C-FAM President: Romney Needs “Serious Drilling in Pro-Life Language”

Every pro-life voter knows that Mitt Romney has a troubling record on abortion. Those of us who have chosen to support him hope that the change of heart he describes on this issue is real, and that it will translate to words and actions that will assist our cause. But he has miles to go, as some of his some of his recent comments (and subsequent clarifications) have indicated. At Crisis this morning, Austin Ruse, president of the Catholic Family & Human Rights Institute (C-FAM) discusses the weaknesses Romney has in addressing the pro-life cause.

Tackling the tricky subjects of Mexico City policy, which Romney says he will reinstate, and UNFPA, which he will defund, Ruse says that these are the “bare minimum” aspects of a pro-life policy, and don’t go nearly far enough. In fact, it’s impossible to know how much effect they have in real terms.

I am not saying these things are not important to pro-lifers. They are. But they are a bare minimum. They are the lowest possible hanging fruit. What we want is for our politicians to climb the ladder and reach for the fruit on the top of the tree. Mexico City Policy and defunding UNFPA cannot replace the large bore pro-life demands such as a pro-life Attorney General, a pro-life Secretary of Health and Human Services, judges and justices who are originalists and texturalists who can be counted on the interpret the constitution in its plain meaning and not in its “penumbras” and “emanations”. And these are just for starters.

Touting these things is similar to politicians using partial birth abortion to prove they are pro-life. Partial birth abortion is a barbaric practice that crushes the skull of a child in the process of being delivered. Opposing this cannot be proof of being pro-life. Again, it is the bare minimum.

Part of the problem is that many politicians, including Romney, are strangers in the pro-life land. They do not speak the language. They are like American tourists trying to order coffee in Rome. It is a fairly easy thing to do but also easy to fumble unless you do it every day.

Romney stumbled earlier when he said he would accept abortion for the health of the mother, apparently not knowing that the health exception in Doe v. Bolton is what gave us abortion on demand in the first place. Even true-blue pro-lifer Todd Akin stumbled badly on the pro-choice gotcha question of the rape exception. Indiana Senate candidate Richard Mourdock did, too. A few days ago he said a pregnancy from rape was the will of God.

Romney and others could do with serious drilling in Pro-Life Language 101 and they could do worse in learning from Georgette Forney and Serrin Foster, both experts in speaking the kind of pro-life language that appeals to women.

What would such language sound like from a Romney administration? Ruse suggests:

Fully catechized by Forney and Foster, Romney may no longer stumble. Asked if he has a legislative plan on abortion, Governor Romney would say, “I believe that Roe v. Wade was wrongly decided and hope to see it overturned. In the meantime, both through legislation and executive appointments, my administration will help women in their time of need. My administration and I will not abandon them. We will not leave them all alone with that terrible ‘choice’.”

This is the most sophisticated pro-life language there is, and has the added advantage of being a totally foreign language to abortion advocates who prefer women to be isolated and alone in that terrifying little room at Planned Parenthood.

If Romney is elected, we need to pray and act, where possible, to see that he embrace such an approach to the pro-life issue, and that he will decide to do more than pay lip service to the single greatest evil facing our nation today.

8,477 views

Categories:Featured Politics Pro-Life

67 thoughts on “C-FAM President: Romney Needs “Serious Drilling in Pro-Life Language”

  1. Thomas More says:

    “I happen to be a proponent of a single-payer universal health care program”- Illinois State Sen. Barack Obama, June 2003
    “I have not said that I was a single-payer supporter”- President Obama, August 2009

  2. Commoner says:

    I am not voting for Romney because he is pro-life, I am voting for Romney because I am pro-lfe.

  3. Willard Mitt says:

    So are you finally coming to realize what many have already known. that Romney says things differently depending on who he is courting?
    You got suckered into thinking he was a pro-life candidate, which he really is not.
    Not you says you HOPE he will be true to what he earlier said. At least you are consistent in holding on the man as he goes down.
    No he is not the Pro-Life messiah that you made beleive he was. This website was devoted to his lie to such a degree that all the writers gave up their integrity (which a few had) in order to endorse him, and convince people that it was in good faith that they should support him as the one to end abortion.
    Now ten days before the election, you admit you may have been wrong.
    Or was it that you may have WRONGED many.

    1. BufordJr. says:

      “Leadership means that the buck stops here. I therefore intend to oppose the effort to increase America’s debt limit”- Sen. Barack Obama, March 2006
      “It is not acceptable for us NOT to RAISE the debt ceiling and to allow the U.S. government to default”-President Obama, July 2011

    2. Papal Marriage Laws says:

      “I favor legalizing same-sex marriages”-Obama 1996, while running for Illinois State Senate
      “I believe marriage is between a man and a woman. I am NOT in favor of gay marriage”- Sen. Obama, Nov. 2008, while running for President
      “It is important for me to go ahead and affirm that I think same-sex coupl should be able to get married”- President Obama, May 2012

    3. JoeMyGod says:

      “I will never question the patriotism of others in this campaign”.- Obama, June 2008
      “The way Bush has done it over the last eight years is irresponsible. It’s unpatriotic”- Obama, July 2008

    4. abadilla says:

      “So are you finally coming to realize what many have already known. that Romney says things differently depending on who he is courting?” And you probably presume the President is always truthful in what he says in any arena and before any audience, right. No, he “evolved” on the issue of gay marriage, perhaps because people change and Romney is no exception to that rule.
      If you want to be “consistent” you are going to have to be “equally” critical of Romney for changing into a prolife view and be critical of Obama for changing his pro-family views in favor of gay marriage.

  4. So what you are saying is that Romney needs to be taught how to lie better.

    1. BufordJr. says:

      “I happen to be a proponent of a single-payer universal health care program”- Illinois State Sen. Barack Obama, June 2003
      “I have not said that I was a single-oayer supporter”- President Obama, August 2009

  5. Parental Right says:

    I see that you have chosen to “fan the flames of hostility” by writing for this website, that received a $10,000 donation from an anti-gay hate group that promised to “drive a wedge” between American minorities in order to accomplish their goals. Your actions fuel their discrimination. You are complacent in their evil actions.

    1. Steve Skojec says:

      Do you ever wonder how ridiculous you sound when you keep repeating the same thing and nobody is listening? It reminds me of children saying, “I can’t hear you LALALALALA!” with their hands over their ears.

      Would that I had the power to ban your IP…trolling is such a low form of rhetoric.

      1. This Catholic Against HATE says:

        Do you know how ridiculous you look when you ignore the fact that this site is funded almost entirely by an organization that is dedicated to excluding a minority from legal protections? Do you think that Jesus approves of the fact that you turn a blind eye to where your checks come from?

        1. Steve Skojec says:

          Do you know how ridiculous you look when you support a president who believes it’s OK to kill children who survived abortion? Who is still lying about Benghazi? Who suppresses religious liberty and forces people to violate their consciences? Who is destroying the economy so he can replace it with a socialist model?

          You’ve got a memo written by some political hack at NOM saying that we should “fan the flames of hostility” between two groups that usually both vote democrat but do, in fact, disagree vehemently on the gay marriage issue and mark a dividing line within the party. BIG DEAL. Politics is dirty, and these things happen. NOM’s objectives are no less valid because of a lowball tactic.

          Grow up and let’s talk about something substantive.

          1. Dianne Martinez says:

            Thank you, Steve, for being the voice of reason. Arguing with Rich/Buford/Paul Davis can be exhausting because they paste and clip the same, tired comment over and over ad nauseum. I looked at the webiste they posted where they said that NOM was quoted making the comment “fan the flames of hostility”- it was someone’s blog and there was no direct quote as such from NOM. It does not exit. Rich/Buford/Paul are liars. There is nothing more powerful than a well-told lie. Thank you for trying to stop this troll.

          2. Dianne's Teacher says:

            Dianne, I realize it may be challenging to listen to people who do not hold your exact views, but that is nothing to be sought out. If you do not want to think beyond how you thought yesterday, then I would encourage you to not post your thoughts or read those of others. The danger here is that you may actually have to question if what you think you believe is what God wants you to believe, and not just accept someone else’s message. You should be challenged to think deeper if you want to be a Good Catholic. If you are fine being a mediocre catholic who only has to be told what to think, then please ignore any of us who share intelligence with you in spite of your hostility. Stay in the dark if that is where you feel most comfotable, but do not continue those who like to discuss issues and live in the light.

          3. Dianne's Teacher says:

            Rich, you need to spend more time cracking the books than commenting on blog sites. Your grades have not been good. The chances of you getting a job are not favorable. I have spoken to your parents and they are concerned about your future. You cannot live in their basement forever. They have told me that you have earned some Soros money but that gig is going to stop after the election and you have no marketable skills.

          4. abadilla says:

            “Dianne, I realize it may be challenging to listen to people who do not hold your exact views, but that is nothing to be sought out. If you do not want to think beyond how you thought yesterday, then I would encourage you to not post your thoughts or read those of others.” You are twisting the meaning of Dianne’s words. You and others do not come into CV to have a powerful argument for your position which happens to differ from the position advocated by CV. No, you and other trolls come in here to spew your daily hatred and to hurl insults to anyone who posts anything at CV. It’s not a matter of disagreeing with people with whom we differ, it’s a matter of constantly having to defend the honor of people or the truth of the Catholic faith because you and others have nothing better else to do than to come into CV to create utter confusion among readers.

          5. abadilla says:

            “It does not exit. Rich/Buford/Paul are liars. There is nothing more powerful than a well-told lie. Thank you for trying to stop this troll.”
            Many of us know this sad reality and frankly, I’m sick of it. One thing is to ban people with whom we disagree, another is to ban people who make it their business to come to CV to spew their daily hatred simply because they disagree with the website. These trolls simply do not allow for a robust discussion of the issues, and what is most offensive, is that they present themselves as Catholics even though everything they write about is an absolute denial of what the Church teaches and stands for.

          6. Frank says:

            A fetus is not a child.

          7. Thomas More says:

            LOL – really. That is your response.
            You both need to find a common glossary or not argue.
            Such trivia in the midst of truth to be sought

          8. Thomas More says:

            LOL, I am Rich!

          9. Steve Skojec says:

            Yes, that’s my response. If you’re going to make an absurd claim, it’s best to substantiate.

          10. Steve's Echo says:

            Are you going to start doing the same?
            What a surprise to see you write something substantive. What a surprise to read something from you not completely absurd.

          11. abadilla says:

            “Such trivia in the midst of truth to be sought.” Diminishing the humanity of the unborn is not trivia at all. Everyone who has ever committed genocide begun by wiping out any semblance of humanity away from the people they consider their enemies. It is patently absurd for you to call yourself Thomas Moore, a great saint, and then show ignorance by thinking the denial of the humanity of the unborn is trivia.

          12. That’s easy: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Embryo

            Basic science says that a fetus is not a human. If you want to debate that you’ll need to do better than “I’m rubber, you’re glue”

          13. Steve Skojec says:

            Wikipedia is not “science.”

            I did pretty well in biology. And there is not the slightest shred of credible scientific evidence to prove that a fetus is not a child. It has the full genetic makeup of a human being, has sensory response, an early-stage level of organ development that is impressive to say the least, and is certainly not a lamp. Or a doorknob. Or a lemon. Or a tumor. Or an airplane. Or any other thing that exists in the known universe. It is a human child – undeveloped, but then, human children don’t stop developing until their late teens/early twenties.

            If a fetus is not a child – which no scientist has ever been able to make a credible case for – what then, exactly, is it?

          14. Debate Coach says:

            You discredit Wikipedia and yet use nothing better than “I did pretty well in biology.” Is there a biology text that uses Child as the term for the human preborn developmental stage? I am not sure you are arguing the right point. Calling a fetus a child is not really the arguement that is helpful or important. It is not as convincing as emotional, and really only helps those that already oppose abortion.

          15. Steve Skojec says:

            Do you know the etymology of the word fetus, per chance? It’s Latin (we’ll use Wikipedia since you like that source) and it means “offspring”, “bringing forth”, “hatching of young”.

            It’s descriptive of a child.

            But of course since biology texts use the correct Latin phraseology, this becomes a war of semantics. Abortion proponents try to distance the nomenclature from the reality as much as possible, because the modern connotation of “fetus” is of something less than human.

            But a fetus is human by every reasonable metric. It carries the full genetic makeup of a human being. It has actualized personhood, not mere potential personhood – meaning that it is a human being in development, not a mere haploid gamete waiting for fertilization (and lacking the requisite chromosomal makeup to be identified as a human being.) With the advances in medical technology in recent years, sonograms show that it has the form of a human being, and organ and system development is astonishingly advanced even at very early stages of development. As early as 13 weeks, a baby has fingerprints, a vascular system, and if they’re a female, 2 million eggs in their ovaries.

            Science leaves little room for interpretation: a fetus is a human being at its earliest stages of development, but it is a human being nonetheless. The impetus to prove otherwise is on you.

          16. abadilla says:

            Steve, “but then, human children don’t stop developing until their late teens/early twenties.” And my understanding is that the brain is not fully developed until we are about thirty, so, perhaps these trolls are all under thirty and that’s why they make such wild remarks to justify the unjustifiable, the butchery of the unborn.

          17. Steve Skojec says:

            Unfortunately, most of this thinking goes on in the crowd of those old enough to know better: 40 and above. The young people who buy into it simply haven’t matured enough to learn how to actually think for themselves.

          18. abadilla says:

            As a teacher I can attest to the fact that many do not think critically nor do they have the intellectual curiosity to understand the faith and life in general in a better light.
            I teach a course on the Holocaust. The idea is for the students to go beyond facts, and statistics, to the moral issues, yet, over and over again students keep coming back to facts and statistics and it is rare when one reacts with indignation and is able to critically provide a moral reaction. The lack of intellectual cusiority drives me nuts and but it is also the very thing that encourages me to go on and I try my best in transmitting ideas. Yet, I know, the mind is not fully developed till later on in life.

          19. abadilla says:

            If a “fetus” is not human, have you ever seen a woman have a cat, or a dog, or a reptile at the end of nine months? Don’t be absurd. Even ardent pro-choicers now recognize the humanity of the unborn and know, scientifically speaking, a fetus is simply a stage of development, not a denial of one’s humanity.
            If you are a Catholic, and I doubt it, you might want to read the “Declaration on Procured Abortion” in 1974 issued by the Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith under the pontificate of Pope Paul VI. That document discusses the different stages of the unborn. You can find it online.

          20. Frank says:

            I know it is HUMAN. Hey, look, buddy- I just want to support Obama no matter what he does, so don’t try to stump me by making me think a human/fetus/child are all the same. If Obama says they are not- than I believe Obama.

          21. abadilla says:

            “A fetus is not a child.” An absurd unscientific remark, if I ever saw one. You were once a fetus. Where you not an unborn child? The word “fetus” simply describes a stage of growth in the mother’s womb, but a fetus is no less a human being than a born child. A particular stage of growth does not, in any way, diminish our humanity, let alone the fact that we have an immortal soul.

          22. Steve's Conscience says:

            Was this rage substantive? Or just trying to clear you from what is known by many that CV and your blogs are not about Catholic Thought and do in fact have support from Groups listed by a very well respected group as promoting hate speech.
            Your excuse is not an absolution, but an admission and should be a realization that you can and should do better as a Catholic leader. In this sense, you are a leader as you have followers, and as Catholic, you need to respect how you use this role.
            There is no Catholic justification for playing dirty politics, especially while endorsing the best of Catholics to be faithful citizens. As Catholics we do believe in the need for good objectives meassured along with good tactics. It is not enough to be Valid, but it must also be true and in line with good Catholic thought and teaching.
            You must heed you own admonishment, and Grow Up, in fact grow your writing and your words Up to God.

          23. Steve's Conscience says:

            yep- it’s me- Rich, BufordJr, JoeMyGod, etc… Satan has possessed my soul. I have been deceived by the Democratic party. We are getting desperate because Obama is down in the polls thanks to you Catholics.

          24. Steve Skojec says:

            I have no doubts about which of us has the fuller understanding of authentic Catholic thought. I’ve spent 20 years studying it. I even have a degree from an actual Catholic University, certifying that I understood it.

            Your definition of hate speech is remarkably thin. But I know you’ll keep beating the drum. It’s an effective technique insofar as it makes people interested in having a real conversation want to go elsewhere. Nobody wants to be browbeaten by virtual brownshirts. It fails as a form of persuasion, but I don’t think anyone has any illusions about that being your goal.

          25. Steve's Brain says:

            LOL
            “I have a degree from a Catholic University”
            Oh my, Steve, thanks for the laugh.
            When was there ever anyone responding to your blogs wanting to have “real conversation”? I think you tend to rule that our in the way which you promote the most ridiculous of premises.
            As to you “degree,” (my, oh my, Gladys the boy did amount to something afterall. He got him one of them there College Degrees.) It may be good to actually use the intelligence you were to have gained in getting the degree for some useful purpose. Are there any potholes in your streets that need filled.
            You version of Catholicism is doubtful, and if this is all you have to show for 20 years of Study, then it was a wasted time.
            No doubt there are plenty of people with degrees in Church and in the teachings of the Church. I do not recall your name mentioned among the experts. It could be that your “defense” of your positions, and your need to not be as evil as your writing suggests you are, betray your intelligence in things Catholic. What you suggest is not Authentic, and is not coming from anyone with a Scholarly understanding.
            Was it a Franciscan U degree? Are they as credible as one from a real school? Or do you get one at Phoenix U?
            Such a silly boy. But your mother still loves you. And God. And I suppose I have to. (You understand being an expert in Catholicness.)

          26. Steve Skojec says:

            Before you attempt to undermine my credibility, perhaps you should make an attempt to establish your own. Who are you? What’s your real name? Why do you post here? What catechism do you follow (it’s surely not the same one I do.)

            The disputed point is my understanding of the Catholic faith. Your derisive response does nothing to refute the fact that I have the bona fides to show that I at least have studied and understood my faith well enough to earn a diploma certifying that fact. Of course, I’m happy to prove it on any point of Catholic doctrine you care to discuss.

            But you hide behind mocking pseudonyms, paint broad-brush accusations, and cite no official Church teachings to justify your positions. I wouldn’t even respond to you except that I feel bad that real Catholics come to these forums trying to read actual discussions on Catholic topics and all they see is the petulant, trolling nonsense from people trying to derail the political action CV tries to accomplish.

          27. abadilla says:

            Steve, “virtual brownshirts.” I could not have said it better!

          28. Yes, because discrimination against a minority is not substantive?

          29. Steve Skojec says:

            A single memo describing a political tactic does not amount to “discrimination against a minority.” And it is not discrimination to deny something which is a license, not a right. But I’ve discussed this before, and I’m guessing you’re not interested in actual distinctions.

      2. Steve's Conscience says:

        It that not the same thing that you do? Repeat the same message with little to back it up, as you know demonstrate.
        Be not hard on someone else who errs in the same manner as you, as you may need to take your own medicine.

        1. Steve Skojec says:

          Not remotely. I actually have something to say. You all just like to quote one internal memo from an organization and use it as an ad hominem rhetorical cudgel to damage the credibility of anyone who writes here. And it’s remarkably ineffective.

          1. Answer the Question says:

            OK right to the real question. To you support the strategy of divide and conquer in this case? Is it prudent to get one group to fight your battles by esploiting the prejudices of each? Do you not see the ethical conflict here? Gaining good by doing evil is not an acceptable Catholic principle.
            You should face this question openly and not hide behind the intentionality of the questioner.
            This is where you should be focusing, and not complaining about people challenging you.
            We are after all talking about Catholic Conscience in the public square.

          2. abadilla says:

            “To you support the strategy of divide and conquer in this case?” Unbelievable! This remark coming from a troll who disguises his or her name in a nano second. Talk about hypocrisy.

          3. Steve Skojec says:

            Let’s quote the memo, shall we?

            “The strategic goal of this project is to drive a wedge between gays and
            blacks — two key Democratic constituencies. Find, equip, energize and
            connect African American spokespeople for marriage; develop a media
            campaign around their objections to gay marriage as a civil right;
            provoke the gay marriage base into responding by denouncing these
            spokesmen and women as bigots. No politician wants to take up and push
            an issue that splits the base of his party. Fanning the hostility raised
            in the wake of Prop 8 is key to raising the costs of pushing gay
            marriage to its advocates … find attractive young black Democrats to
            challenge white gay marriage advocates electorally.”

            I recognize the validity of political tactics that seek to sew discord among the various constituencies of an opposing party who have real ideological differences. I find it to be somewhat underhanded, but not inherently immoral. The African American community, by and large, does not support gay marriage. Enhancing the awareness of this divide makes this a political issue that is dangerous for someone seeking re-election.

            This is politics. It’s a wargame. It’s strategy and tactics it gets messy. I’d prefer to see gay marriage defeated on its merits (or lack thereof) but I won’t outright condemn NOM’s tactics as evil, because they’re not making something up. They’re not advocating lying. They aren’t creating this rift between these two constituencies within the Democratic party, they’re taking advantage of it.

            In any event, NOM doesn’t dictate what I write here. And based on what I know about their organization, I support their initiatives.

    2. abadilla says:

      Rich, your accusation is utterly ridiculous and just because you repeat it over and over again, does not make it true.

  6. Jan says:

    I find “a troubling voting record on abortion” ironic when compared to the current occupant of the oval office. :)

    Let’s not forget that the great Ronald Reagan was once pro-abortion. I’m not saying Romney is another Reagan, just that he is LDS and they have a more tolerant view of abortion than Catholics do. They believe it is a personal decision made between and woman and her bishop. fyi – a Mormon bishop is simply a member of the ward (congregation) usually in his 40′s, who heads up the ward for a few years. The hierarchy is vastly different from a professional clergy.

    1. I am Catholic says:

      And therefore not as good (which is what you meant). Catholics are t superior to other religions honey. Wonder why so many people dislike Catholicism? Look no further than these pages of hypocrisy.

      1. Jan says:

        Excuse me?? I make a civil point describing the possible motive of a man’s belief based on his religion and you take offense? Perhaps you should put your hackle down.

        1. Jan says:

          FTR – that “excuse me” comment was directed at I Am Catholic – not at Steve.

          1. Steve Skojec says:

            I knew where you were aiming. ;)

      2. Steve Skojec says:

        Catholics do make a rather universal and exclusive religious claim. Read Cantate Domino from the Council of Florence. Any religion that refers to itself as “The True Faith” tends to think it has, well, the truth. More than anyone else.

        And when it comes to abortion, I have no qualms stating that Catholics take a superior position to the LDS Church – both from the perspective of ethics, and from reason. A child is a child is a child. There are no exceptions that make it not so.

      3. Brian A. Cook says:

        Go away Rich. You are not a Catholic. You were asked if you were many blogs ago and you outed yourself as a non-Catholic.

        1. Brian A. Cook says:

          Rich is posting as “I am Catholic”.

          1. abadilla says:

            If Rich is a “Catholic,” I’m Hitler!

      4. abadilla says:

        “honey” How condescending! And as for “these pages of hypocrisy,” why do you keep coming back to them. Isn’t that in itself hypocritical?

    2. Steve Skojec says:

      Romney’s record on abortion was, at one time, not that much better than Obama’s. If you’ve ever seen how adamant he was about protecting that right during the Massachusetts gubernatorial race, you’d be equally concerned. He was as passionate about that as he seems capable of being.

      That said, I’m willing to give him the benefit of the doubt here, but he does need to prove himself. We need to avoid falling into the trap of, “Because he’s better than the other guy, it’s unpatriotic of us to criticize him.” Accountability in this administration is going to be a key task of Catholics.

      1. Jan says:

        I didn’t say “don’t criticize!!” I was just trying to point out that his conscience was formed differently than a Catholic’s might have been! geez!

        BUT – sometimes we do have to choose the lesser of two evils.

        1. Faithful Citizen says:

          Catholics do not choose the lesser of two evils. It is better not to vote if there is no difference in reality, or else to find other issues to look at.
          What Romney is saying, as are many who are supporting him, is that there is not much that he can or will do about abortion.
          While the Obama position may be known as pro-choice, many find other of his policies to have a postive effect on lowering the actual number of abortions sought.
          All of this is important for a Catholic voter to consider.

          1. abadilla says:

            “While the Obama position may be known as pro-choice, many find other of his policies to have a positive effect on lowering the actual number of abortions sought.” Say what??????????????
            The problem is that his other policies are responsible for 23 million Americans being out of a job, and his HH Mandate policy is an all-out-attack on the Catholic Church, that’s all!

      2. This Catholic says:

        Romney makes money from every fetus disposed at Planned Parenthood. I don’t think his record has changed all that much. MONEY MONEY MONEY

      3. Georgia Hedrick says:

        Thank you Steve, for giving Romney the benefit of the doubt. At least he is going in the RIGHT direction- the direction towards life. Obama has evolved towards the path of death- even Michele has been saying that the ban on partial birth abortion should be lifted. You can bet that Michele has a lot of influence on her husband. If Obama wins reelection, America will have partial birth abortion. If Romney wins, the ban on partial birth abortion will be enforced. Give Romney a chance.

      4. Thomas More says:

        You should not be giving anyone the benefit of the doubt, but to keep the challenge on, but to also to look at the whole of the reality. Many do not find Romney to be trusted on his pro-life stance, and are trying to figure out which of his contrasting positions will survive into his presidency.
        You are right though that he must be held accountable, but that should be true whether you favor his candidacy or not. Any good pro-life voter should have been doing that without regard to who they voted for.

    3. Rachel says:

      People can have a change of heart. I was once for abortion rights. After I got pregnant with my first child, I had a change of heart. That little one was an active kicker in utero. There was no denying he was his own being, he was alive, and he depended on me. I am now staunchly pro-life. Vote Romney. Vote for life. Everything else can be worked out, but if we don’t give LIFE a chance, we lose everything.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>

STAY CONNECTED


DON'T MISS A THING

Receive our updates via email.