I overreach with that title — tis the season.
A Boston Globe sub-headline this morning declares: Mitt Romney’s “’05 contraception stance similar to Obama’s now.”
Except that the Obama administration is driving conscience violations as mandated policy whereas Romney vetoed a bill that would require Catholic hospitals to provide abortifacient drugs. Of course, as governor of Massachusetts, he vetoed the bill without a lot of support for his position — and his veto was overturned. That’s quite different than the overreaching attack on religious liberty the Obama administration is driving. It’s also a reminder of how crucial it is to support leaders when they’re trying to do the right thing, as Romney was at the time. (Komen this week comes to mind.)
Newt Gingrich had his debate moment or two helping to clarify the danger our religious liberty is in in America today. But he only added to the confusion when he started mischaracterizing Romney’s record here.
Kathryn,
Newt had more than “a moment or two” on this issue. He stared into the camera with righteous indignation, gave our dear president a verbal smack-down to the thunderous applause of the audience and brought the issue to the fore.
By minimizing his contribution on this issue, you lose credibility with your readers (and listeners – heard you on Bill Bennett’s show yesterday).
We know you don’t like Newt, already. That is fine, but give the devil his due.
Captcha: “change yourself”
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseVery well said, Link B.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseKathryn, you're lying. In July 05, Mitt said one thing. In December 05 he said another. And the law that went into effect was one that forced Catholic facilities to provide services that violate their dogma. The December 05 part was linked the last time this came up.
Either you're making things up, or Mitt is.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse