Political Irony

Does anyone know where Mitt Romney actually stands on abortion and choice? It seems to change every day.

Last week, Romney told an Iowa newspaper that abortion legislation would not be part of his agenda if elected. “There’s no legislation with regards to abortion that I’m familiar with that would become part of my agenda.”

But less than 24 hours later, Romney promised that he would govern as a “pro-life president” and would “immediately” defund Planned Parenthood. He also said he would prohibit funding to any international family planning groups that provide abortions.

Just to confuse things further, in the middle of all this Romney spokeswoman Andrea Saul said “Mitt Romney is proudly pro-life, and he will be a pro-life president.” She later added Romney “would of course support legislation aimed at providing greater protections for life.”

Wow, a direct contradiction in less than 24 hours.

He did the same flip flop when he was running for governor of Massachusetts in 2002. He promised to maintain the status quo of abortion rights, and even filled out a Planned Parenthood questionnaire saying that he supported “the substance” of Roe v Wade. He even told abortion rights advocates that he would be a “good voice” for them. But once he was elected, he vetoed a bill that would provide emergency contraception using the “morning after pill” because that drug would “terminate life after conception”. Romney also cited his anti-abortion views in taking a stand against using embryos for scientific experimentation.

And of course, Romney’s running mate, Paul Ryan, co-sponsored a “personhood” amendment that would mean that terminating a pregnancy would be illegal, even in cases of rape.