Ron Paul Adviser Criticizes Mitt Romney For Declining Abortion Pledge

WASHINGTON -– A top adviser to Republican presidential candidate Rep. Ron Paul (Texas) bashed fellow candidate and former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney for refusing to sign an anti-abortion pledge, calling into question Romney's beliefs on the matter.

"Given Governor Romney's past flip-flops on the Right to Life issue and his support for Obamacare-like individual mandates, this stance is very troubling. Right to Life conservatives must question Gov. Romney's commitment to our cause," Jesse Benton, Paul's campaign manager, wrote in an email.

Benton was referring to Romney's decision not to sign a pledge circulated by the Susan B. Anthony List, a Washington-based anti-abortion group. Romney's campaign said Friday that the language was overbroad, would limit his ability to choose cabinet officials if he became president and would result in a loss of federal funding for hospitals--including facilities for military veterans.

Romney wrote an op-ed for National Review on Saturday further outlining and defending his decision.

But Benton wrote to HuffPost that "advocates of individual Liberty and medicine based on the free market who want to get the federal government out of our health care should be alarmed that Gov. Romney is using the very same Big Government involvement that we are fighting against to justify his soft position."

Benton's comments follow criticism of Romney on the issue by other 2012 hopefuls – former Sen. Rick Santorum (R-Pa.) and Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-Minn.) – over the weekend.

Former Godfather's Pizza CEO Herman Cain also has declined to sign the pledge. Cain said in a statement that the pledge takes too robust a view of presidential powers by calling on the president to "advance" pro-life legislation rather than Congress.

The SBA List has said Romney's concern about Cabinet appointments is a sign he wants to nominate abortion-rights advocates to top positions and has dismissed Romney's concerns about hospital funding as without grounds. Romney, SBA List President President Marjorie Dannenfelser said over the weekend, is referring to "non-existent legislation that would defund hospitals as a reason not to sign."

"Defunding hospitals has never been considered by Congress, is not part of public debate, and is not part of the pledge. 95 percent of abortions are performed outside of hospitals," Dannenfelser said.

Comments

[enhancedvibes]

04:51 PM on 08/17/2011

Ron Paul is full of it. Having been an OB/GYN he should have first hand knowledge of the difficult decisions women make with regard to pregnancy and he still identifies as anti-choice. Completely disingenuous. Though he shirks the status quo there will never be a time for him to reign as president in the US of A.

[Quinxy von Besiex]

12:58 AM on 06/22/2011

Republicans may object to abortions, but surely cutting off acceess to clinics which work to prevent unwanted pregnancy (as well as other ob/gyn services) is the worst way to achieve that goal.

[thrashertm]

05:39 PM on 06/21/2011

I'm a pro choice Ron Paul supporter. Abortion rights will not change under a Ron Paul presidency. To do so, it would require changes in the Supreme Court AND legislation with a super majority in the Senate. Roe V Wade has not changed under 3 GOP presidents, and I don't think it will under Ron Paul either. Instead, he'll bring home the troops NOW, stop the civil liberties abuses, protect privacy, enhance liberty and restore the Constitution.

Stuck in a job you don't like? Let us help you find a better one. http://www.jobwaltz.com for premium job search assistance.

[Freedom and Peace]

04:53 PM on 06/21/2011

If you are pro-choice and unable to support Dr. Ron Paul because he is pro-life, please understand why...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eUZ95Yb0R90

Ron Paul 2012 for PEACE

[synergie]

01:27 AM on 06/23/2011

What exactly is it that you think that little anecdote explains? He describes a viable baby that was delivered with functional lungs in the 1960's. No proof that such an incident ever occurred or if it did what the circumstances might have been.

He also describes the birth of a viable baby, a procedure that is not an abortion, (hint the good doctor fails to make the distinction between an abortion and a birth, you'd think that even an Ob/Gyn resident who glimpsed a procedure for a second and jumped to conclusions would have latched on to that salient fact.)

The thing with a pro-choice position is that it respects everyone's personal decisions and allows each patient and her physician (one with a better grasp on the subject than "dr." Paul) to make the correct decision the patient and the situation involved.

Thus, Ron Paul and his "pro-life" stance is nothing more than an anti-choice position, from a man who should know better, who somehow believes government should keep it's nose out of personal liberty, BUT make medical decisions with a poor basis in facts.

His position makes no sense, and voting for him while he holds these dissonant beliefs is illogical, and would actually result in more stories like the one he described. A vote of Ron Paul is not a vote for either peace or personal liberty.

[enhancedvibes]

04:57 PM on 08/17/2011

Correct, his position makes no sense. Agree wholeheartedly. Paul is disingenuous on this position.

[enhancedvibes]

04:56 PM on 08/17/2011

I dont have to respect Paul's anti choice positions at all. He used to be an OB/GYN so he should have direct experience and knowledge of the difficult choices women might make when it comes to pregnancy. That video is tripe. He is beyond disingenuous on this issue. And for the record, a D&C is an extremely streamlined procedure now, like most surgical procedures introduced way back when, which carries little to no harm to the woman carrying the fetus.

[kimsys]

04:36 PM on 06/21/2011

this is p-u-r-e insanity. what right is he taking away? the right to force people who believe, for what ever personal reasons they may have, that abortion is wrong, to pay to support abortion service providers? personally, i could care less what people believe, or in fact, do with regard to this issue (i tend to believe that an embryo becomes a spiritual being around day 49, when the pineal gland floods the brain with DMT) but *clearly* there isn't really a consensus here, and I don't think you can argue that it's just to make someone pay for something they believe is wrong.  i, for one, i certainly loathe the fact that half of my federal tax dollars go towards the imprisonment of myself and my fellow Americans for victimless crimes, and killing basically just about anyone we like who happens to find themselves outside of the cozy geopolitical boarders of the US, or Israel (or more recently, even inside them) it's not like this is some brand new revelation. it's the first chapter in his "50 issues in alphabetical order, from abortion to Zionism" book, liberty defined. yes, Ron Paul is pro-life, across the board, whether you are the unborn, a convict on death row, or a poor afghan tribesman. of those, only the last two would even fall under "things with which the president has any direct jurisdiction over."
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Oqkc0xtLTb8

[gggeorgewashington]

01:13 PM on 06/21/2011

Ron Paul 2012 Please

Thank You

[synergie]

01:31 AM on 06/23/2011

No, thank you. Bye bye.

[gggeorgewashington]

08:58 AM on 06/23/2011

Any reason?

Ron Paul 2012

[lowrodiay65]

11:53 AM on 06/21/2011

Republicans are amazing, they want to tell women what to do, they want to change the kinds of governments middle east countries have and they they scream that their rights are being taken away. Ha, Ha, HAAA.

[nickleby]

12:39 PM on 06/22/2011

You must not be commenting on Ron Paul but instead some other Republican.

[BuckJ]

10:42 AM on 06/21/2011

The Founding Fathers had no problem with a.b.o.rti.on. Don't see why Paul would then. :D

http://www.feminism101.com/timelineabortion.html

[Pyrometman]

11:27 AM on 06/21/2011

He has a problem with it because he defines the beginning of life at the conception stage. Just because you found something on the internet, likely written by a liberal, still doesn't make it right. Isn't it much better to go the root cause of a problem, which in many cases is irresponsible sexual behavior?

[BuckJ]

11:30 AM on 06/21/2011

Actually, I REMEMBERED that the move against a.b.o.rtio.n started in the 19th century and was led primarily by doctors (science). The religious aspect came later. Then when doctors began to change their minds, the religious aspect remained.

Again, if life begins at conception, then we're having more miscarriages than births seeing as how most zygotes never even embed in the uterine wall and are flushed out during menstruation.

[synergie]

01:33 AM on 06/23/2011

That's his problem then with coming up with a nonsensical definition. Just because you, as a conservative, say something, likely informed by nothing much at all, doesn't make something so.

The root cause of the problem is a dearth of preventive services that are readily accessible to people and a lack of health education. Even responsible sexual behavior leads to unplanned pregnancies, denial of this basic fact based on a complete isolation from reality due to your ideological bias won't change it.

[LibertarianJon]

10:00 AM on 06/21/2011

Just FYI, Here's the Mormon's view on Abortion:

"The Church opposes abortion and counsels its members not to submit to or perform an abortion except in the rare cases where, in the opinion of competent medical counsel, the life or good health of the mother is seriously endangered or where the pregnancy was caused by rape and produces serious emotional trauma in the mother. Even then it should be done only after counseling with the local presiding priesthood authority and after receiving divine confirmation through prayer."

Remember, Romney is a lifelong Mormon

[BubblyBev]

10:27 AM on 06/21/2011

Most folks in this country (imo) are pro choice & at the same time pro life, meaning the choice is yours whether or not you want to nuture (and) everything should be done to avoid having an unwanted pregnancy beforehand (i.e., both partners responsible & conscientious about using protection). What I don't get is when the religious give no value to the "unborn life" caused by "rape or emotional trauma". What's that phrase they use again..."it was god's will?" Hypocrisy; prejudice with a halo.

[Pyrometman]

11:21 AM on 06/21/2011

I don't see it as being hypocritical. The position you describe is based on the distinction of how the pregnancy came about. In one situation, the pregnancy is mutually agreed between a man an woman and is therefore not done in a violent act. In the case of rape, the act is violent and is not accepted by the woman. I'm not particularly religious but this position has always been my belief because I define "life" as beginning at conception, except when the pregnancy is brought about by a violent act. It is a belief system, nothing more.

[LibertarianJon]

09:52 AM on 06/21/2011

Anyone else think it's fairly Ironic that a libertarian would not be pro choice??

[Pyrometman]

10:38 AM on 06/21/2011

No, especially when Ron Paul is not truly a libertarian, he is a constitutional conservative...although many of his positions agree with the Libertarian view point.

[yipcarl]

08:18 AM on 06/21/2011

Ron Paul was a practicing OBGYN for decades before politics... I think he knows a little about the unborn than most all of you. If we don't protect our most innocent human life, who should we protect. 2 people decide to F and it's the babies fault? Take some responsibility.

[panichead]

09:11 AM on 06/21/2011

So he was one of the ones that George W. Bush was talking about spreading his love around the country. You are probably in the mindset to kill the parents and the doctor, huh?

[yipcarl]

06:44 PM on 06/21/2011

I think your screen name should read pinhead, not panichead. nuf said.

[John P Slevin]

10:34 AM on 06/21/2011

yipcarl, no, Ron Paul doesn't know more than anyone about anything. Indeed, that's typically Ron Paul's position on just about anything, as it is the view of libertarians on just about anything.

There's always contradiction in the arguments made on the abortion issue. One glaring example is the fact that a majority those arguing from the pro-life perspective also support the death penalty, a fairly anti-life position, therefore, a contradiction.

LibertarianJon, commenting above you is correct. Paul's position is ironic, and it doesn't suffice to argue, as Paul does, that the abortion argument is a decision to be made by government at the state level. Government abuse of power is as insidious at the state level as it is at the federal level and Paul's position on abortion always has been incompatible with a view of liberty.

Ron Paul is a good guy; he's not infallible.

[nickleby]

01:28 PM on 06/21/2011

I don't think that your comparison of abortion and the death penalty is very accurate. One is taking away the choice of a the baby who has done nothing to anyone (that is if you consider life beginning at conception which should be the real debate here) the other is punishing someone for taking away someones life. Very different situations. I am not defending either view here just commenting on the fact that your examples make a weak argument.

[lulu2010]

04:53 AM on 06/21/2011

This is why a Ron Paul is wasted on an illiterate dumbed down America.
He would never force his believes on Americans. Would never sign an executive order unless to legalize the constitution. He wants to leave abortion to states to decide. The pledge is his own personal belief but would never enforce it through his office. He never has as a congressman. Why can't Americans see past this 'gotcha' journalism?

[William Von Kaenel]

05:36 AM on 06/21/2011

Thanks... I needed that. God willing, I'll vote for Ron Paul.

[yipcarl]

08:04 AM on 06/21/2011

will ....ditto buddy ditto.... the rest of you lops have your head up your arse and aren't paying attention. If you were you would know the score.

[BuckJ]

10:53 AM on 06/21/2011

If he wants to leave it to the states, then why does he keep introducing the Sanctity of Life Act?

[thrashertm]

08:25 PM on 06/21/2011

From Wikipedia "The Sanctity of Life Act further would have recognized that each state has authority to protect the lives of unborn children residing in the jurisdiction of that state. Such legislative declarations are NONBINDING statements of policy and are used by federal courts in the context of determining the intent of the legislature in legal challenges"

[xlmb]

04:36 AM on 06/21/2011

TO KARAC... Hope you see this. Have tried for close to an hour to respond. Don't know if it's my puter or HP who deleted a well documented and factual comment regarding the difference between and abortion and late-term. It's okay. I too am sorry for my response considering this is all convoluted. My response was definitely then NOT meant for you . Would be psycho path.

[eyeforeye42]

04:18 AM on 06/21/2011

An antiabortion pledge is akin to federal mandated medical procedures. I thought the GOP wanted the Feds out of your life. I'm confused. What's next in federal intervention for medical procedures? I guess this is a good way for the GOP to keep one class of citizens (women) second class. Perhaps next it will be mandating women make less money than men or better yet stay home or perhaps have a scarf on or head covered whenever they are out? Wait a second, this sounds like something you'd find in religion (and that my friends is how things of this nature come about)!

[Jillian Pierone]

09:55 AM on 06/21/2011

the pledge is to never enforce it through his office. Paul has stated repeatedly that within the confines of the constitution, the executive branch has no right to enforce any such law. His personal view is pro-life but within the law he KNOWS that it is up to the states to decide. As an obGYN who once saw a tiny baby aborted -crying and struggling to breath but placed in a bucket as the medical professionals tried to ignore it and that same day, he helped deliver a baby the same size- and everyone in the room raced to do everything they could to save the tiny child. Deciding when it is or isn't ok to kill a child is a very dangerous business for government to get involved in. -- one thing he would be able to do as president is STOP FUNDING ABORTION with the tax dollars of PRO LIFERS. For people who see this as murder- to force them to fund a woman's abortion is disgusting and Ron Paul will work to end THAT practice.

[camanokat]

10:26 AM on 06/21/2011

Hyde Amendment. No tax dollars, whether anti or pro choice, go to abortions.

[synergie]

02:27 AM on 06/23/2011

If a baby was crying and breathing, then it was not aborted, it was delivered. This story he tells doesn't give any facts, just some nice appeal to emotion, a dishonest one from someone who ought to know better.

Taxpayer money currently does not fund abortion, repeatedly YELLING the lie, doesn't make it so. If he's truly pro-life and wishes to stop money from people who are pro-life from funding thingsthat kill people, then he needs to articulate that. There are very many people who are actually pro-life, and would prefer that their money NOT go to the military industrial complex and the military which are vehemently anti-Life, and kill people, and fetuses, which are not people (because surely they are there among all that collateral damage we inflict). It is indeed disgusting to force people who respect the life of people to take their money and apply it to murder. That situation though it's the case with abortion, the only people involved there are the mothers, and their medical procedures while done in a safe environment result in no people dying, AND no taxpayer money funds it since Hyde.

Also, the idiotic phrasing of the 1,000 anti-choice bills does put in danger funding for hospitals and services for women whose lives are in danger and the victims of sexual assault. That is disgusting, and Ron Paul and the rest don't even seem to understand this simple fact, which is also disgusting.

[moslef]

02:51 AM on 06/21/2011

When Americans hear the word muslim, what do they think of? A blond blue eyed northern european? No, they envision a person with brown skin from a country they don't understand who is angry and for those on the right, their enemy.

So by calling Obama a muslim you are in fact being racist_ Its about nuance of language and culture. After all race is a social construction created in the minds of those who use the symbols to create it. In this case the word muslim has replaced the variety of racial epithets popular with the intolerant to direct at Obama.

Why else would you call Obama a muslim?

[Difster]

03:02 AM on 06/21/2011

Possibly because he attended Muslim schools? And since Islam has some fundamentally different ideals than Americans tend to believe, it is a thing to be concerned about.

Is it racist? Not necessarily. You don't see people running around saying "He's a Latin American Catholic!" in order to criticize Mexicans even though being a Latin American Catholic would almost certainly mean someone of dark skin, dark eyes, etc.

So it's not about a racial construct at all, it's the perception that Islam is not in line with what most Americans see as "American Values" however you want do define that.

[moslef]

03:25 AM on 06/21/2011

I am not talking about a person who innocently asks if he is a muslim, I am referring to the person who calls him anti-american and thinks he is hiding something.

Obama has been very open about the fact that he attended a state school in an Islamic country and his father was raised in Islam. However, Obama was raised by an atheist American woman.

So with that in mind when I hear Obama called a muslim I make that connection. He has been baptized, attended christian church and baptized his children and married a christian woman. I don't get the connection to Islam other than as a racial attack. At the best its bigoted_ and intolerant, two lines of thinking that has plagued the right since the civil rights era.

As for Latinos they have faced coded racial attacks too though its not connected to religion.

[xlmb]

03:24 AM on 06/21/2011

First the definition of a Rascist by Merriams-Dictionary: a belief that race is the primary determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race

Your boy was in a MORE THAN obvious RASCIST Church for 20+ years where they denounced Caucasians and the government, and America. He shoved ObamaCare down our throats although a PROVEN MAJORITY of constiuents were against it and WE WERE NOT even allowed to Vote -- Yah or Nay. His father was a Muslim and per OUR GOVERNMENT for many, many, years you are what your father is. Just like Jewish girls and boys born to a Jewish mother are Jewish. Your father is Puerto Rican? You are PR. DR? DR., etc.. So where exactly is the rascism? What about many of us know he is a failure and has nothing to do with his color or religious affiliation? He won didn't he???? I know I never went to a Church that preached hatred like Obama's Church did and if you want any of us to believe he is no longer in touch with the Reverand Wright after two decades of affiliation? Well.... You are quite foolish then.

[camanokat]

10:29 AM on 06/21/2011

Sorry, but Jeremiah Wright was right. And I'm a white middle aged woman and *I* could see it.