The American Spectator : The Spectacle Blog : Romney Refuses to Sign Pro-Life Pledge

Text Size

The Spectacle Blog

Romney Refuses to Sign Pro-Life Pledge

By Jeffrey Lord on 6.18.11 @ 12:24PM

Uh-oh.

The pro-life Susan B. Anthony List, found here, routinely asks candidates to sign their "pro-life pledge" (as Congresswoman Michele Bachmann has done).

The pledge takes on considerable importance in Republican circles as it indicates the candidate's attitude toward appointing conservatives to the U.S. Supreme Court and the rest of the federal bench, as well as at the sensitive positions of Cabinet Departments Health and Human Services and Justice. Additionally, the candidate agrees to support the defunding of Planned Parenthood.

The news:

Front-runner Mitt Romney has refused to sign.

Aside from providing the obvious opening for opponents (Rick Santorum quickly pounced, taking Romney to task), the Romney refusal raises the concern a President Romney would be appointing Supreme Court nominees in the mold of George H.W. Bush appointee David Souter -- the latter who famously was presented as a conservative and became a dependable liberal Court vote the moment he was seated. Souter, it should be noted, was from New Hampshire -- where Romney is concentrating his efforts.

Also not signing: candidates Herman Cain and Gary Johnson.

View all comments (62) | Leave a comment

Teflon93| 6.18.11 @ 12:47PM

Romney's position is obvious: he never had a conversion of the heart on the abortion issue. Moreover, Mormons hung onto racist beliefs deep into the modern era and abortion has always had a racial tinge, which is why Margaret Sanger, Jesse Jackson, and most recently Judge Ruth Buzzi Ginsberg have emphasized abortion's utility to contol, in Ginsberg's formulation, "populations we don't want too many of".

Cain's is utterly inexplicable, given how many African-American children have been exterminated in the fluorescent abattoirs of Planned Parenthood (the most Orwellian named organization since the Committee for Public Safety.

Occam's Tool| 6.19.11 @ 3:37AM

Teflon---don't forget the National Institute for Clinical Excellence in Britain. That's pretty Orwellian.

But, good on 'ya for noting that Sanger was a vicious racist.

Bill Hussein O'Stalin| 6.18.11 @ 1:21PM

Signing documents before you are elected is at best a publicity stunt.

However, I do agree that Romney will most likely be backwatered into appointing pseudo-justices who will actively seek to legislate from the bench.

In fact, there's very little doubt of that.

Warrior| 6.19.11 @ 11:23AM

Just look at his "liberal" judicial appointments as governor and you have your answer as to what he will do if given the chance in the future.

Michael L. Hauschild| 6.18.11 @ 1:23PM

Well, damned if you do: DAMNED if you don't.

Pelligrino| 6.18.11 @ 1:28PM

We'll have to see what Cain might say, but, if he won't sign on, he's done. It's over. Was he also just doing this "run" as a lark or as a way to increase his business profile in America?

Which party (part of the electorate) is he courting for favor?

So...maybe this was for Cain all about just jockeying for a Dept. of Commerce posting in December 2012.

If these individuals cannot see how abortions are destroying America in so many ways, then they don't have minds capable of the many challenges of the presidency.

Romney, once more, doesn't get it. That's okay. We don't need him. After all, the guy lost out to McCain of all people. That reveals all kinds of character flaws. All flapppadoddle and no real core values.

Teflon93| 6.18.11 @ 1:43PM

I agree---I supported Cain but no longer do.

Signing pledges is not a stunt---it is a reflection of where the candidate stands; what they really believe.

Romney believes nothing except that he is entitled to the presidency. This is the root of his flipflops, inconsistencies, and lack of firm conservative principles.

His position is not going to sit well with the Mormon faithful who are among the most pro-life Americans there are.

Michael L. Hauschild| 6.18.11 @ 6:31PM

Teflon93,
How do you manage to explain yoursef (and the facts) in so few words?

Teflon93| 6.18.11 @ 8:07PM

Michael-

You're far too kind---that's the first time I've been accused of brevity!

Occam's Tool| 6.19.11 @ 3:36AM

Beautifully written.

Warrior| 6.19.11 @ 11:26AM

We are starting to agree again. Watch out, you may be a closet libertarian.

Occam's Tool| 6.20.11 @ 12:17AM

Dear Warrior:

No, sir, I am a Conservative. And a proud barbarian. Romney lacks a spine.

If you want a good chill down your spine, go to the CIA Factbook and look at the Demographic data on Europe v. The Caliphate. That's why I can't be a Libertarian.

Discount gucci bags on sale| 7.29.11 @ 10:13PM

I have read a few of the articles on your website now, and I really like your style of blogging

Anthony M| 6.18.11 @ 2:14PM

We might actually have to swallow hard and accept Romney at his word. He says he's pro-life but won't sign the so-called pledge because it might hamper his ability to hire prospective cabinet members, maybe he has a point. The problem is, except for Ron Paul, the rest of those running for the Republican nomination look like serious lightweights. Romney at least was a successful businesman and has governing experience. He's a moderate, it's true, and maybe a little too nice, but the USA is kind of a center-right, moderate nation, and maybe he's our best hope. I don't think any of the other candidates that stood on the podium, except Ron Paul, stand a chance.

Teflon93| 6.18.11 @ 2:34PM

Conservatives are pro-life. He will have no problem hiring pro-life cabinet members so long as he hires conservatives.

Which he has no intention of doing.

RTamlin| 6.18.11 @ 3:55PM

Except for Ron Paul? Way to destroy your credibility in three words. Ron Paul is a joke candidate. He only does well in the sort of polls where his fans can stuff the ballots. In real polls he's got as much support as Newt, another joke of a candidate.

Accept Romney at his word? Romney has proven over and over that he will say whatever it takes to get elected. Anyone who wants to take Romney at his word is a liberal shill at best.

Claypoole| 6.18.11 @ 4:11PM

Yes, Romney is just another Bob I'll-be-anything-you-want-me-to-be Dole. He is desperate to be president, and it shows.

Jackboot| 6.19.11 @ 6:45PM

OH my !!! Did you find it THAT necessary to point out Paul is a serious candidate. I have to hand it to PaulBots, they're doggone persistent in the face of common sense.

To finish your credibility off, you just had to wrap it up by insisting your Loony Libertarian actually has a chance outside of the whacko's in TX 14. Sheesh.

kingsmill| 6.18.11 @ 2:30PM

Watch video of Romney demanding to be considered as much of a pro-abort as his Leftist opponent.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P_w9pquznG4

W| 6.18.11 @ 2:57PM

Romney will not be nominated if he does not sign; he may not be nominated regardless. Bachman should be the nominee.

Seventhrowscreamer | 6.18.11 @ 3:12PM

Mitt is a lib.

Truth to Power| 6.18.11 @ 3:13PM

Strike nine!

elliesue| 6.18.11 @ 4:09PM

So Jeffrey, where is the update to this post???http://mittromneycentral.com/2011/06/18/mitt-romneys-pro-life-pledge/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed:+MittRomneyCentral+(Mitt+Romney+Central)&utm_content=Google+Reader

elliesue| 6.18.11 @ 4:11PM

http://mittromney.com/blogs/mi.....ife-pledge

Pelligrino| 6.19.11 @ 12:01AM

elliesue,
Thank you for the mittromney.com link. I just read it. The problem is the date at the top: June 18, 2011 (today!)

Please help me (and other readers) out. I just cannot follow these things like a full-time campaign 2012 network reporter.

Is this Mitt Romney website June 18, 2011 update on the Susan B. Anthony pledge...is this a Mitt "update" because he realizes the potentially terrible fallout of refusing to sign the pledge? Is this one-page statement an effort at damage control with conservatives?

In other words, is the web page now altered (newly worded) on June 18th (today) or was this page of explanation not in existence before today?

I think -- but am not sure -- you are trying to make a point regarding Mitt's continued inconsistencies. Am I right?

Please help clarify. Thank you.

elliesue| 6.19.11 @ 1:53AM

He needed to explain why he did not sign the Pro-Life Pledge. This is his position on abortion - it has been the same for a very long time. Only someone who is looking intently for Romney's next flip flop would be confused about this. If it's sarcasm your attempting here, sorry, I don't find it amusing. You need to accuse Reagan of this as well. I'm sending a link your way - read it please and then try your sarcasm again on me. Maybe it will work the second time around. http://www.washingtonpost.com/....._blog.html

Nick| 6.19.11 @ 6:05PM

Ellisue,

"[...] This is his position on abortion - it has been the same for a very long time."

If by "a very long time" you mean November 2004 (when he claims he changed his mind, but, was probably when he decided to run for president,) then, I guess, yes, Romney has been "Pro-Life" for a long time.

From 1994 through 2002 he was violently pro-abortion, as much as 'The Swimmer' Kennedy. When he's running for the GOP nomination he wants all of us to believe he is adamantly Pro-Life.

I'm not that gullible. Are you, Ellisue?

Here's a link from the RINO mag The Weakly Standard:

http://www.weeklystandard.com/.....2htyos.asp

Nick| 6.19.11 @ 6:09PM

p.s. Keep in mind, The Weakly Standard article is from 2007. So....Romney was "Pro-Life" for a grand total of TWO YEARS! when he started to run for the GOP nod.

elliesue| 6.19.11 @ 9:01PM

http://www.weeklystandard.com/.....asp?page=2
Now go read Romney's conversion story - sounds alot like Reagan.

elliesue| 6.19.11 @ 9:34PM

He was a grown man in 2002 and very thoughtful and introspective," Stockman says, "so the fact that he says he hadn't thought through these issues seems very odd." Melissa Kogut, NARAL Pro-Choice Massachusetts's executive director, says, "It is conventional wisdom that candidates in Massachusetts need to be pro-choice to win. He ran as pro-choice. As he began exploring the run for president, he changed. No matter where you stand on this issue, you should question where he stands." Angus McQuilken of Planned Parenthood says, "When a candidate or elected official can move so easily from one position to the opposite overnight, it leaves voters wondering whether he has any core values."
WOW - I really respect comments from the NARAL executive director and a Planned Parenthood spokesperson. Romney vetoed embryonic stem cell research and vetoed the morning after pill. I'll take his actions over the vile words of leftists who desire to influence Republican primary voters. It appears their efforts are bearing fruit.

elliesue| 6.19.11 @ 9:45PM

p.s. Keep in mind, The Weakly Standard article is from 2007. So....Romney was "Pro-Life" for a grand total of TWO YEARS! when he started to run for the GOP nod
It's obvious to me that you didn't read your own referenced article. This 2007 article is talking about an earlier time. Romney's conversion took place in 2004.

Nick| 6.20.11 @ 1:11AM

Ellisue,

It appears you didn't read my first comment, or, forgot it in an hour.

I stated that Romney claims that he changed his mind in November 2004. The Weakly Standard article I linked to (and read) is from February 2007. That's a little more than TWO YEARS!

The pro-aborts that you quote, from the same article, don't change the timeline or the facts. When Romney was running for office in Massachusetts, in 1994 and 2002, he was pro-abortion. When he decided to run for the GOP nomination, he suddenly became "Pro-Life."

As the "Church Lady" might say: "Howwwww....convenient."

Now, he won't even sign a simple Pro-Life pledge. That's an action that speaks louder than words, is it not, Elliesue?

Nick| 6.20.11 @ 1:22AM

Elliesue,

Your link is not about Romney's supposed "conversion" story.

Jeffrey Lord| 6.19.11 @ 12:05AM

elliesue....

Mitt Romney is a great guy. But the sites and info you submit have enough wiggle room on this issue to drive a cavalcade of trucks through. It speaks exactly to the Romney problem - which is to say he has a mindset that is within the confines of Establishment thinking. Bold is not on the table. Caution, acceptability is all. That's what is in evidence with the answers you post.

Thanks.

elliesue| 6.19.11 @ 1:37AM

Well, I must say, I'm shocked that someone finally decided to engage. I'm so tired of these comment threads that say nothing more than - RINO, Flip flop etc. Thank you for your comment. At least I post some links and try to engage. Here's another. http://www.washingtonpost.com/....._blog.html
So what now, I'll take Michele Bachmann, she fits your description - Bold. I love her. Lets wait and see how she polls against the big O. Nothing on this site has even made a dent in trying to change my mind from endorsing Romney/Bachmann. It's sort of embarrasing to read the threads on this site and Hot Air. Most of these commenters presume to know what Romney thinks, and they totally ignore what he says.

Bill Hussein O'Stalin| 6.19.11 @ 8:46AM

Mitt Romney is a well documented flip flopper.

On that note, how can the public know what he thinks, if this thinking is a trajectory.

Occam's Tool| 6.18.11 @ 4:36PM

Thank you, Elliesue, for your service to readers. I looked at this. It's another example of Mitt Whiffling.

We need a candidate with spine, knowledge, and principles. BTO has them. Mitt, not so much. And Herman Cain has such huge knowledge gaps I'm starting to wonder about him. I care much less that Michele Bachman may not know where the first shots of the Revolution were, than I do about the fact that I haven't found a SINGLE area of policy in which I have any significant disagreement with her.

I would still vote for Romney over Obama, but I'm not voting for him in primary season.

darcy| 6.18.11 @ 8:12PM

I've followed your posts, OT, for many a season here on amspec, and I most often agree with you and your well-reasoned comments. But let me say this about your signaling that you would vote for Romney over Obama: this is all the establishment needs to know in order to force another RINO on us -- it is our desperation to pull the lever for anyone that is not an out-and-out Marxist. The establishment needs, rather, to understand that their power is GONE; no longer will conservatives get in line to vote the better of two evils.

I know I will not. The Republicans can maneuver to place the most establishment-friendly nominee forward, and all they'll get from me is silence. The only power we have is at the ballot box, and the establishment intends to make sure that an "electable" nominee prevails. Little do they know that the base intends to sit home and let the chips fall where they may rather than endure the death by slow torture that is the RINO way. Do not discount Reagan's 11th commandment: thou shalt not speak evil of thy fellow Republican. How else do you think "W" was allowed to get away with so much liberal garbage; it was because the establishment tamped down the patriotic outcry.

We get Romney in the oval, and it's bye-bye Tea Party.

Teflon93| 6.18.11 @ 8:47PM

Since RINOs are always spouting about the need for party loyalty over ideology, isn't it about time they lived up to their own standards and voted for a conservative?

It's not as if we didn't try running a RINO against Obama already. He won.

Occam's Tool| 6.18.11 @ 9:48PM

You understand, I think Romney is not useful. In fact, I think he's an idiot.

But, Jeez, another 4 years of Obama? Commodus reigned from 180-192 as solo governor. His reign was generally considered the start of the fall of the Roman Empire. He may have been a tad better than Obama. In short, Obama is worse than a Commode.

Given that, gag, I don't know what I'd do if Romney was the candidate. But I believe it will be BTO, myself.

But your arguments are very painful in their perspicacity, darcy. Romney would be a disaster, just not as much of one as a second Obama term. At least he would be better on foreign policy, I think

Pelligrino| 6.18.11 @ 11:43PM

OT, I have a request. When you write BTO you mean Congresswoman Michelle Bachmann, correct? I think so. Perhaps I should know, but it is unclear.

For readers who do not so frequently come to this website, it is probably helpful to avoid the acronym.

If you are supporting someone (and/or the key elements of that individual's campaign) and validating the support with good points, readers should understand who you mean.

Otherwise an infrequent site visitor & speed reader might think by BTO you mean "Barrack Twice-elected Obama," maybe?

Occam's Tool| 6.19.11 @ 3:30AM

Beloved Pellegrino: Bachman Turner Overdrive. BTO. One of Randy Bachman's TWO great bands. Bachmann comes from a state that borders Canada, so there is a multiple play here. Besides, I'm an advocate for "Taking Care of Business" as an anti-Obama song, and it would be perfect for Bachmann to use it, wouldn't it?

Finally, I'm hoping "BTO" gets picked up as a short-cut to describe Michele, as they really were a great band, man. I'm a bit of a "gear-head."

Occam's Tool| 6.19.11 @ 3:35AM

I don't endorse Romney in the White House, darcy. But is a second Obama term better?

Paul is even worse, as I believe is foreign policy is even MORE anti-American power than Obama. Now, if he's the guy on the ballot, I might write in my wife's name as a protest. Fitting, since he supports no other Republicans and votes most consistently with Dennis Kucinich on matters outside of America. I might also start looking at Ozzie as a place to practice.

Clint| 6.19.11 @ 10:53AM

"Ron Paul is one of the outstanding leaders fighting for a stronger national defense. As a former Air Force officer, he knows well the needs of our armed forces, and he always puts them first. We need to keep him fighting for our country."
-Ronald Reagan

Michael L. Hauschild| 6.19.11 @ 11:11AM

So let me get this straight.
Right now in the WH we have an individual that has united the right as no other could, and as no other ever will.
Right now in the WH we have someone who has exhibited for all to see, and to feel the utter fallacy of socialistic big government.
Right now in the WH we have someone who has shot every arrow in the quiver of the Democratic Party, including their sharpest, the “racist arrow.”

So, what do you do, seize the opportunity? No, you go about the business as usual of placing a RINO, a Boehner type, a proven champion of the process and the mechanism that brought us to the place we are today.
You ignore and misunderstand the Tea Party; I have yet to hear from any candidate “Taxed Enough Already.” This is because most are the same as Obama, denizens of the tax and spend establishment. The “one who leads, the Mandate Moron” is the real author of ObamaCare. One of your runner-ups can’t even get his mouth to work tying to say that. You have park bench Lotharios, haters of our allies, and Obama appointees. The only one in the running with the credentials of “listening” is, while moral to the core, a former IRS tax attorney.
Your pundits, the MSM, are clamoring the alarm pointing their fingers at the iceberg we hit not the captains and crew that has been steering the SS Republicnic.
Your primary system is a circular firing squad, and the MSM is handing ammo to the mortally wounded, not to advance conservatism, but to stay in the game to destroy the leaders. Do you not wonder why some sit this out as long as possible?

I have had enough, all you seem capable of doing is singing the same song, casting the same old play with the same old actors.
What most of you fail to see is the best result you hope to achieve is nothing other than what we have already tried. You are not trying to save the country, that country is gone; destroyed as thoroughly and effectively by [R]’s malfeasance as Obama and his [D] minions.
Well you have played your trump card to me for forty years, the old “Don’t worry we can do whatever we want, he will come around” will not work this time. I do not worry about Obama; he is spent. He may have destroyed the country already, and you are in full preparation mode to, I will not help you unless the lady from Alaska either enters the race or endorsed Bachmann.
I just bought a movie, cost a bit and I will have to wait awile, but I can gurantee it will be the most reviewed CD on the market.

Teflon93| 6.19.11 @ 12:08PM

It's the same old, same old with the GOP establishment, Michael---when the brand has been tarnished by a RINO and you're up against a hardcore leftist ideologue, why, they say, we must run a RINO to attract independents and moderates. When the hardcore leftist ideologue whips the RINO, in the next election cycle the Establishment says, why, you must run a RINO---it's their turn and conservatives never win.

Except that conservatives do---when they run as conservatives.

In the eyes of the GOP establishment, it is simply NEVER time to run a conservative. Ask them.

Warrior| 6.19.11 @ 4:50PM

By its actions the GOP believes its base is moderate/center right. The GOP believes the Conservatives have no other place to go. Thus the GOP is a big spending, large government, entitlement loving, liberty restricting establishment. We are again arguing between the choices of Marxist and Socialism (somewhat socialist lite). The only avenue left is either find a state that is willing to secede or starting a 3rd party. A 3rd party ensures democrat control until bankruptcy.

Chuck| 6.18.11 @ 4:46PM

Little by little the true Romney has emerged, global warming, ethanol subsidies and now refuses to sign the pledge...inhibits him from appointing pro-abortion federal judges/cabinet members and defunding Planned Parenthood, his wife won't like that. Romney reminded us he's unemployed, good keep him that way for the rest of his political life.

Gold BC| 6.18.11 @ 5:29PM

This week Cain and Pawlenty have been eliminated. Romney has bared his liberal fangs and by reading these comments his "frontrunner" status has been diminished. Bachmann was overhyped and surprisingly Gingrich had a good week and is a player again. No show Huntsman placed in the straw poll giving him a chance and dark horse Perry who did show didn't impress anyone including the straw pollers.

Mimi| 6.18.11 @ 6:10PM

For Mimi....Three strikes and your out...1. OBAMA-ROMNEYCARE...2. GLOBAL WARMING..( "Gotta cut that carbon") 3. Lost me here, this is a HEART-BREAKER! Refused to sign Pro-life pledge and a LAME..LAME...excuse!
Now , I gotta start packing, saving $ and plan on a long trip to New Hampshire..and make phone calls, and lick envelopes. CRUCIAL...LIFE, Liberty, and Happiness (persuit of property)

Tom| 6.18.11 @ 7:30PM

A RINO is a RINO is a RINO is a RINOis a RINO.........

bluecollarbytes| 6.18.11 @ 8:05PM

Romney just doesn't have that great a problem with where we're headed or where we're already at in the govt/citizen relationship. He just wants to make it 'better', in a more compassionate- vote dividing scheme.

Obamascare is fine as long as it's the states forcing citizens to buy. Planned Parenthood is allowed to continue its charade by weenie-spined politicians.
Man-made Global Warming may be true, or not, but let's 'insure' against it, just in case. I'm guessing that Romney would even have a problem with ending govt-sanctioned "art".

From what I see, Romney is a fine man, just not the one who can start opposing the left in the way we need if we are EVER to slow down the good ship USA prior to turning it around.

mzk| 6.19.11 @ 8:20AM

Sorry, I just read the pledge and I think it IS too specific, and I as pro-like as you can get, danger to the mother's life excepted.

I am sick of this anti-Mormon bigotry. They are probably the most moral religious group in the U.S. Did it occur to you that maybe the religious issue is that he takes PLEDGES very seriously? There's a reason the Constitution allows the president to affirm. As a Jew, I appreaciate it.

mzk| 6.19.11 @ 8:21AM

P.S. Why do people keep on tying Sanger to abortion? IIRC, she was anti-abortion. The only things they both have in common is Planned Parenthood, and that both are evil.

Occam's Tool| 6.20.11 @ 12:22AM

Maggie Sanger, in her own words:

"It is said that a fish as large as a man has a brain no larger than the kernel of an almond. In all fish and reptiles where there is no great brain development, there is also no conscious sexual control. The lower down in the scale of human development we go the less sexual control we find. It is said that the aboriginal Australian, the lowest known species of the human family, just a step higher than the chimpanzee in brain development, has so little sexual control that police authority alone prevents him from obtaining sexual satisfaction on the streets.[19]"

No racist, she. (Giggle)

Nick| 6.20.11 @ 2:51AM

mzk,

Yes, Sanger was against abortion. She prefered one evil, contraception, over another, abortion. She even believed it was the taking of life. Although, in 1920, she didn't seem to emphasize it that much.

Sanger also wrote this: "In plain, everyday language, in an abortion there is always a very serious risk to the health and often to the life of the patient." She sounds like Jerry Falwell (in this instance, at least.)

How ironic it is that the racist eugenicist, who founded Planned Parenthood, was against abortion, since PP uses both contraception and abortion to carry out her eugenic dream.

Teflon93| 6.19.11 @ 12:10PM

Read her own words on the subject:

http://www.dianedew.com/sanger.htm

Real peach you've got there.

Eisenhower| 6.19.11 @ 2:38PM

In the words of Rush Limbaugh: "bye, bye nomination."

Louis Tully| 6.19.11 @ 6:59PM

No shocker from Mitt. He has no core beliefs. Wouldn't vote for him under any circumstances.

Surprised about Cain, and his explanation is extremely lame. Just crossed him off my list.

elliesue| 6.19.11 @ 11:42PM

Aside from providing the obvious opening for opponents...the Romney refusal raises the concern a President Romney would be appointing Supreme Court nominees in the mold of George H.W. Bush appointee David Souter -- the latter who famously was presented as a conservative and became a dependable liberal Court vote the moment he was seated. Souter, it should be noted, was from New Hampshire -- where Romney is concentrating his efforts.

Jeffrey, what kind of propoganda is this??? Change G. H. W. Bush to President Reagan and change David Souter to Sandra Day O'Connor and then tell me if you would have still written those words.
I believe I have figured out whats going on with these editorial posts at AmSpec and HotAir with Allapundit - Write something really atrocious about Romney or Sarah Palin and get all the left wing nuts to start with their comments - you can easily get the number up into the hundreds and you can claim you have huge numbers attracted to your posts. Jeffrey, one of me is worth more - I actually contributed $ to this website. That is, of course, because there are many really great articles from here. But throwing out - "Uh-oh." starts the ball rolling and then to add a little bit of history without context ensures a great number of comments. I have totally wasted my time with this, I'm not a fool.