I am pro-life and believe that abortion should be limited to only instances of rape, incest, or to save the life of the mother.
I support the reversal of Roe v. Wade, because it is bad law and bad medicine. Roe was a misguided ruling that was a result of a small group of activist federal judges legislating from the bench.
I support the Hyde Amendment, which broadly bars the use of federal funds for abortions. And as president, I will support efforts to prohibit federal funding for any organization like Planned Parenthood, which primarily performs abortions or offers abortion-related services.
I will reinstate the Mexico City Policy to ensure that nongovernmental organizations that receive funding from America refrain from performing or promoting abortion services, as a method of family planning, in other countries. This includes ending American funding for any United Nations or other foreign assistance program that promotes or performs abortions on women around the world.
I will advocate for and support a Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act to protect unborn children who are capable of feeling pain from abortion.
And perhaps most importantly, I will only appoint judges who adhere to the Constitution and the laws as they are written, not as they want them to be written.
As much as I share the goals of the Susan B. Anthony List, its well-meaning pledge is overly broad and would have unintended consequences. That is why I could not sign it. It is one thing to end federal funding for an organization like Planned Parenthood; it is entirely another to end all federal funding for thousands of hospitals across America. That is precisely what the pledge would demand and require of a president who signed it.
The pledge also unduly burdens a president’s ability to appoint the most qualified individuals to a broad array of key positions in the federal government. I would expect every one of my appointees to carry out my policies on abortion and every other issue, irrespective of their personal views.
If I have the opportunity to serve as our nation’s next president, I commit to doing everything in my power to cultivate, promote, and support a culture of life in America.
Governor,
Thank you for this post. I am grateful that you respect life and look forward to you standing up for the unborn if you are to become our chief executive.
As someone who has admired you since your last run, I do have one question, sir. You have talked in the past about your conversion to becoming pro-life. I respect that. I also respect people with different beliefs on this issue, though I would never vote for them. Here is my question. As a person of faith, I would like you to explain how you once believed differently. You once believed that it was a woman's right to choose. How did you come to that belief? How did you square it with your faith? I ask this to get an idea of how you think. What principles led you to that old system of beliefs?
If you take the time to read and answer this question, I appreciate it greatly. I wish you the best as you seek the leadership position of our great nation.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuseonly ... to save the life of the mother?
Female patient (after careful prompting by doctor/Planned Parenthood staff): "If I have to give birth, I'll kill myself!"
Problem solved.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseYour turn.
You've got to be kidding me!
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseOur turn? Sure..
All clinicians have a ethical duty to report. If medical staff are presented with a patient voicing suicidal ideations (or homicidal, for that matter), triage dictates a psychiatric evaluation is preeminent to an abortion. If the psych eval reveals no serious threat of suicide, the foundation for an abortion to save the mother's life is gone. If the psych eval reveals a reasonable possibility of suicide, the patient is involuntarily committed (process varies state to state) and there will be no abortion within the psych hospital while she remains actively suicidal, nor will she be released while she remains actively suicidal.
Next!
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseOk Mitt, now that you've clarified your position on abortion, how about illegal immigration?
In 2008, you clearly and repeatedly said you opposed "path to citizeship" i.e., amnesty, for illegal aliens, and that illegals must return home.
Do you still have the same position on this, and why is there no mention of this on your website?
I, and many others, will be watching closely on this issue, and I truly hope you haven't flip-flopped.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseGovernor, you bring a lot of political liabilities to this particular election. How can you be expected to be an effective standardbearer in the assault against ObamaCare when you've carried water for it in Mass... You realize our opponents will use that to sow confusion amongst those less politically tuned in... I see your campaign as simply cashing in due to your name recognition as the next guy in line. That's not good enough this time around. I want your $ spent helping our cause in congressional elections, not in a personal quest to win the White House. I would obviously support you over the President but I have grave concerns about your prospects.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse"…it is entirely another to end all federal funding for thousands of hospitals across America."
Really? So what? I can understand not wanting to have that restriction on a cabinet nominee, though. It could be that the very best Defense secretary out there might happen to be pro-"choice".
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseOk, I should have READ the d#@*! thing BEFORE the previous post. I don't have a problem with the pledge. As far as Romney is concerned it wouldn't matter one way or the other if he signed. I'm not voting for him.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseAh, nobody cares about the abortion stance of the woman or man heading the DOD -- but they sure do care about the abortion stance of the person heading the Department of Health and Human Services. Nicely shaped red herring, though.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse"It is one thing to end federal funding for an organization like Planned Parenthood; it is entirely another to end all federal funding for thousands of hospitals across America. "
It would only end funding if they continued to insist on performing abortions. They would also have the option of refusing to provide abortions and thus continue to receive those sweet federal dollars that they are so entitled to.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseSounds pretty fair, pragmatic, reasoned...
A well composed offering about his position - great to see Mr. Romney provide a more robust pro-Life agenda.
If someone sits home, because of their pro-Life conviction and Mr. Romney is the Nominee, it will be pure self destructive nonsense.
But this election best be considered with out the emotive reactionary push for a fashionable stereotype. We simply have way too much at stake to divide all. And basing the entire endeavor on a pro-Life Pledge from a certain special interest (no matter how admirable the endeavor) would be truly foolish.
The enormity of the Economic MESS we face thanks to the Democratic Party should provide some vision of a priority and far less ad hoc vilification for those on Our side who are deemed out of the fashionable embrace (especially Mr. Romney who has so much to offer with his Private Sector accomplishments, experience, ability). If we are going to do what is needed, to remove the Democratic Partisan influence for good of all - to make this disastrous Democrat folly a regretful memory, we have to join together with a constructive offering.
I wish all the Candidates in the GOP Primary the very best. Thank you Mr. Romney, Mr. Pawlenty, Ms. Bachmann, Mr. Cain, Mr. Santorum, even Mr. Paul, for running. It isn't easy to be on that stage. We hope you will pay great attention to the sound insights from the Conservative Base (especially to never forget the powerful Reagan Doctrine which advocates and fights for Liberty throughout the World), and we in return hope others amongst will be fair in return. But it is never perfect, never easy.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI just pray that the extreme right, in their pursuit of the perfect candidate, does not leave this country with 4 more years of Obama. This Susan B. Anthony pledge is ridiculous. This election is too serious for people to be worried about wedge issues. I am pro-life, but I also realize that 50 % Americans are pro-choice. This is not the election to make this a priority and those candidates who signed this pledge are not electable.
Wake up!! There are people like me, a former Democrat, who is dying for a chance to vote against Obama. Please don't screw this up.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThe pledge does not end the funding for thousands of hospitals across the country unless they continue to engage in their pro-abortion policies. It's up to the hospitals. If they continue to perform their grizzly services, they will not receive federal funds. The funds will go to more worthy recipients. What is the problem here? Aren't we trying to get these organizations to do the right thing?
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI can't believe in this economic climate that our hospitals are still providing grizzly services. I think it is time for the bears of this nation to start pulling their own (considerable) weight.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseIf you allow a rape exception, you are not pro-life, just mostly anti-abortion. Pro-life means that you believe the unborn child is a life with a right to go on living. Why does a child deserve to die because of the father's crime?
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseConservatives generally have no issue ending federal funding of hospitals regardless of the abortion issue. This is because federal funding of hospitals is not the province of the federal government's Constitutional powers, with the possible exception of the VA hospitals (these are federal entities for the most part).
The best person for a cabinet job is never someone indifferent to the rights of all children, the most fundamental being the right to life.
This is akin to Romney refusing a pledge to not hire anyone in his cabinet who favors slavery.
Romney cannot be trusted---he isn't pro-life as a matter of principle but as a matter of mere convenience.
Sadly, so is Herman Cain.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThis guy would be undertaking Keynesian "stimulus" within a week of entering the White House. He has no principles, and if he were nominated the Dems would have a field day finding all the companies the inept LBO artists at Bain had sent into bankruptcy. NR needs to find a new Best Buddy! Remember, Buckley didn't build the magazine by endorsing Nelson Rockefeller!
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThis is the pledge that Santorum, Bachmann, Pawlenty, et. al. should have signed. Well stated and principled. Thanks, Gov.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseBravo, Governor. While I haven't decided whom to support, no leader should be strongarmed into signing any "pledge" from any interest group.
Your only "pledge" should be to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States. For everything else, your record and commitments should stand on their own merits, and let the voters decide.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseSorry.
15 strikes and you're out.
I look forward to you staying 'unemployed'. There are better people for the job - ones who won't pick up the football and score touchdowns for the other team.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse