It’s apparent that an emerging liberal talking point in defense of Obama’s HHS contraception directive is “Mitt Romney did it too!” That’s the latest line from MSNBC’s “Maddow blog”:
While Romney was on the attack yesterday, condemning the idea of requiring religious institutions to provide emergency contraception, as governor, a previous iteration of Romney required all Massachusetts hospitals, including Catholic hospitals, to provide emergency contraception to rape victims.
What is MSNBC talking about? As I explained in painstaking detail in this post last week, Mitt vetoed the legislation in question, explained his veto in the Boston Globe with a strong pro-life statement, and then kept fighting the good fight on religious liberty by defending Catholic Charities in a separate religious liberty issue and introducing legislation called “An Act Protecting Religious Freedom” to strengthen religious liberty in the Commonwealth.
In other words, Mitt Romney’s actions were nothing like Barack Obama’s. But why let the facts get in the way of a good talking point?
(Disclaimer)
1. The Romney campaign has been so loose with the truth that liberals like me laugh when he complains about mis-statements. Obama did not "apologize for America". I would love overall truthfulness of the campaign to be an issue.
2. As a liberal, I would be glad for conservatives to run on a platform of making birth control harder to get.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThen you support government having dictatorial control over religious doctrine and practice. Not even absolute monarchs who believed in the Divine Right of Kings advocated that position openly. Only the Communists did.
For a liberal, your honesty is refreshing, Comrade.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseIt's not a "good talking point" if it's a flat-out lie, and for that would be a source of mass embarrassment if expressed by a Republican politican or their media minion. It's only a good talking point for Rachel Maddow because her ideological alignment places her beyond such embarrassment.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseGoogle "Mitt Romney and heart of hearts".
In 2005, Mitt seemed to be OK with all hospitals being required to provide emergency contraception.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseMSNBC is lying, which is expected. Rick Santorum is lying, too, which was not.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseSantorum is not lying, David French is simply wrong about what Santorum is referring to. Yes, Romney vetoed the bill and the legislature overrode that veto.
But later, Romney held a press conference at which time he explained that he would enforce the law because he believed it was the right thing to do, not because the legislature passed it over his objection.
Romney Said:
"On that basis, I have instructed the Department of Public Health to follow the conclusion of my own legal counsel and to adopt that sounder view," Romney said. "In my personal view, it's the right thing for hospitals to provide information and access to emergency contraception to anyone who is a victim of rape."
A true leader would have said: I will defend the First Amendment right of Catholics to freely exercise their religion — against those who would force them to participate in abortions — all the way to the Supreme Court.
See this: External Link
Romney didn't sign the bill, but he enthusiastically ordered the DPH to enforce it. Santorum is correct.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseRomney said: "...to anyone who is a victim of rape."
Is that such a small caveat to the "heart of hearts" comment that it doesn't deserve mention? Clearly a lot of pro-lifers, if not a clear majority, would view the case similarly.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseWeird election. MSNBC and Rush Limbaugh both misreporting Mitt's stance on this issue. Thanks David for clarifying. If Mitt is struggling to win conservatives its because he's getting hit from both sides.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse