Ramesh Ponnuru has a thoughtful post on The Corner about how pro-lifers should deal with questions regarding Mitt Romney's changing abortion views:
I think we ought to be unsentimental about this question. Those of us who favor Romney’s position on sanctity-of-life issues ought to care less about its sincerity than about its stability. We ought to care about whether he will abandon the position, that is, not whether he truly believes it.
As I’ve said before, I can’t judge Romney’s sincerity — his timing is suspect but past signals plus his eloquence on life issues may indicate there is something to his conversion. Yet he didn’t switch only once, like George H.W. Bush.
In 1994, Romney accepted an endorsement from Massachusetts Citizens for Life while running for the Republican senatorial nomination against a pro-choice primary opponent. He emphasized his opposition to taxpayer funding of abortion and the Freedom of Choice Act, which threatened to codify Roe.
Then, when challenged on the issue, Romney emphasized that he was in fact pro-choice, had been since before Roe, and recounted the tragic circumstances that he said led his family to support legal abortion. Romney suggested he might support a modified version of the Freedom of Choice Act and that he believed Medicaid funding of abortion should be left up to the states.
Romney certainly may be sincere. But so far, he hasn’t been stable.
A man of faith in a godless age is hitting Americans where it hurts.
Mr. and Mrs. American Spectator Reader, let P.J. O’Rourke talk sense to your kids.
In Britain, defending your property can get you life.
The debacle of this president’s administration is both a cause and a symptom of the decline of American values. Unless Congress impeaches him, that decline will go on unchecked. An eminent jurist surveys the damage and assesses the chances for the recovery of our culture.
It won’t take long for conservatives to scratch this presidential wannabe off their 2008 scorecard.
The American Christmas, like the songs that celebrate it, makes room for everybody under the rainbow. Is that why so many people seem to be hostile to it?
Was the President done in by the economy, or by the politics of the economy?