discussion.

One name always comes up. The "Illuminati". Who is to say if it exists or if it is as powerful as folklore has it. If it is as entrenched as it is, the question is, what are you really going to do to fend it off? After all, they control the money right? If that is the case then it is very very limited that you can do anything at all. Another name for them is the "Rome Club". Believed to be 12 families ruling the world. The interesting part is, if absolute power corrupts, then how do they get along to carry out their sinister plans? Good question.

The next boogeyman is the Federal Reserve System. I will agree that it is one of the biggest problems facing the United States. I also can agree that it probably is at least somewhat privately owned. It does need to be independently audited.  I do not think that when things become entrenched within the fibers of a Government, that they can just be done away with. It is deeper than that. Should it be done away with? Yes. But I do not see that happening and an independent audit is probably the best that you can hope for. All of this protesting the Federal Reserve existing is not going to get rid of it.

The issue I see within face book that scares me and bothers me the most is the militant approach of a violent approach to overthrowing the government. This thought is not only insane and a misplaced patriotic loyalty; it is impossible. This is not 1900, let alone 1776 when just the weapon factor alone was on an even keel. This is a whole new world. Yes there are some militias out there. These groups are not as big as you may think or as organized as one would like to think.

95% of the people promoting these type revolutions could not even take on a police swat team. Yet they have pictures up on their profiles, showing them brandishing a weapon. As if they are in a position to be able to take on a well trained force such as even a SWAT  team. How about the National Guard? They could not even do that.

When John Wilkes Booth killed Abraham Lincoln, he totally expected to be a national hero. Whether he was or not is always up to debate, depending on how you view what Lincoln was. But in the History books he is painted in a bad way.
The one thing I do know is that if a violent revolt does indeed happen, it will be very fragmented and people that may have good intentions will die. They will have some misguided concept of their own glory. Words such as you can take my gun when you pry my cold dead fingers from it dancing in their heads.

The media will report the uprising in the slanted way that it always does, painting you as a loon that is anti-government, out of control and a domestic terrorist. More than likely, you and anyone by your side will be buried in mass graves to make you out as an example. The military will believe it is serving the best interests of the country as they put you down with their superior numbers and weaponry. But you will at least go down loving those founding fathers and a piece of paper that has been greatly ignored since the Civil War.

Before you do all of this, you had better take a long look at your family and friends because you are going to die. Despite what may happen in a Government, you still have them to think about first. God was still God to the Christians in Communist countries. Are we better than those people because we face the possibility? It is pretty selfish to fight a violent revolt that has no chance, when it has to be fought at the ballot box. Be wise. Do not be foolish.

Flip Flop...what does this mean?

Under the definition people are using today, then we all are flip flippers because we all change our minds on something at some point in our lives. For example Abortion. One question may ensue that asks if you are for or against Abortion. Lets' say that you state that you are totally against abortion.  That is your stance.

Then another question pops up such as, what about in the case of the mothers life is at stake? So you might say, well in that case or rape or incest you might agree with it. That is not a flip flop, but a stance. Changing your mind one time on an issue is not flip flopping. It is simply changing your mind, and in many times based on the whole circumstance of an issue.

Instability is what  we really should be looking at instead of being so quick to call someone a flip flopper. That would mean that someone is going back and forth on issues all the time. In some cases that just is not true at all. Not even close.

So many people with no sustenance whatsoever call Mitt a flip flopper. Based on what? Abortion? He fully changed his mind. Jim DeMint addresses this right here.  Jim goes on to call Mitt the most consistent of all candidates. That is a far cry from flip flopping. That is for sure.
What is it that he has flip flopped on?

Abortion Copays

Another common charge is that Mitt Romney allowed for inexpensive abortion co-pays in his healthcare plan. In truth, the co-pays were forced not by the bill but by court decisions which Romney disagrees with(1). The bill itself calls for privatized insurance(2). The court rulings require state programs to cover abortion.

Some have claimed that the court decisions were not legally binding on Romney, since the decisions were not codified into law. However, this attempted criticism could be applied as easily to Roe v Wade itself, as many states have not codified it into law, yet adhere to it, understanding that even though it could be called a "declaratory opinion" it sets precedent under Stare Decisis. In other words, the actual "judgment" of Roe v Wade was technically only about one plaintiff and one defendant, but the "opinion" is understood to have sweeping ramifications in all similar cases. The argument against Romney, therefore, is mistaken.

Another claim often made is that the term "medically necessary abortions" used in the court decisions only applies to abortions where the life of the mother is in jeopardy. Again, this is incorrect. "Medically necessary" is widely interpreted to mean treatment provided for any non-cosmetic, non-recreational reason. It applies to pain, and therefore applies to any pregnant woman seeking an abortion, since women are naturally pained or expected to become pained physically or psychologically as a result of a pregnancy.

"Morning After" Pills

Also on abortion, they claim Romney forced private hospitals to provide rape victims "morning after" pills. The truth is, Romney vetoed the legislation(3). The legislature overrode Romney's veto(3), after which Romney tried to make an exemption for private hospitals by citing a conscience clause in state law which protects private hospitals.(4)

However, two factors prevented Romney from successfully crafting the exemption: namely, that the legislature has authority to supersede previous laws with new laws, and the clear intent of the legislature was for this bill to supersede any contradictory statutes or provisions - not to work in harmony with the older statute, which Romney would have had to argue disingenuously in court were he to challenge the intended effect of the law. It was in this context that Romney told the Department of Public Health they had to enforce the intent of the law even though he disagreed with it.


Here is how hard he fought for the right for life against a veto proof legislation. Read the whole thing and you will find a man who fought for all the right things in a state that the legislation could over ride his veto's

Waiting Period for Guns

They accuse Romney of changing his position on waiting periods for guns. The fact is, it was a change in technology not position. Romney supports background checks to ensure we aren't selling guns to criminals, a position which stems from conservative "tough on crime" principles. Technology has changed so waiting periods are no longer required for conducting background checks. As Romney told George Stephanopoulos in a 2007 interview, "Today we don't have the Brady bill because we have instantaneous background checks. That's no longer a operative or needed measure."(6)

Tax Burden in Massachusetts

They claim the total tax burden in MA went up under Romney. This falsely implies that Romney raised taxes. In truth, some communities in MA chose to raise property taxes at the local level which Romney had no control over (7).

Some critics claim that Romney's cuts in state spending forced local communities to raise their taxes, but the fact is they were under no obligation to raise taxes. Romney also closed loopholes in existing tax law, allowing the state to collect taxes from those who had been using schemes to reduce income reported on state tax returns (8).

Some critics falsely assert that Romney raised capital gains tax rates. In truth, the tax increase was enacted before Romney was elected governor but took effect during Romney's term after having been tied up in court for several years(9). Critics are unable to point to any tax increases from Romney. Moreover, they fail to note that Romney repeatedly proposed tax cuts, which were shot down by the Democratic MA legislature, starting as soon as he began to turn around the economy, prompting the liberal Boston Globe to complain after Romney's first year in office, "The first signs of life appear in the Massachusetts economy and the governor calls for a $225 million tax cut."(10)

You can find your answers right here regarding the Issues and Mitt Romney

Romney's quest to overcome corruption.

Is the Health Care his? This proves it is not.

Here are Mitts' Pro Life Principles.

James Bopp, Jr., Conservative Attorney - Club for Growth

"Both conviction and courage are necessary for effective pro-life leadership, and Romney, in office, displayed both."

Kris Mineau, of the Massachusetts Family Institute

"On marriage and cloning, he has provided aggressive leadership as a positive, pro-family governor."

Matthew Spalding, of the Heritage Foundation

"In the worst possible circumstances, he confronted one of the toughest issues of our politics with considerable moral seriousness and political skill, that's the mark of a conservative statesman."

Rev. Jeffery L. Brown, Union Baptist Church, MA

"Governor Mitt Romney has left this state in a better place than it was when he came in... Mitt Romney cares, and he is fearless. I know that he is a man of compassion. He is a man of integrity. The kind of character that he has, and the concerns that he has [demonstrate that]. He believes in family. He's always wanted to know what was going on and how he could help."

John J. Miller, National Review Online

"Romney has done his best to defend the culture of life on what is possibly the most inhospitable terrain in the country...a good case can be made that Romney has fought harder for social conservatives than any other governor in America, and it is difficult to imagine his doing so in a more daunting political environment."

Robert Bork, Reagan nominee to the Supreme Court

"No other candidate will do more to advance the conservative judicial movement than Governor Mitt Romney ... I also support Governor Romney because of his character, his integrity and his stands on the major issues facing the United States."

It is time we started dealing in the real facts of things and not all these ignorant, misinformed opinions. Otherwise we do not make good decisions.  Mitt 2012

Irresponsible Conservative Journalists

If you want to find articles that make it us against them, there are many to be found out there. But as I read, double check, there is just as much irresponsibility and laziness among the so called conservative journalists as there is in the liberal mainstream media.

Do you want me to call them liars? Many of them are. Everyone has an agenda. But should that agenda be at the  expense of the truth and at the expense of someones true character and record? The so called Conservative crowd seems to enjoy it when we make fun of Obama. Talk about what he is doing that is either stupid, evil or just plain far off of the mark. I get it. I know he is bad news. I know he is incompetent. But even in all of that we stretch it even a bit and put all these presumptions as exclamation points. Its fun and it burns off the anger a bit.

This years GOP class is as conservative of a group as we have seen in a long time, top to bottom. Yes we have the loon Ron Paul, but he is fiscally conservative. There is great intellect in Romney and Gingrich. Both Conservatives and the only two who balanced budgets in very adverse conditions. Yes Newt Gingrich is a conservative. Every person has their Chinks. If you studied how Romney fought a veto proof legislature and took the time to see what he did fight, you would then know how truly conservative he was. Intellectual honesty.....

Instead of breaking bread together and looking at the circumstances involved in a politicians life and couple that with what they have stood for, their leadership qualities, their ability to not only solve problems, but also choose good people around them and delegate as needed. Instead we look to see if they have the look, and how well they can speak. Are they always electable.

 In my state alone, Rick Scott took on insurmountable odds and in his 5 month campaign ousted Bill McCullom and won the general. He is dong an awesome job. Balancing a budget, influx of jobs, maneuvers to save jobs. He is great. Rick Scott was labeled a criminal, a fraud. You name it. The slander came from all sides. And guess what, with just some simple research would prove that these accusations ranged from outright lies to at best less than a half truth. We have a great Governor. In spite of it all.

Marco Rubio is the next great communicator. The rumors abound that Mitt Romney would take him as a running mate. That would be as good of a combo maybe in United States history. It took a lot for the jr, Senator to even get to this point. He had just finished his run as the House Speaker in the state of Florida. The GOP was all set to hand the GOP spot to Charlie Crist. Marco was down 40 points. The good people spoke out in outrage at having no choice. he did not have the money Rick Scott had to run for Governor. The people prevailed. He was allowed to run. He went from 40 points down to not only winning by 20. Charlie Crist also left the GOP to become Independent and still got toasted.

Many national Political Guru's did not think either could do it. But they did. 

Do some research. Stop listening to journalism and check out facts like voting records etc. Try and understand each candidates reasons instead of ignorantly chanting Rino as easily as others chanted, Hope, Change and Yes we can. Otherwise, you are no more informed than that group was.

Massachusetts Democratic Heath Care...Not Romney Care...care to know the truth?

I came across a blog that was very very well written and explains in detail why the Massachusetts Health Care is absolutely not RomneyCare. Do you wish to continue to put your head in the sand? Or does the truth matter to you? It matters to me.

By Samizdat(Conservative Blogger)

Please Call It MassDemCare, Not RomneyCare

Many people call the current Massachusetts health care plan RomneyCare. The truth is that it really should be called "MassDemCare" for the following reasons:

#1. Romney’s healthcare plan was vastly different BEFORE the Massachusetts Democratic Congress modified and changed Romney’s plan.

The original RomneyCare was but a skeletal form of what is has blossomed into because of legislative tinkering after the fact:

"The legislature made a number of changes to Governor Romney's original proposal, including expanding MassHealth (Medicaid and SCHIP) coverage to low-income children and restoring funding for public health programs. The most controversial change was the addition of a provision which requires firms with 11 or more workers that do not provide "fair and reasonable" health coverage to their workers to pay an annual penalty. This contribution, initially $295 annually per worker, is intended to equalize the free care pool charges imposed on employers who do and do not cover their workers. The legislature also rejected Governor Romney's proposal to permit even higher-deductible, lower benefit health plans.

Source.

Here's how the Democrats altered Romney's original health care plan :

1) At the core of the House plan is the controversial payroll tax, which would be levied on businesses with more than 10 employees if they do not provide insurance to their workers. Romney and Travaglini oppose the tax.

But last night's 129 to 24 House vote on the payroll tax would be enough to overrule a Romney veto, and earlier this week House Speaker Salvatore F. DiMasi suggested that many senators support the idea, despite Travaglini's reservations.

2) House leaders amended the bill so that the salaries of highly paid employees would count only up to $94,200 in calculating overall payroll costs. They also exempted from the calculation employees getting healthcare coverage through their spouses.

Part-time workers would count as full-time employees in calculating the payroll tax, a detail designed to persuade employers to offer them coverage.

3) In addition to pushing employers to cover their workers, the House plan would also require people who can afford health insurance to buy it, provide subsidies to lower-income people to help them pay premiums, and raise the income limits for MassHealth, the state's Medicaid program, so an additional 130,000 people can enroll.

Background source for #1-3 is here.

4) Romney also vetoed provisions providing dental benefits to poor residents on the Medicaid program, and providing health coverage to senior and disabled legal immigrants not eligible for federal Medicaid. The legislature promptly overrode six of the eight gubernatorial section vetoes, on May 4, 2006, and by mid-June 2006 had overridden the remaining two.

Source.

Thus, we can see that Romney fought with the Democrats who controlled both houses in Massachusetts and was unable to win since they were able to override ALL of his eight vetoes.

After unsuccessfully attempting to keep the democrats from modifying his original health care plan, Governor Mitt Romney signed the health legislation on April 12, 2006 

#2 The supposed problems with Romney’s health care program in MA are attributable to the changes made by the new governor, Democrat Deval Patrick.

Not only did the Democrats make changes to Romney's health care plan, but the successor to Mitt Romney, Deval Patrick made additional changes:

With Washington watching, the state’s leaders are again blazing new trails. Both Gov. Deval Patrick, Mr. Romney’s Democratic successor, and a high-level state commission have set out to revamp the way public and private insurers reimburse physicians and hospitals. They want a new payment method that rewards prevention and the effective control of chronic disease, instead of the current system, which pays according to the quantity of care provided. By late spring, the commission is expected to recommend such a system to the legislature.But Mr. Patrick has shown signs of playing tough with the state’s hospitals and insurers. Responding in January to a series in The Boston Globe that exposed how the state’s most influential hospitals negotiate high reimbursement rates, Mr. Patrick announced that he would explore whether the state could regulate insurance premiums.
“Frankly, it’s very hard for the average consumer, or frankly the average governor, to understand how some of these companies can have the margins they do and the annual increases in premiums that they do,” Mr. Patrick said in an interview. “At some level, you’ve just got to say, ‘Look, that’s just not acceptable, and more to the point, it’s not sustainable.’ ”
Source. 

What Massachusetts has now is MassDemCare, not RomneyCare.

Therefore, any criticism of the current state of the Massachusetts health care system should be laid at the feet of the democrats, NOT Romney.

The REAL lesson of MassDemCare is that you don’t let Democrats anywhere near health care reform at the state or federal level. They’ll screw the original plans up.

#3 RomneyCare: The Power of Conservative Princples Even In Liberal States.

Some people think that the distinctions between the Massachusetts health care plan and Obama care are blurring together, but that not is true.

The key distinction between ObamaCare and the underlying principle that Mitt Romney preserved in his health care plan, is that it is the private sector, not the public sector, that provides coverage to the Massachusetts citizens.

Mitt Romney was able to keep the most crucial aspect of his health care plan from being completely corrupted by the Democrats. He made sure that there was minimal government intervention in the Massachusetts health care plan.

Lets be clear: Mitt Romney's plan is not a single payer takeover of government. Scott Brown, the Massachusetts candidate, who is currently running for the late Senator Kennedy's seat explained it this way:

“What we have here is a free-market enterprise where we’re providing insurance on various levels to people in Massachusetts,” Brown said. “The plans in Washington are a one-size-fits-all plan that’s going to cost almost $1 trillion-plus and raise taxes at a time when we don’t need it.”

Source. http://mittromneycentral.com/2010/01/13/scott-brown-defends-his-vote-for-romneycare/

The Massachusetts health reform bill is far from the ideal plan to reform health care, but even with its flaws, it is fairly successful and it works. (For a good rebuttal of typical arguments against Mitt's health care plan, I suggest reading this blog.)

That's what makes Romney's health care plan so amazing.

Despite the fact that Massachusetts democrats have altered, modified and tinkered with his original health care plan, the underlying conservative principal of minimal government intervention can shine through the muck of liberal policies and be successful.

Conservatism is a hardy, rough and strong ideology that can survive even in the most harshest of circumstances if the basic principles are preserved. If those core principles are protected, it will bring positive results into the individual lives of each citizen regardless of what liberal additions or alterations are made on top of it.

That's the important lesson that every Conservative or Republican should learn from the story of RomneyCare: The basic and successful principles of conservatism cannot be suppressed by liberal policies.

That is what Mitt Romney is about. He has demonstrated that the essential core conservative principles are worth fighting for. He has demonstrated that the basic conservative ideas work even when its implemented even in a liberal state like Massachusetts.

UPDATE (2.9.10): A recent poll shows that the people of Massachusetts actually like Romney's health care plan:

A poll conducted this week by The Washington Post of 880 Massachusetts residents who said they voted in the special election found that 68 percent support the Massachusetts plan. Even among Brown voters, slightly more than half backed the 2006 law. (Source.)

Original Blog Spot

Be Relevant Tea Party

I can remember going to a Tea Party event in Orlando a few years ago. There were people from all ranges in the spectrum. The Paulbots, the end of Days people, the New World Order group. It was pretty diverse. Many had their signs etc. In a way it reminded me of a hippie peace march of the 60's. The speeches were like preaching to the choir more than anything. The sad part is that some wanted to make it a political party in itself and that is a huge mistake.

One of the biggest issues, and it gave us John McCain; is the winner take all states. John McCain would never have won the primary last time if it were not for the winner take all states in the GOP Primary. If the Tea Party wishes to do something that will help, this should be their first push against the GOP. Change that. GET RID OF WINNER TAKE ALL STATES!!!

I also noticed that there were many copies of the Constitution being passed out. Yes this is a good thing to read the Social Contract between the states. It is good to know what the groundwork is for the United States. But this is only a start. There is a much much bigger issue at hand. Common sense and the ability to understand governmental proceedings seems to be greatly lacking in the Tea Party. The Tea Party throws around the word Rino as much as Ron Paul supporters seem to wish to call anyone that points out one of the many Ron Paul deficiencies a Neocon. Neocon is short for, I do not know how to debate you, but I know my man is right. Geez...did he really do that? So they say Neocon.

Michael Reagan said it best. he said that in today's world and the attitude of groups such as the Tea Party, that his father would never win a primary. What could he mean by this? The Statuesque position he holds as the Beacon of Conservationism is rightfully his. But his record is in no way perfect. He was beat up by a liberal legislature as a Governor and lost a few battles against a democratic house and senate as President. He was once a pro-choice man and helped get one of our most liberal Presidents, FDR elected. In today's crowd the Tea Party would crucify him on talk show radio as well as message boards and the internet. Its just the truth.

Ronald Reagans best asset was his leadership. Which also can be a thorn if you do not know how to defuse situations and teach people in non threatening way. When people do this today, they are called a Rino by the Tea Party.
   All of the GOP Candidates that took place in the New Hampshire debate are conservatives. There are no Rinos there in that group. Now, there are proven leaders in that group as well as some with minimal leadership skills. But there are no Rino's.

The Tea Party is more into propaganda being put out there as bait, than they are into looking realistically into each candidates credential in a truthful way. Unless they get a handle on this and make it about who has done the best job in the past while considering the circumstances and who has the best ideas, then the wheels are being spun in the proverbial mud pit of life. 

   You have people stating that if the Tea party Candidate is not chosen then hey, lets start our own party. Or they say they will not vote. Either of these choices is a vote for Obama and he is counting on this type of ignorance out of Conservatives.

Spending & Tax Record as Governor Romney

             FISCAL DISCIPLINE IN MASSACHUSETTS

FACT: Governor Romney Closed A Nearly $3 Billion Budget Gap Without Raising Taxes.

Governor Romney Closed The Nearly $3 Billion Shortfall Without Tax Increases. "When Mitt Romney became governor of Massachusetts in 2003, the state had a budget gap of almost $3 billion and was losing thousands of jobs a month. In Mr. Romney's four-year tenure, the deficit was eliminated without raising the sales tax or the income tax, and since the labor slump hit bottom in December 2003, the state has gained 81,000 jobs." (Pam Belluck, "Romney Candidacy Puts Massachusetts Economy In Spotlight," The New York Times, 3/16/07)

Club For Growth: Governor Romney "Imposed Much-Needed Fiscal Discipline On A Very Liberal Massachusetts Legislature." (The Club For Growth, "Mitt Romney's Record On Economic Issues," Press Release, 8/21/07)

• To Close The Budget Gap, Governor Romney Forced The Legislature To Pass "Tremendous Spending Cuts." "Governor Romney receives credit for actual spending in FY 2003, even though he entered office halfway into the fiscal year, because of the tremendous spending cuts he forced down the Legislature's throat in January of 2003. Facing a $650 million deficit he inherited from the previous administration, Romney convinced the unfriendly State Legislature to grant him unilateral power to make budget cuts and unveiled $343 million in cuts to cities, healthcare, and state agencies. This fiscal discipline continued in 2004, in which Romney continued to slash 'nearly every part of state government' to close a $3 billion deficit." (The Club For Growth, "Mitt Romney's Record On Economic Issues," Press Release, 8/21/07)
• Governor Romney Beat Back "Big-Tax Proposals" And Chose Instead "To Erase Deficits By Hacking Away At Spending." "What attracted many of these economists to the Romney team was the former governor's success, in a liberal state, of beating back big-tax proposals and instead choosing to erase deficits by hacking away at spending." (Kimberley A. Strassel, Op-Ed, "Tax Talk," The Wall Street Journal, 3/30/07)


Fees Only Accounted For A Small Percent Of The Closure Of The Nearly $3 Billion Budget Gap. "Romney campaign spokesman Eric Fehrnstrom said some of the fees that kicked in during Romney's first year had been approved before he became governor. … 'When Governor Romney took office, he faced a $3 billion deficit,' Fehrnstrom said. 'He balanced the budget primarily through spending cuts and reforms. Fee increases accounted for approximately 10 percent of the solution, and they were not broad-based by any means.'" (Steve LeBlanc, "Romney Oversaw Millions In Fee Hikes As Massachusetts Governor," The Associated Press, 8/28/07)


Massachusetts Citizens For Limited Taxation Executive Director Barbara Anderson Gives Governor Romney's Fiscal Record High Marks. "Barbara Anderson of the anti-tax group Citizens for Limited Taxation gave Romney higher marks. 'To us a fee is what a fee is and a tax is what a tax is,' she said. 'His support for the income tax rollback never wavered.'" (Steve LeBlanc, "Romney Oversaw Millions In Fee Hikes As Massachusetts Governor," The Associated Press, 8/28/07)

FACT: Governor Romney "Vetoed Hundreds Of Millions Of Dollars In Spending."

In The Four Budgets He Signed, Governor Romney Used The Line-Item Veto Or Program Reduction Power In An Attempt To Cut Spending By Nearly $1 Billion. (Office Of Governor Mitt Romney, "Romney Signs No New Tax Budget In Time For New Fiscal Year," Press Release, 6/30/03;

Office Of Governor Mitt Romney, "Governor Mitt Romney Signs
$22.402B Fiscal Year 2005 'No New Tax' Budget," Press Release, 6/25/04;

Office Of Governor Mitt Romney, "Governor Mitt Romney Signs Into Law $23.8 Billion Budget For Fiscal Year '06," Press Release, 6/30/05; Office Of Governor Mitt Romney, "Governor Mitt Romney Signs $25.2 Billion Fiscal Year 2007 State Budget," Press Release, 7/8/06)

• For All Four Of The Fiscal-Year Budgets That Crossed His Desk, Governor Romney Used The Line-Item Veto Power More Than 800 Times. Over the course of four budgets, Governor Romney made over 300 line-item reductions, 350 line-item eliminations and struck language 150 times. (Chapter 26 Of The Commonwealth Of Massachusetts Acts Of 2003

, Governor's Veto Message, 6/30/03; Chapter 149 Of The Commonwealth Of Massachusetts Acts Of 2004, Governor's Veto Message, 6/25/04; Chapter 45 Of The Commonwealth Of Massachusetts Acts Of 2005, Governor's Veto Message, 6/30/05;

Governor Mitt Romney, Memo To The Senate And House Of Representatives Of The Commonwealth Of Massachusetts; Fiscal Year 2007 General Appropriations Act Veto Items: Line Item Accounts, 7/8/06)

• Beacon Hill Institute Executive Director David Terck: "He Vetoed Hundreds Of Millions Of Dollars In Spending." WALL STREET JOURNAL'S PAUL GIGOT: "One of the criticisms of President Bush is that's he's been unwilling to use his veto pen to reign in spending.

Was Governor Romney willing to use his veto pen to do that in Massachusetts?" BEACON HILL INSTITUTE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR DAVID TERCK: "He most certainly was. He vetoed hundreds of millions of dollars in spending." (Fox News' "Journal Editorial Report," 3/31/07)

FACT: Governor Romney Has A Record Of Fighting For Lower Taxes In Massachusetts.

INCOME TAX CUT: Governor Romney Fought To Cut The Income Tax Rate In Massachusetts From 5.3% To 5%. (Scott Greenberger, "Tax Revenue Slowdown In Forecast," The Boston Globe, 12/13/05)

CAPITAL GAINS TAXES: Governor Romney Turned The Legislature's $250 Million Retroactive Capital Gains Tax Increase Into A $250 Million Tax Refund. (Governor Mitt Romney, Remarks At The Conservative Political Action Conference, Washington, D.C., 3/2/07)

INVESTMENT TAX CREDIT: In November 2003, Governor Romney Signed An Economic Stimulus Package Making The Investment Tax Credit (ITC) Permanent. (Office Of The Governor, "Romney Signs Economic Stimulus, Supplemental Budget Bills," Press Release, 11/26/03)

PROPERTY TAX RELIEF: Governor Romney Proposed And Signed Legislation Providing Property Tax Relief To Senior Citizens, Enabling Them To Keep Their Homes. (Governor Mitt Romney, "Romney Signs Bill To Give Seniors Tax Relief," Press Release, 11/20/05)

SALES TAX HOLIDAYS: Governor Romney Extended Sales Tax Holidays. (Michael Levenson, "Governor Drums Up Business For State's Tax-Free Weekend," The Boston Globe 8/12/05)

The Truth about Mandates

   The Truth about Mandates

 A Lesson is History, Principles and the difference  between Romney and Obama

Critics have characterized Mitt Romney's health care plan as an affront to liberty. However, the new-age version of liberty pushed by Romney’s critics contradicts the concept of liberty pioneered by the founding fathers. Romney's plan adheres to those principles of liberty upon which our nation was founded. In this treatment we will discuss early precedent in Massachusetts set by John Hancock, and especially by Samuel Adams who instituted in Massachusetts what can be considered the first mandated insurance-type program in the United States. As for Romney's mandate, critics judge it in a vacuum, evidently nescient regarding the fact that Romney's mandate largely replaced a federal mandate in effect which states that everyone may receive emergency treatment. Most plans proposed by Romney's critics leave intact this federal mandate, which takes power from states and creates a "right" to medical treatment, thus imposing a liability for state residents. Romney replaced that mandate with a mandate which encourages personal responsibility. So, to reiterate, Romney didn't create a mandate out of a void; he replaced one mandate with another, with his state mandate being a response to costly liabilities created by a federal mandate.

John Hancock, the first and boldest signer of the Declaration of Independence, was elected the first governor of Massachusetts, with over 90% of the vote (1). As governor, Hancock more than once mandated that all men, with few exceptions such as those over the age of 45 (the average life expectancy was less than 50 years), be counted as comprising a "militia" and furnish themselves with a number of goods at their own expense, mandates remaining in effect both in times of peace and war. Ultimately, Hancock signed into law on June 22, 1793 an act repealing and combining/revising his previous acts. This act of 1793 read in part:

"...each and every free, able bodied white male citizen of this or any other of the United States residing within this Commonwealth who is, or shall be of the age of eighteen years & under the age of forty five years (except as is herein after excepted) shall severally and respectively be subject to the requisitions of this act, and shall be enrolled in the militia ... every Non- Commissioned Officer & private of the Infantry shall constantly keep himself provided with a good Musquet, with an iron or steel rod; a sufficient bayonet & belt,—two spare flints, a priming wire & brush & a knapsack;— a cartridge box or pouch with a box therein to contain not less than twenty four cartridges suited to the bore of his Musquet ; — each cartridge to contain a proper quantity of powder & ball, or with a good rifle, knapsack, shott-pouch, powder horn, twenty balls suited to the bore of his rifle, & a quarter of a pound of Powder ... every non-commissioned Officer or private of the Infantry who shall neglect to keep himself armed and equipped as aforesaid, or who shall on a Muster day, or at any other time of examination, be destitute of, or appear unprovided with, the Arms and Equipments herein directed (except as before excepted) shall pay a fine not exceeding twenty shillings in proportion to the Articles of which he shall be deficient, at the discretion of the Justice of the Peace before whom trial shall be had(2).

John Hancock's first militia act, signed during a time of war, March 3, 1781, contained similar mandates:

"That that Part of the Militia of this Commonwealth commonly called the Training-Band, shall be constituted of all the able bodied Male Persons therein, from Sixteen years old to Fifty ... each and every Officer and private Soldier of said Militia, not under the Control of Parents, Masters or Guardians, and being of sufficient Ability therefor, in the Judgment of the Selectmen of the Town wherein he has his usual Place of Abode, shall equip himself, and be constantly provided with a good Fire-Arm, with a Steel or Iron Ramrod, and a Spring to retain the same, a Worm, Priming-Wire and Brush, and a Bayonet fitted to his Gun, a Scabbard and Belt here for, a Cartridge-Box that will hold Fifteen Rounds of Cartridges at least. Six Flints, one Pound of Powder, Forty Leaden Balls fitted to his Gun, a Haversack and Blanket, a Canteen sufficient to hold one Quart. And if any Officer or private Soldier shall neglect to arm and equip himself as aforesaid, for the Space of Sixty Days after Publication of this Act, he shall forfeit and pay a Fine of Five Pounds; to be recovered by Action of Debt in any Court proper to try the same, by the Clerk of the Company to which the Delinquent belongs...."(3)

Each of these acts also afforded for the truly indigent to receive some measure of aid in acquiring the mandated goods, but those who could afford to furnish themselves with the goods and failed to do so were fined.

Hancock’s Massachusetts mandates were soon copied by other states, ultimately inspiring a similar federal militia mandate enacted under President George Washington(4).

Some parallel could be made between Hancock's state mandate being copied by Washington at the federal level and Barack Obama's claim that he copied Romney's state mandate at the federal level. However, the big difference between these two scenarios is that Washington copied Hancock's mandate using specific constitutional authority granted by the militia clause which had freshly been crafted as part of the constitution itself (article 1, Sec. 8, clause 15-16). This federal mandate is an exception to federal power. Because, generally speaking, the federal government has no constitutional authority to require citizens to purchase goods or services. The constitutional authority to impose federal mandates while regulating militia is one of few exceptions provided in the constitution. The constitution does not similarly limit states but leaves them free to impose a variety of mandates.

In addition to regulating militia, the U.S. constitution grants the federal government authority to regulate certain types of commerce (article 1, Sec. 8, clause 3). As it had done with their militia authority, the federal government under the founding fathers used its new commerce authority to federally mandate within that narrow scope that citizens purchase goods and/or services.

The commerce clause enabled the federal government to act in some respects like a state on questions relating to navigable waters which states have no jurisdiction over. And when given that chance to act like a state, the founders used that "state-like" power to create a health care mandate. Thus, the early federal government set a form of precedent, or special legitimacy, for states to enact health care mandates.

In the federal act in question which regulates health care in the case of commerce, "An act for the government and regulation of seamen in the merchants' service" (July 20, 1790), the founders mandated that:

"every ship or vessel, belonging to a citizen or citizens of the United States, of the burthen of one hundred and fifty tons or upwards, navigated by ten or more persons in the whole, and bound on a voyage without the limits of the United States, shall be provided with a chest of medicines, put up by some apothecary of known reputation, and accompanied by directions for administering the same; and the said medicines shall be examined by the same or some other apothecary, once, at least, in every year, and supplied with fresh medicines in the place of such as shall have been used or spoiled; and in default of having such medicine chest so provided, and kept fit for use, the master or commander of such ship or vessel shall provide and pay for all such advice, medicine, or attendance of physicians, as any of the crew shall stand in need of in case of sickness, at every port or place where the ship or vessel may touch or trade at during the voyage, without any deduction from the wages of such sick seaman or mariner."

This mandate to purchase health care goods falls within that limited scope of the commerce clause, and as such only constitutes a precedent for future state action, not federal action (outside navigable waters).

On the commerce clause, James Madison implied such a narrow scope: "If the new Constitution be examined with accuracy, it will be found that the change which it proposes consists much less in the addition of NEW POWERS to the Union, than in the invigoration of its ORIGINAL POWERS. The regulation of commerce, it is true, is a new power; but that seems to be an addition which few oppose, and from which no apprehensions are entertained."(5)

Some might believe these mandates imposed by the founding fathers were an affront to liberty. The opposite is true. Liberty is not free. Individual liberty within a society comes from the strength of the society. The interests of that society, therefore, are a responsibility of each citizen. The question is whether the sacrifices required to secure liberty are to be properly determined at a state level or a federal level. The U.S. constitution answers this question, in affirmative to the states, by limiting the powers of the federal government but not the powers of the states, and declaring itself thus as ordained to "secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity."

Like the founding fathers, Ronald Reagan supported the right of states to exercise wide discretion with respect to how they govern themselves. As Reagan explained, "The nature of our constitutional system encourages a healthy diversity in the public policies adopted by the people of the several States according to their own conditions, needs, and desires. In the search for enlightened public policy, individual States and communities are free to experiment with a variety of approaches to public issues." (October 26, 1987) (6).

200 years earlier, James Madison explained the same concept,”The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite.” (January 26, 1788) (5).200 years from now, our descendants will continue to reiterate this concept, if we continue to teach and preserve it and elect officials who understand the difference between state and federal mandates.

The founders enabled states to serve as "laboratories of democracy,"(7) where citizens are free to experiment and to decide in which states they reside and/or conduct their business. In this way, states compete with each other using principles of free market capitalism, and yet also are free to adopt the ideas that work in other states and learn from their errors, creating a win/win situation prompting each other to success. Federal government intervention disrupts the process, as it eliminates experimentation and trial and error, taking away from citizens the freedom to choose different approaches and to disagree with people in neighboring states.

States keep each other in check through competition, but the Federal government has no one to keep it in check except its own branches, which highlights the importance of electing people to office who understand and defend the constitution.

For this same reason, perhaps the single most destructive consequence of applying a mandate at the federal level is that it takes away our ability to measure the effectiveness of the mandate. To put this in terms of science, it removes the controls. For instance, if conditions worsen after a federal mandate goes into effect, the federal government can claim conditions would have been even worse without the mandate. The federal government gets away with this because there are no controls to prove otherwise. However, if conditions improve after a federal mandate goes into effect, the federal government attributes the improvement to the mandate. In contrast, when an individual state implements a mandate it can compare its progress with national trends across the other states. If conditions worsen, the state can ask how conditions have fared compared with other states. If conditions improve, the state can do the same thing.

In the case of Massachusetts health care, Romney's approach continues to be popular in the state, as it has always been, and has proven effective even with the costly provisions Romney vetoed which the legislature overrode, and even with the costly changes enacted after Romney left. 75% of Massachusetts residents are satisfied with it, and that fact alone should tell residents of other states to mind their own affairs.

The founders understood the importance of states’ rights, but none understood that importance more than the famed champion of states’ rights, Samuel Adams, signer of the Declaration of Independence and successor to John Hancock as governor of Massachusetts.

As governor of Massachusetts, Samuel Adams practiced his unsurpassed understanding of states’ rights, a concept he personally crafted. Adams signed into law what could be considered the first Massachusetts insurance mandate: a program requiring residents of each town in the state to create pools of funds to be dispensed for the care of any resident of the town who should happen to fall into pauper status(8). This is not to be confused with vagrancy. Most residents at the time had some risk of becoming paupers if circumstances beyond their control, such as health, kept them from performing labors for an extended period of time. By contributing their share to Paupercare, residents helped insure against risks to their own future safety, should unfortunate circumstances arise.

Critics might try to claim that Samuel Adams' mandate was merely a tax. However, these were not general funds but special pools of money collected and set aside for this purpose, like an insurance plan. The primary difference in structure between Paupercare and Romneycare is that Romney used private insurance, whereas Samuel Adams mandated that public towns function as insurance bodies. Arguably, this makes Romney's plan more conservative.

And so there can be no mistake, Paupercare included an individual mandate for family members to assume responsibility, followed by the larger community, as directed by community overseers:

"Be it further enacted, that said Overseers shall have the care and oversight of all such poor and indigent persons so settled in their respective Towns and Districts; and shall see that they are suitably relieved, supported and employed either in the workhouse, or other tenements belonging to such Towns or Districts or in such other way and manner, as they, at any legal meeting shall direct, or otherwise at the discretion of said Overseers, at the cost of such Town or District. Provided always and be it further enacted, that the kindred of any such poor person, if any he shall have, in the line or degree, of Father or Grandfather, Mother or Grandmother, Children or Grand children, by consanguinity living within this Commonwealth, of sufficient ability, shall be holden to support such Pauper, in proportion to such ability.... And be it further Enacted, that said Overseers shall also relieve and support, and in case of their decease, decently bury all poor persons residing or found in their towns or districts, having no lawful settlements within this Commonwealth, when they stand in need; and may employ them as other paupers may be; the expense whereof may be recovered of their relations, if they have any, chargeable by law for their support, in manner herein before pointed out ... And every town and district shall be holden to pay any expense which shall be necessarily incurred for the relief of any pauper, by any inhabitant not liable by law for his or her support ... if any person shall bring and leave any poor & indigent person in any town or district in this Commonwealth, wherein such pauper is not lawfully settled, knowing him to be poor & indigent, he shall forfeit and pay the sum of twenty pounds, for every such offense ... And be it further Enacted, that it shall also be the duty of said Overseers, in their respective towns or districts, to provide for the immediate comfort and relief of all persons residing, or found therein, not belonging thereto, but having lawful settlements in other towns or districts, when they fall into distress, and stand in need of immediate relief, & until they shall be removed to the places of their lawful settlements..."

Each town was given wide discretion in deciding how to raise the necessary pool of funds, determined by a vote of the town people. They were also to, "at their annual meetings," choose the overseers. Additionally, the act authorized the court of common pleas of each county to hear complaints filed by towns and/or kindred who were struggling with their ability to carry out the mandate, and to provide relief on a per-case basis in the form of weekly sums "as they shall judge sufficient for the support of such Pauper."

By the standard of some self-proclaimed patriots, with limited knowledge of U.S. history, Paupercare infringed on the liberty of residents who were mandated to pay premiums as decided by each town, and particularly unfair to the kin who were mandated to provide personal aid to paupers. However, the Massachusetts constitution, Part 1, Article 10, as penned by John Adams, tells a different story:

"Each individual of the society HAS A RIGHT TO BE PROTECTED by it in the enjoyment of his life, liberty and property, according to standing laws. HE IS OBLIGED, CONSEQUENTLY, TO CONTRIBUTE HIS SHARE TO THE EXPENSE OF THIS PROTECTION; TO GIVE HIS PERSONAL SERVICE, OR AN EQUIVALENT, WHEN NECESSARY; but no part of the property of any individual, can, with justice, be taken from him or applied to the public uses without his own consent, OR THAT OF THE REPRESENTATIVE BODY OF THE PEOPLE. In fine, the people of this Commonwealth are not controllable by any other laws, than those to which their constitutional representative body have given their consent..." (CONSTITUTION OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS, Part 1, Article 10, emphasis added)

It is the right, therefore, of every individual residing in Massachusetts to be protected by it in whatsoever fashion as is decided by the people through their representative body. This included “Paupercare,” and likewise includes "Romneycare."

Those who are not willing to abide the precepts of the Massachusetts constitution are free to reside in a different state. They are not free however to abdicate personal responsibility for knowing the constitutional expectations associated with their choice to reside in the state of Massachusetts.

Neither “Paupercare” nor “Romneycare” is a hand-out or a bail-out, but a plan to restore residents to full working order where they can once again contribute their own share as productive members of society. Thus aiding a strong society and helping preserve liberty.


Some have questioned why Mitt Romney, when faced with the Massachusetts health care crisis, implemented mandates. What they do not realize is that the choice Romney faced was between mandates and bailouts. Put another way, the choice was between personal accountability and hand-outs. Massachusetts had the highest health care costs in the nation, and Romney had to act. After consulting with the Heritage Foundation and other conservative groups, and in concert with the legislature, which overwhelmingly agreed with Governor Romney, and also with the people, who also overwhelmingly agreed, Romney called upon all residents to "contribute their share" to the solution - as residents are obliged under the constitution to do. Together, they ended the medical bailouts which had caused so much chaos.

Romney understood that in the liberal state of Massachusetts the legislature he had to work with might add provisions he objected to - and they did. He also understood that future elected officials might add risky features to the plan - and they have. But he understood that as long as the federal government stayed out of the matter, aside from continuing to provide standard (non-“stimulus”) aid to each state (which Massachusetts incorporates into its health care plan, and other states continue to use for hospital bailouts), Massachusetts state law would be kept in check by the capitalist forces imposed by other states, thereby narrowing unwise expansion and forcing a pruning of provisions which fail. However, the enemy of states' rights, federal intervention, threatens setbacks.


Obama's unsustainable policies have used borrowed money to bail out states even though they continue failed policies, thereby artificially suspending capitalist forces between states. Massachusetts liberals have changed Romney's health care plan, and although the plan has still been effective, only time will tell if their changes will be sustainable. Possibly the worst thing that could happen is for the federal government to continue bailing out states instead of allowing capitalist pressure to force states to restructure their policies. In the case of Massachusetts, this would mean a return to Romney's original health care plan, ideally including a repeal of the provisions which Romney vetoed but which the legislature overrode. Romney structured his original plan to ensure no increased costs to the state. Romney reorganized and streamlined the state medical budget to work with citizens toward acquiring private insurance policies, successfully insuring virtually every citizen.

---

(1) Fowler, Baron of Beacon Hill, 243-44.

(2) ACTS AND LAWS, PASSED BY THE GENERAL COURT OF MASSACHUSETTS: 1793, Chapter 14.

(3) ACTS AND LAWS, PASSED BY THE GENERAL COURT OF MASSACHUSETTS: 1780, Chapter 21.

(4) The Militia Act of 1792, Passed May 8, 1792, (providing federal standards for the organization of the Militia).

(5) Federalist, No. 45.

(6) Executive Order 12612 -- Federalism October 26, 1987.

(7) Supreme Court Justice Louis D. Brandeis, Dissenting Opinion: New State Ice Co. v. Liebmann, 1932.

(8) Acts and Laws, Passed By The General Court Of Massachusetts, 1793, Chapter 59, "An Act Providing For The Relief And Support, Employment And Removal Of The Poor, And For Repealing All Former Laws Made For Those Purposes”. 

The Article

Has anyone Governed with morality and conviction anymore

Does anyone believe in the right way versus the wrong way anymore? Are they willing to place themselves up against even possibly insurmountable odds and take it to the limit as a Governor to do what in their heart is right and best?

It takes a lot of courage and leadership to go against the grain especially when you know from the get go that you face a legislative body that is 85% liberal and will fight you to the wall on issues that you feel very strongly about. I have posted quotes from people who head up pro-family organizations about how hard Mitt Romney worked for the conservative values of the family. Now i wish to back it up with what he did in office.

Do you want to continue in an opinion? One in which you either blindly support Mitt Romney, or blindly say bad things? Or are you intellectually honest and want to know what he did as a Governor against a 85% Liberal Majority, veto-proof legislature. If you want to know what happened ..then read on. He was a warrior for Conservative values and here is what he did:

SUMMARY OF ABORTION ISSUES PLATFORM:

Governor Romney is pro-life, and like Ronald Reagan, once supported abortion rights.¹ However, unlike Ronald Reagan, who signed an abortion law while governor that caused abortions in his state to sky-rocket ², Mitt Romney has a consistent pro-life record as governor. As Ronald Reagan's son, well known conservative pundit Michael Reagan, has said, "Romney's record shows he should be totally acceptable to all conservatives".³ Following is Governor Romney's record on abortion related issues, and a history of his views.

Platform (1 minute)

PRO-LIFE RECORD AS GOVERNOR:

"Following is Governor Mitt Romney's message informing the Legislature that he vetoed the emergency contraception bill. "To the Honorable Senate and House of Representatives: "... To those who believe that life begins at conception, the morning-after pill can destroy the human life that was created at the moment of fertilization. "Furthermore, this legislation would make the morning-after pill available to young girls without any restrictions on age... this bill undermines the state's parental consent laws and represents a departure from the public consensus that minor children should not act without parental involvement in these matters." Boston Globe - A letter to legislators on the veto (July 26, 2005) "Romney announced that he would oppose any legislation that would allow for the creation of new human embryos for scientific experiments... "emotional framing of the [embryonic-stem-cell-research] debate is disingenuous for a few reasons, the first being that the governor has presented a compromise position: In a non-ideal (from the pro-life vantage point) but pragmatic compromise move, Romney has decided to support experimentation on surplus frozen embryos from in-vitro fertilization procedures. But proponents of embryonic-stem-cell research refuse to meet him there. They want it all. "As Romney put it in a press conference on Thursday, ''All of the rhetoric has been, 'We are throwing away embryos - surplus embryos - that could be used for stem-cell research and that makes no sense.'... And now, now that I've said, 'Ok, I support that,' now [the other side says], 'No, that's insufficient. How could you possibly limit it to that?' Well, that's what they've been asking for.'' "In other words, Romney has called their bluff... "Romney has started out of the gates playing it straight. ''I am in favor of stem-cell research. I am not in favor of creating new human embryos through cloning,'' he told the press on Thursday. Whether honesty will be enough to get him a coalition that will support a ban on cloning or sustain a veto of the Harvard wish list remains to be seen. The implications of failure, however, are crystal clear." National Review - Romney vs. Harvard (Feb. 11, 2005)

Glenn and Helen Show - Jan 10, 2007 Romney reviews abortion record the week he left office  (1 minute) Romney  2008 Mitt Romney's Record on Abortion Gives judicial criteria, states record What he will fight for (is in favor of)

"The state Department of Public Health has determined that Catholic and other privately-run hospitals in Massachusetts can opt out of giving the morning-after pill to rape victims because of religious or moral objections, despite a new law that requires all hospitals who treat such victims to provide them with emergency contraception. "The new law, which was passed overwhelmingly by the Legislature this summer over the objections of Governor Mitt Romney, takes effect next week..."  ''We're very disappointed that the Romney administration is not honoring the intent of the Legislature, who voted overwhelmingly to protect the health of rape victims," said Melissa Kogut, executive director of NARAL Pro-Choice Massachusetts... "The Department of Public Health decision is welcome news for Catholic hospitals who do not provide emergency contraception and feared that the new law would make them do so. (In 2004, NARAL surveyed the 71 hospitals in Massachusetts with emergency rooms and found that one in six did not offer emergency contraception to rape victims. Among the nine Catholic hospitals included in the survey, NARAL found that six did not offer it.) "Judy Mackey, a spokeswoman for Saint Vincent Hospital in Worcester, which does not offer the morning-after pill, said it would have been difficult for the hospital to navigate between state law and Catholic tenets." Boston Globe - Private hospitals exempt on pill law (Dec 7, 2005) “Governor Mitt Romney said yesterday that he will reject the Legislature's bill supporting stem cell research, urging lawmakers to rewrite the measure to prohibit scientists from cloning and to remove a passage that redefines when life begins. “Romney had said previously that he planned to veto the bill, but for now he has decided to return the measure to the Legislature with four amendments... “The move is the latest twist in a battle between Romney and the Legislature over the future of stem cell research in the state. The governor has echoed the hopes of many that stem cell research may one day find treatments for diseases, and he shares the conviction that the research is important to the state, with its heavy concentration of scientists and the biotechnology industry. But the governor has split with a large majority in the Legislature over cloning human cells, something Harvard scientists are planning to do. “Although the Legislature passed the measure by a veto-proof margin, the amendments keep the issue alive and shine a light on what the governor believes are other flaws in the bill, particularly its assertion that life does not begin until an embryo is implanted in a uterus... “In a letter outlining his position, to be delivered to lawmakers today, the governor said the bill would change a 1974 law defining an unborn child as ''the individual human life in existence and developing from fertilization until birth." “In the letter, the governor calls this ''a matter of profound moral and ethical consequence," adding that it ''implicates a much broader array of issues than the relatively discrete question of whether stem cell research should be permitted." ” Boston Globe - Romney urges changes to stem cell bill, Adds amendment to prohibit cloning - May 12, 2005 “Mitt Romney can probably hear his echo when he gathers those who are standing with him on this fight, but that's not stopping him from trying. Instead of an outright veto, on Thursday morning Romney sent back to the statehouse his edits on a bill that would legalize embryonic-stem-cell research and cloning in Massaschusetts. That the bill greenlights experimentation on human embryos — and allows for their creation for this purpose — is devastating enough. But where the legislation gets even worse is in the finer print, where the legislature seeks to change the state's definition of human life. “Since 1974, an "unborn child" in Massachusetts has been "the individual human life in existence and developing from fertilization until birth." Barring a Romney victory on this point, the legislature is poised to change the law to define human life as beginning at the "implantation of the embryo in the uterus." In a letter sent to the legislature this morning, Romney calls this statutory change "completely unnecessary." ... “For legislators who reluctantly signed onto the "therapeutic" cloning go-ahead, influenced by the emotional testimony on its behalf calling the legislation a panacea ("It's about saving lives and helping children."), that's an uncomfortable position — changing the definition of life, on top of everything else. So Romney, sending the bill back now, is giving them another chance to do a little clean-up. “Romney's protests against the bill — in the form of four proposed amendments — otherwise represent his consistent opposition to the cloning efforts in Massachusetts. For instance, in a guaranteed no-go amendment, Romney proposes to ban cloning, striking too much at the heart of the bill to have any mileage, unfortunately. But you can't blame the man for trying. His two other amendments would hold back prospects for “human embryo farming” by prohibiting embryos from being fertilized for research purposes, and limit the compensation women would get from "donating" eggs for research in an attempt to avoid exploitation (women’s selling their eggs as a viable income source)... “To anyone whose been watching the debate, however, Romney has proven to be one of the more clear-thinking and honest pols on this heated topic: Even if his position hasn't been ideal, he has made a valiant effort and shed some light on the opposition's endgame. “Especially for those concerned with the advancement of a cause — protecting the dignity of human life — Romney's actions deserve to be looked at outside of the 2008 periscope occasionally. Romney has engaged himself in taking on human cloning. And though the battle's all but lost in the Bay State at this point, legislatively, pro-lifers who also happen to be cynics or are otherwise ticked off at Romney (for legitimate reasons in some cases, such as his position on frozen embryos or his past remarks on abortion), should consider that he is currently fighting an uphill battle while basically carrying their banner. And he is doing so articulately, with a national audience paying attention (which on stem-cells and cloning, are no small things).” National Review - The Meaning of Life - May 12, 2005 "Besides Romney’s veto of the “emergency contraception bill”, Sturgis said he fought well against embryonic stem-cell research/human cloning, and had tried to veto the legislature’s bill, offering amendments that among other things would have protected the definition of life as beginning at conception." “I certainly could not have written the amendments better than that myself.” (Marie Sturgis, executive director of Massachusetts Citizens for Life) Life Site News - The Romney Report - May 7, 2007 “BOSTON, May 11 - Hoping to make a recently passed bill on stem cell research more restrictive, Gov. Mitt Romney said Wednesday that he would ask the legislature to amend the bill by changing the definition of when life begins and by excluding a type of embryonic stem cell research that he opposes. “The governor said in an interview that rather than veto the bill immediately, he would ask the legislature on Thursday to adopt four amendments. The legislature approved the bill overwhelmingly, by votes of 119 to 38 in the House and 34 to 2 in the Senate, enough to override a veto. “One of Mr. Romney's amendments, seeking to ban the creation of embryos specifically for research, is an argument that he has been making for months... “The other three are new proposals. One would undo the legislature's definition of when life begins... “"To change the definition of when life begins is a very significant moral and ethical change," Mr. Romney said... “Another proposal involves tightening what the governor says is a loophole in the bill's language.” New York Times - New Limits Are Proposed for Research on Stem Cells - May 12, 2005 "Gov. Mitt Romney vetoed a bill Friday that would expand embryonic stem cell research in Massachusetts, but the measure has more than enough support in the Legislature to override the governor's veto. "Romney supports research using adult stem cells or leftover frozen embryos from fertility clinics. But he opposes the legislation because it would also allow therapeutic cloning, in which scientists create a cloned embryo to harvest stem cells in hopes of using them to treat and cure disease. "Critics have said the practice amounts to creating human life only to destroy it. " ''It is wrong to allow science to take an assembly line approach to the production of human embryos, the creation of which will be rooted in experimentation and destruction,'' Romney said in a letter to lawmakers explaining the veto. "The Republican governor had appealed to the Democrat-controlled Legislature to amend its original bill and ban the cloning measure. He also urged lawmakers to include language defining the beginning of life as the moment of conception, banning the production of human embryos for other research purposes, and limiting compensation to women who donate their eggs... "Stem cell research has become an issue nationally as well, as a bill lifting limits on stem cell research makes its way through Congress. "The House approved the bill, which does not allow therapeutic cloning, by a 238-194 vote on Tuesday, and the Senate is expected to take it up. President Bush has promised a veto. " ''What our Legislature has done goes well beyond what was done in Washington,'' Romney said." Fox News - Mass. Governor Vetoes Stem-Cell Bill (May 27, 2005) "A number of conservatives also have cheered him on in his war with the state legislature over embryonic-stem-cell research, even though there are differences between his position and the one held by most pro-lifers. The issue first came up last fall, when Democrats offered a bill to permit the cloning of human embryos for scientific research. At a meeting in the governor's office, Harvard professor Douglas Melton described the science. ''I felt uncomfortable,'' says Romney. ''I thought of Brave New World or The Matrix, with hundreds of thousands of little lives being made and then being crushed.'' So Romney announced that he would not support a law that allowed the creation of human life for the purpose of destroying it. He used funds from his campaign account to make his case in radio ads. He did this even though his wife suffers from multiple sclerosis and arguably would benefit from the most aggressive stem-cell research conceivable." National Review - Manitee Mitt (Dec 14, 2005) "Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney, a 2008 Republican presidential hopeful, said Thursday his administration's new restrictions on stem cell research are aimed at heading off an ''Orwellian'' future. "The state's Department of Public Health this week issued regulations banning the creation of embryos for research purposes." Newsmax - Mitt Romney Warns of 'Orwellian' Stem Cell Research (Aug. 31, 2006) "The next governor will also face pressure to address a Romney administration program that funnels about $800,000 annually into abstinence-only sex education lessons in public schools." Boston Globe - For new governor, divisive issues loom Governor Romney is also an advocate of parental control over what their children are taught in school sex education and has emphasized that in the press: "Governor Mitt Romney, an opponent of same-sex marriage, said: ''Schools under our parental-notification law are required to inform parents . . . of matters relating to human sexuality that may be taught in the classroom and to allow that child to be out of the classroom for that period of the education.'' " Boston Globe - Arrested father had point to make, Disputed school's lesson on diversity - Apr 29, 2005 Note: Governor Romney passed a medical plan that reduces the number of people who receive state funded abortions. His views, including his view of always being against funding of abortions, are listed in the next section (History of views section). Contrary to blogs and campaign claims, he did not fund abortions. His record regarding funding is noted below.

Abortion Funding: With the endless ability to invent and spread rumors, or inaccurately skewed or false stories, there is no way to effectively address every misleading or inaccurate claim. Hopefully most are addressed through the presentation of well documented, accurate information with links to an abundance of original sources, and backed by the assertions of prominent, trustworthy individuals, as done here. However, one inaccurate and misleading claim not addressed above that deserves to be addressed, since many individuals have tried to promote it and it got widespread attention when presidential candidates picked up on it and repeated it, is the following:

Romney Abortion funding record

“The Annenberg Foundation's nonpartisan FactCheck.org just delivered a powerful rebuke to the basic honesty of a McCain mailer used in South Carolina (and defended by Sen. McCain after reporters called it to his attention). “In particular, FactCheck.org called McCain's assertion that Mitt Romney "provided" taxpayer-funded abortions "simply false." “ "Romney never pushed for taxpayer funding for abortions. The state law he signed provided greatly expanded state-subsidized health insurance for low-income residents," Factcheck.org explained. An independent body -- the Commonwealth Connector -- not Romney, decided that abortions would be covered (a move required by two Massachusetts state supreme court rulings).” Townhall.com - article by Maggie Gallagher - Jan 16, 2008 ["Maggie Gallagher is president of the Institute for Marriage and Public Policy (www.iMAPP.org), whose motto is "strengthening marriage for a new generation" and whose unique mission is research and public education on ways that law and public policy can strengthen marriage as a social institution." - marriagedebate.com] So what is the truth of what Gov. Romney did with respect to taxpayer funding of abortions? Romney speaks for himself in response to brazen attacks on the subject by another presidential candidate: “The Massachusetts Citizens for Life just several months ago brought me in and gave me an award for my public leadership on the basis of being pro-life. So the best way you can learn about someone is not by asking their opponent, but ask them, “What do you believe, and what’s your view?” And I am pro-life. And virtually every part of that ad is inaccurate. “I’m pro-life. My positions are pro-life. The idea that, for instance, I’ve been in favor of taxpayer funding of abortion; that’s wrong. I oppose taxpayer funding of abortion. In our state we passed a medical plan that reduces the number of people who received state funding for abortion. So the ad is just completely wrong.” NY Times - Transcript of The Republicans Candidate Debate - Aug 5, 2007

HISTORY OF PRO-CHOICE AND PRO-LIFE VIEWS:

Mitt Romney was born in 1947 [1], meaning he was a teenager in the 1960's, before abortion was legal nationally. In the 1960's his brother-in-law's teenage sister died due to an illegal abortion. As a result, his mother took the position that safe, legal abortions should be permitted, in behalf of those who were determined to have one, and he initially accepted that view, even though both he and his family personally did not believe in abortions. [2] Because personally he was opposed to abortions, he didn't feel comfortable being labeled pro-choice [3], which often is viewed as someone who believes in abortion, which he never has. But he was comfortable in explaining his view, that he personally opposed abortion, but that people should be able to make their own choice, and therefore he would honor the will of the voters to keep it legal, in his 1994 and 2002 campaigns. However, he was always open about his being personally opposed to abortion, even in his 1994 campaign. [4] While he was personally opposed to abortion, and had even encouraged and counseled women not to have abortions during his voluntary service as a lay-clergy leader [5], when he ran for office, the focus of his objectives was to solve economic problems. However, because he was personally against abortion and favored several restrictions on abortion (see references 10-12), the Boston press and his pro-choice opponents instead wanted to hammer him on "abortion, abortion, abortion". [6]

Past views and why (0:34) On his experience changing him to firmly prolife (4:26)

He had vexed the local press with his more conservative views, and as one magazine explained, in that liberal state where democrats are estimated to outnumber republicans by nearly four to one, “There's a complicated dance Republicans [usually] must do to be competitive in Massachusetts... they must never vex the editorialists at the Boston Globe by violating the most sacred liberal taboos, especially the [Globe's] prohibition against nonliberal stands on abortion”. [7] It was in that environment, where he answered attacks and questions in the 1994 and 2002 races, particularly in his answer to a 1994 debate question [8], in which he is often quoted by smear artists. Their representation that he believed in abortion, or has no belief, but just flips and flops, is a mischaracterization that many leading conservatives and evangelicals have refuted. [9] Efforts to mischaracterize him include leaving out relevant parts to quotes, not providing links to full quotes, and excluding pertinent information such as what follows: In the 1994 senate race, he came out and said he was against funding for abortion, "except in cases of rape, incest or threat to the mother's health." And he received "the Massachusetts Citizens for Life endorsement because he supported parental-consent laws, opposed taxpayer-funded abortion or mandatory abortion coverage under a national health insurance plan and was against the Freedom of Choice Act that would have codified Roe". [10] In his 2002 race, when the legality of partial-birth abortions were being considered, Mitt Romney came out in opposition to those being legal. [11] He also differed from his democrat challenger for governor who "proposed changing state law to let 16-year-old girls end their pregnancies without parental consent" by stating he would veto such a bill. In fact, "none of the major pro-abortion groups would have anything to do with him." [12] What he did say, in a democratic state where most voters wanted the ability to have abortion preserved, was that he would not try to change their abortion laws, which promise he kept. [13]  In fact, his official campaign platform of what he pledged to do with regards to abortion stated "As governor, Mitt Romney would protect the current pro-choice status quo in Massachusetts. No law would change." [14] Several times he stated that in terms that he will respect, protect or preserve a woman's right to choose, and he expressed the pro-choice viewpoint that people should be able to make their own choice, even in his platform. But he "promised that if elected, I'd call a truce — a moratorium, if you will,... I vowed to veto any legislation that sought to change the existing rules." [15] A pro-life advocate who had spent the last few years directing two programs for a nonprofit pro-life organization stated: “Romney's pledge not to change abortion law was absolutely brilliant. The political realities of Massachusetts make pro-life policy victories virtually impossible in the heavily Democratic legislature. By refusing to change abortion laws, Romney launched a strategic effort to keep the commonwealth from further liberalizing abortion policy, including the age of parental consent proposal.” [16] The California Republican Party Chairman described Romney's approach this way: he has the ability to disagree without being disagreeable. [17] Because of that approach and his personal views against abortion, in 2005, a former campaign staffer said he thought Romney was faking a pro-choice stance but was pro-life. [18] Romney disagreed. [19] Although when he ran as governor in 2002 he again indicated he did not want to be known as pro-choice [20] (as one who described himself as personally pro-life) [20b], he later acknowledged that his position as a candidate was effectively pro-choice, and that he was wrong in taking that position. [21] Although when campaigning to the pro-choice electorate he reiterated his commitment to not to take away their abortion-rights, his position was moderately pro-choice, and he was viewed as a social moderate. [22] And he did want to hold the line on social limits as his platform indicated and his subsequent actions as governor demonstrated. After all, prior to being elected governor, he publicly stated that although abortion is a choice, it is the wrong choice. [23] As Governor, when new pro-abortion laws came along, which would result in or encourage more abortions, he opposed them. [24]  He backed up his pledge to veto any effort to expand access to RU-486, the abortion pill, with the even stronger action of vetoing a bill expanding the use of a morning-after pill. [25] He also created and funded a program to encourage abstinence before marriage, which could effectively reduce abortions. [26] And when he encountered the cheapening of life and the encouraging of funding for abortions to aid stem cell research, he thought seriously on the matter, and his views about abortion deepened, resulting in consistent pro-life actions on stem cell research. [27] And so he was the first republican governor who had served in a liberal state in which he had to deal with both human cloning and court-imposed same-sex marriage, and yet he has a solid, pro-life, conservative record. There was no flipping, unless one views his deepening conservative views as a flip, which were more moderate than extreme in the amount of shift, and there was certainly no flop! [28] (The sum-total of his shift was saying he personally opposed abortion and that it should have restrictions, but be safe and legal, in 1994, to fighting the expansion of the use of abortion throughout his term in office in 2003-7 and taking solid pro-life positions. As a director at a pro-life non-profit organization stated, he went from being a mildly pro-choice senate candidate to a firmly pro-life governor-- see article in link for reference [16])

FOOTNOTES:

» Full reference material of quotes with links

PRO-LIFE LEADERS STATEMENTS:

Dr. John Willke— • President of Life Issues Institute • Founder, 22 year President- International Right to Life Federation, • Co-founder, 10 year (past) President- National Right to Life Committee "The doctor known as the founder of the pro-life movement has endorsed former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney in his bid for the Republican presidential nomination... " “Unlike other candidates who only speak to the importance of confronting the major social issues of the day, Governor Romney has a record of action in defending life,” Dr. Willke said. “Every decision he made as governor was on the side of life. I know he will be the strong pro-life president we need in the White House, Governor Romney is the only candidate who can lead our pro-life and pro-family conservative movement to victory in 2008.”... "Dr. Willke, helped found the National Right To Life Committee and served for 10 years as its president. Dr. Willke serves as president of the Life Issues Institute, Inc., and president of the International Right to Life Federation. "Dr. Willke a physician, had a daily radio program that was carried on over 300 radio stations for 20 years. His one-minute radio comments, entitled "Life Jewels," were carried on over 750 stations in English and 300 more in Spanish. He has written eleven books, and is a lecturer and a frequent television and radio show guest. His works have been published in 32 languages, and he and his wife Barbara have lectured in 76 countries." Newsmax - Oct 22, 2007 (See also the following link for his credentials) http://www.lifeissues.org/willke.html National Right to Life Political Action Committee (PAC) statement: "National Right to Life also appreciates the pro-life position taken in this presidential campaign by former governor Mitt Romney." http://www.nrlpac.org/ - April 2008 (archived page — data on original link expired) Marie Sturgis— Executive Director of Massachusetts Citizens for Life "It’s a view echoed by Marie Sturgis, executive director of Massachusetts Citizens for Life, who says, “Having Governor Romney in the corner office for the last four years has been one of the strongest assets the pro-life movement has had in Massachusetts. His actions concerning life issues have been consistent and he has been helpful down the line for us in the Bay State.” " National Review - Jan 10, 2007 Kris Mineau— President of Massachusetts Family Institute "Mineau is among those Massachusetts social conservatives who are grateful to have had Romney in the statehouse... “For the four years of his administration, Governor Romney provided strong leadership on key conservative social issues — whether it was politically expedient to do so or not.” He tells National Review Online, “I believe Mitt Romney has done an excellent job in defending traditional family values in Massachusetts despite an extremely hostile legislature and judiciary, not to mention an attorney general and secretary of state who both opposed everything the governor stood for.” ... "Mineau is among the signatories of a letter expected to be released on Thursday by a coalition of “organizations dedicated to fighting for the pro-family agenda in Massachusetts.” ... The letter, which organizers provided NRO with drafts of Wednesday night, defends the governor’s record and praises his staff for their commitment to affirming a culture of life, protecting traditional marriage, and defending religious liberty. Among those signing the letter are Harvard University law professor Mary Ann Glendon (who also serves as the president of the Pontifical Academy of Social Sciences in Rome)." National Review - Jan 10, 2007 " “On marriage and cloning, he has provided aggressive leadership as a positive, pro-family governor,” says Kris Mineau of the Massachusetts Family Institute." National Review - Dec 14, 2005 • Thomas A. Shields— Chairman, Coalition for Family and Marriage • James Morgan— President, Institute for Family Development • Joseph Reilly— President, Massachusetts Citizens for Life • Rita Covelle— President, Morality in Media Massachusetts • Kris Mineau— President of Massachusetts Family Institute • Other Massachusetts pro life leaders An Open Letter Regarding Governor Mitt Romney (January 11, 2007): “As you know, Mitt Romney became the governor of our state in 2003. Since that time, we have worked closely with him... “Some press accounts and bloggers have described Governor Romney in terms we neither have observed nor can we accept. To the contrary, we, who have been fighting here for the values you also hold, are indebted to him and his responsive staff in demonstrating solid social conservative credentials by undertaking the following actions here in Massachusetts: “Staunchly defended traditional marriage. ... “Fought for abstinence education. In 2006, under Governor Romney's leadership, Massachusetts' public schools began to offer a classroom program on abstinence from the faith-based Boston group Healthy Futures to middle school students. Promoting the program, Governor Romney stated, "I've never had anyone complain to me that their kids are not learning enough about sex in school. However, a number of people have asked me why it is that we do not speak more about abstinence as a safe and preventative health practice." “Affirmed the culture of life. Governor Romney has vetoed bills to provide access to the so-called "morning-after pill," which is an abortifacient, as well as a bill providing for expansive, embryo-destroying stem cell research. He vetoed the latter bill in 2005 because he could not "in good conscience allow this bill to become law." ... “All of this may explain why John J. Miller, the national political reporter of National Review, has written that "a good case can be made that Romney has fought harder for social conservatives than any other governor in America, and it is difficult to imagine his doing so in a more daunting political environment." “We are aware of the 1994 comments of Senate candidate Romney, which have been the subject of much recent discussion... they do not dovetail with the actions of Governor Romney from 2003 until now - and those actions have positively and demonstrably impacted the social climate of Massachusetts. “Since well before 2003, we have been laboring in the trenches of Massachusetts, fighting for the family values you and we share. It is difficult work indeed - not for the faint of heart. In this challenging environment, Governor Romney has proven that he shares our values, as well as our determination to protect them. “For four years, Governor Romney has been right there beside us, providing leadership on key issues - whether it was politically expedient to do so or not. He has stood on principle, and we have benefited greatly from having him with us. “It is clear that Governor Romney has learned much since 1994 - to the benefit of our movement and our Commonwealth. In fact, the entire nation has benefited from his socially conservative, pro-family actions in office. As we explained earlier, his leadership on the marriage issue helped prevent our nation from being plunged into even worse legal turmoil following the court decision that forced "gay marriage" upon our Commonwealth. “For that our country ought to be thankful. We certainly are.” An Open Letter Regarding Governor Mitt Romney - Jan 11, 2007 (For more info on the letter, read previous entry by clicking here) (For a prominent Massachusetts pro-life leader's statement on Romney, who did not sign the letter, click here) James C. Dobson— Chairman of Focus on the Family "Later in the day [Tuesday, February 5, 2008], Dobson told talk-show host Dennis Prager that he would vote for Romney if the former Massachusetts governor won the GOP nomination" Newsmax - Feb 6, 2008 (archived page — original link expired) "That commitment to not cast a ballot for someone who would end preborn life has not wobbled one whit: certainly not in Dr. Dobson’s indication he could vote for either Mitt Romney or Mike Huckabee, the two candidates who unapologetically championed the pro-life cause" (Citizen Link, a website run by Focus on the Family) Citizen Link - Apr 10, 2008 (archived page — original link expired) » For more quotes from James Dobson, click here Michael Novak— Theologian, author, and former U.S. ambassador “More and more this year, among the other pro-life candidates, I have been attracted by Mitt Romney’s good and cheerful disposition, level-headedness, and unruffable temperament (if there is such an adjective)... The discipline he has shown in his career tells me that he is tough-minded... “I really admire several other Republican candidates for certain special qualities of their own... But I have gradually focused in on Mitt Romney as best representing what I would like to see in a President during the next four years... “I have watched Mitt Romney’s steadiness under fire, and I endorse it.” Townhall - Michael Novak - Dec 17, 2007 "Michael Novak received the Templeton Prize for Progress in Religion (a million-dollar purse awarded at Buckingham Palace) in 1994, and delivered the Templeton address in Westminster Abbey." He has received many other awards. "Theologian, author, and former U.S. ambassador, Michael Novak currently holds the George Frederick Jewett Chair in Religion and Public Policy at the American Enterprise Institute in Washington, D.C." "His writings have appeared in every major Western language, and in Bengali, Korean and Japanese... Mr. Novak has written some 25 influential books in the philosophy and theology of culture". Mr. Novak is a highly respected Catholic. http://www.michaelnovak.net/Module/Site/Biography.aspx (For more statements by conservative and religious pro-life leaders, click here) the page this is on:  http://www.aboutmittromney.com/abortion.htm