Romney Advocated Forcing Catholic Hospitals to Administer Abortion Pill

Rick Santorum wrote an op-ed in The Politico defending conscience rights. And it's a good strong defense. But this op-ed will be remembered for eviscerating GOP opponent Mitt Romney.

Recently, Romney has spoken out against the Obama administration attempting to force Catholic institutions to pay for contraceptives and abortifacients. But it seems that in 2005, Romney actually bragged about doing the exact same thing.

Here's the snippet from Santorum's piece:
I stand with Americans - people of every faith or no faith at all - who still hold that there are truths which are self evident - and rights which are inalienable.

This is not the first time that elected officials have trounced on the fundamental right to religious freedom. In December 2005, Governor Mitt Romney required all Massachusetts hospitals, including Catholic ones, to provide emergency contraception to rape victims.

He said then that he believed “in his heart of hearts” that receiving these contraceptives - free of charge - trumped employees' religious consciences. Now, a few years later and running for president, his heart is strategically aligned with religious voters opposing this federal mandate.

The actions of President Obama – as well as the actions of then Governor Romney - raise some questions. From where do we receive our fundamental human rights? Are they given to us by the government--whether that government be State or Federal? Or, as the American Founders insisted, are these rights endowed upon us by a Creator?
This is not just a pro-life/pro-abortion thing. This is a completely wrongheaded view of religious liberty. This is advocacy of Big Government dictating to religious leaders how they can practice their faith.

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."

In my personal view. His words.

Now, there's been some arguments from sources saying that it was the best that could be done in Massachusetts at that time. But I honestly don't know if that's true. Maybe it is. But aren't some fights worth having. Isn't there a line in the sand for Romney? Isn't there an issue where he pulls a Gandalf and screams "You shall not pass!" Or no?

Santorum's all about lines in the sand. In fact, one of the reasons moderates are nervous about Santorum is that he draws so many lines in the sand. Santorum doesn't have inclinations. He's got stands. And it seems to me that Santorum's stance against the HHS mandate is one of conscience. Romney's just seems to be one of calculation.

Comments

  1. I recently wrote about this on my blog. It came up in an interview that Ron Paul gave. Certainly no one should be forced to administer a drug which some say is abortafacient against their well formed conscience. Scientifically speaking, the most common form of emergency contraception (levonorgestrel) is not likely to be abortafacient and the USCCB seems to have given consent to administer it in the case of rape. Check out the post if you want to know more: http://theworldandtheword.wordpress.com/2012/02/03/ron-paul-rape-and-abortion/

    ReplyDelete
  2. The more I hear about Rick Santorum, the more I admire him, and see in him the moral strength that all leaders, both spiritual and temporal, ought to have. I pray that the U.S. will see that in him too. As for the so-called "Morning After" pill: if conception has occurred prior to ingestion of the drug, the drug will act to cause the death of the embryo, by rendering the womb unable to receive it.

    ReplyDelete
  3. @Lynda - you're absolutely right about the mechanism of another drug known as mifeprisone. This likely isn't the case for levonorgestrel though.

    ReplyDelete
  4. "Not LIKELY to be abortafacient". I am familiar with this document, and the problem with it is that there is no test to determine whether or not the egg has been fertilized, so in actuality, the proposed act of defending the egg against the unwanted fertilization is still not possible to be carried out with 100% accuracy. That's not good enough for me. I couldn't take a drug knowing that it's possible that I could be killing my own child.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Regarding what Romney did, check this out.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Hey John,
    Let's build a little hypothetical time machine and have your mom take levonorgestrel right after you are conceived. Wanna risk it?

    Didn't think so.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Based on John R's info, I'd be extremely interested to see if it is in fact correct that the USCCB has deemed it acceptable to administer levonorgestrel in the case of rape. That would be most interesting.

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment