Abortion Etch A Sketch - Macleans.ca

Abortion Etch A Sketch


The Etch A Sketch is back in full force, only this time the interval between Mitt Romney’s abortion flip-flops is getting smaller and smaller–to the point at which it no longer exists at all. Romney’s official campaign website, for example, touts pro-life Mitt Romney, the kind of Romney who would like the Supreme Court to overturn Roe v. Wade. All the while, moderate Mitt Romney gave this comment to the Des Moines Register yesterday: “There’s no legislation with regards to abortion that I’m familiar with that would become part of my agenda.”

Except, of course, this one…

(from the Values page on his campaign site)

Mitt believes that life begins at conception and wishes that the laws of our nation reflected that view. But while the nation remains so divided, he believes that the right next step is for the Supreme Court to overturn Roe v. Wade – a case of blatant judicial activism that took a decision that should be left to the people and placed it in the hands of unelected judges. With Roe overturned, states will be empowered through the democratic process to determine their own abortion laws and not have them dictated by judicial mandate.

Mitt supports the Hyde Amendment, which broadly bars the use of federal funds for abortions. As president, he will end federal funding for abortion advocates like Planned Parenthood. He will protect the right of health care workers to follow their conscience in their work. And he will nominate judges who know the difference between personal opinion and the law.”

What this means then is that not only was Mitt pro-choice before he was pro-life, he is both pro-choice and pro-life at exactly the same time. Far out, man.


Abortion Etch A Sketch

  1. In other words he intends to ignore it after he’s elected, just like Reagan and both Bushs did.

    Fetus-fetishists should have figured this game out by now.

  2. Mittwit is channeling Grouch Marx: “Those are my principles, and if you don’t like them… well, I have others.”


    • No, that’s not a squirrel.

      It WAS a squirrel back in 1993. Then it became a horse in 1999. Then it went back to being a squirrel in 2002. However, back in 2005, it turned back in to a horse.

      You’re right that it will almost certainly inevitably turn back in to a squirrel again, and Romney’s latest statements do tend to make one think that he wants people to think that maybe it’s a squirrel now, or at the very least a very squirrel-like horse, but it’s definitely a horse. For now.

      • Allow me to clarify…


        • Oh, I got the reference, but if you can make an “Up!” joke, surely I can make an “If you don’t like Romney’s position on any given issue, wait five minutes” joke.

        • Nah… you mean….
          I said….

  4. Mitt, when gov of Mass, was for Roe v Wade & supported PPH! How can any American trust what he says TODAY…cuz tomorrow he will change his words again about everything…does Mitt think we are THAT stupid? He will find out in November..just how SMART, he thinks we are NOT!!

  5. “And he will nominate judges who know the difference between personal opinion and the law.”

    I’ve always loved that argument, that somehow an elected official is more qualified to have a deciding opinion on a matter like abortion than someone who is trained in the law.

    And unless i’ve completely misunderstood the quote it seems Mitt thinks a judge shouldn’t use the law or his position to make law based on opinion, but he’s perfectly comfortable with a politician not knowing the difference, or not being held to the same standard…which is why we have judges trying to make those decisions with the help of the la…oh i give up. Trying to pin Romney down is like trying to grasp a well greased pig out at the county fair.

  6. If anyone has a couple of hours from their oh-so-busy schedules, this is
    excellent viewing. Plenty to confirm whatever bias you may have, and much
    of it is already broadly known, but a very good presentation of biographical
    detail. For me, enough to make me scratch my graying beard for a while ..


  7. What this means then is that not only was Mitt pro-choice before he was pro-life…

    Technically, I think that Romney was actually pro-choice before he was pro-life, before he was pro-choice, before he was pro-life.

    When he ran for the Senate in 1993, it was as a pro-choice candidate. Then, when he thought about running for office in Utah in seven years later, he became pro-life. THEN he ran for the Governorship of Massachusetts in 2002 he went back to being pro-choice again. THEN he decided to run for President and went back to being pro-life in 2005.

    • And according to Vanity Fair he was pro-life again (before?) when strongarming distraught young Mormon women of the congregation he controlled into adoption.

      Come to think of it, you could say Mitt’s constant difficulties show how the matter is an important issue best left to the individual. When even the head of the GOP can’t keep a constant poisition, how can we foist one upon everyone?

  8. Kerry flipflopped once and never heard the end of it. For Romney in regard to women’s choice it is a case of, “I was for it, before I was against it, but now I have nothing against it, but really I’m against it. Believe me — it’s written right here on my Etch-A-Sketch.” This is what Romney calls “Clarification.”