Mitt Romney's $10,000 Question on Choice

With the Iowa caucuses less than one month away, Americans are learning more and more about the Republicans vying to replace President Obama.

When it comes to their records on choice, one thing is clear: all of the Republican presidential candidates oppose a woman's right to choose.

In fact, some of these candidates will gather in Des Moines Wednesday night for a forum on abortion hosted by anti-choice former Gov. Mike Huckabee (R-Ark.) and several anti-choice organizations.

Rep. Michele Bachmann, Gov. Rick Perry, former Sen. Rick Santorum, and the current frontrunner, former House Speaker Newt Gingrich, will join Huckabee in Des Moines—presumably to expound further on their plans to chip away at a woman's right to make private medical decisions with her doctor.

One candidate who won't be at the forum is former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney.

This is a pity, because Romney's own words and deeds make Americans question his values and convictions on choice.

Back in 2002, when he was trying to get elected governor in a pro-choice state, he promised NARAL Pro-Choice Massachusetts that he'd be a "good voice in the [Republican] party" for women's freedom and privacy.

Then, he pulled a 180-degree turn, and took anti-choice actions as governor.

Given the governor's swift embrace of extreme anti-choice policies, reporters and voters likely have some questions for him—even though he decided against attending Huckabee's forum.

Here are a few "$10,000 questions" they should be asking Gov. Romney:

• In October, you told Gov. Huckabee that you "absolutely" supported a state constitutional amendment to define life at conception, similar to Initiative 26, Mississippi's failed "personhood" measure.

  
  Such a measure would ban abortion care without exception: even in cases of rape or incest, and even when a woman's life or health is in danger. It could also outlaw in vitro fertilization and some of the most common methods of birth control.

  However, after Mississippi voters overwhelming rejected Initiative 26, your campaign tried to re-explain your endorsement of a "human-life amendment" that would have established the beginning of life at conception. Why are you supporting measures that voters in one of the most conservative states in the Union found too extreme?

• This year, the U.S. House of Representatives passed two radical attacks on a woman's right to choose: H.R.3, the "Stupak on Steroids" bill, and H.R.358, the "Let Women Die" bill. Both bills effectively would ban private coverage of abortion care in health-insurance exchanges. (A large majority of private plans currently offer such coverage.) H.R.358 would also allow hospitals to refuse to provide emergency abortion care even when it's necessary to save a woman's life.

  
  President Obama signaled his intention to veto both bills if they should ever reach his desk. As president, would you sign H.R.3, the "Stupak on Steroids" bill, or H.R.358, the "Let Women Die" bill?

• Gov. Romney, last month you proposed eliminating the Title X program, the nation's only dedicated family-planning program. Millions of Americans rely on Title X for birth control, cancer screenings, and other basic health care. How do you propose that these Americans get access to birth control, cancer screenings, and other basic health care they need once you've eliminated Title X?

NARAL Pro-Choice America's publication The Powers of the President: Reproductive Freedom and Choice details just how much power the president has over reproductive-health policy in the United States.

Indeed, the next president could nominate enough Supreme Court justices to determine the future of Roe v. Wade and women's constitutional right to choose for decades to come.

Given the stakes, it's only natural that Americans would want to know what someone who could be their next president would do to protect women's freedom and privacy.

Paid for by NARAL Pro-Choice America, www.ProChoiceAmerica.org, and not authorized by any candidate or candidate's committee.

 

Follow Nancy Keenan on Twitter: www.twitter.com/NARAL

Comments

[REBEL LEADER]

11:36 PM on 12/13/2011

Anyone who knows anything about momonism knows the church frowns on gambling and discourages it ,hopefully mitt doesnt make it his testimony of the month.

[REBEL LEADER]

11:33 PM on 12/13/2011

He broke his churches rule of not gambling LOL way to go M.R. going against every grain right out of the gate arent you.Im sure that will provide a wonderful testimony for you, wont it LOL

[Mouse718]

09:52 PM on 12/13/2011

If Romney is elected he'll have to do the bidding of republicans in congress, who are more conservative than he is, otherwise he'll be a completely ineffective president (like Obama). So he's going to turn a hard right on all these contraception/funding/abortion rights issues.

[pangborn]

08:18 PM on 12/13/2011

And NARAL's positions are not extreme? Get real!!

[Freddie27]

10:04 PM on 12/13/2011

Not particularly extreme; they believe a woman should be able to have control over what happens to her body.

[2tango]

07:36 PM on 12/13/2011

That shows how loyal they are to themselves and not to the country.

They all suffer the same "Sickness" lack of seriousness, and loyalty to principles of a society.

[The Corporate Champion]

07:34 PM on 12/13/2011

I support Romney's positions. The pro-abortion side is losing, and the pro-life movement has gained significant congressional seats this past decade.

[Freddie27]

10:03 PM on 12/13/2011

http://www.pollingreport.com/abortion.htm
Gallup Poll. May 5-8, 2011. N=1,018 adults nationwide
"With respect to the abortion issue, would you consider yourself to be pro-choice or pro-life?"
49% Pro-choice, 45% Pro-life

[skittle]

07:06 PM on 12/13/2011

Interesting terminology...extreme anti-choice policies, woman's right to choose, woman's right to private medical decisions, woman's freedom and privacy. You could substitute pro-life or pro-baby or anti-abortion; phrase it as many ways as you want, it still comes down to if you believe an unborn fetus deserves protection over and above the desires of the mother. To paint either side as evil, demonic or uncaring is hardly and accurate picture. On a side note, Interesting reference to the Mississippi vote; do we think those that support gay marriage are out of touch since California, arguably the most liberal state, didn't pass it in a popular vote?

[Freddie27]

09:59 PM on 12/13/2011

Neither referendum was constitutional or appropriate. In America, fundamental rights are not up for a vote.

[skittle]

11:07 PM on 12/13/2011

Appropriate? Should they run the ballot questions by you in advance? The author pointed out that support of the Mississippi initiative indicated Romney was out of touch with the country because it didn't pass in a conservative state. I was just pointing out that the argument could then be applied to the California vote too.

[Dorothy Moody]

10:07 AM on 12/14/2011

The terminology is interesting and long overdue. It's not about life, it's about choice. A woman's life should not be secondary to that of a fetus. It is uncaring to decide that women aren't competent enough to make those decisions without the help of the government.

[skittle]

09:27 PM on 12/14/2011

The problem is that most choices to abort are not about the woman's ability to live as much as they are about the inconvenience of a baby. I would agree her right to live should take precedence, but not her preferences of a lifestyle.