The American Spectator

home
ADVERTISEMENT
Print Email
Text Size

The Spectacle Blog

Romney “Lied” About Forcing Catholic Hospitals to Provide Abortifacients

By on 2.23.12 @ 10:52AM

This report from the “Boston Catholic Insider” is so well documented, so well laid out chronologically, that I have no reason to doubt its veracity. It shows overwhelmingly that Newt Gingrich and Rick Santorum have been correct in accusing Mitt Romney of personally forcing Catholic hospitals into the requirement to provide abortifacients (morning after pills, specifically).

Key points from a much longer column:

Dec. 7, 2005: a week before the law was to take effect, the Boston Globe ran an article headlined, “Private hospitals exempt on pill law”. The article said the state Department of Public Health had determined that the emergency contraception law “does not nullify a statute passed years ago that says privately run hospitals cannot be forced to provide abortions or contraception.”

Public Health Commissioner Paul Cote Jr. told the Globe: “We felt very clearly that the two laws don’t cancel each other out and basically work in harmony with each other.”….

December 8, 2005: The Globe itself ruefully bowed to this legal analysis. It ran an editorial headlined: “A Plan B Mistake.” “The legislators failed, however,” the Globe said, “to include wording in the bill explicitly repealing a clause in an older statute that gives hospitals the right, for reasons of conscience, not to offer birth control services.”

Liberals joined in attacking Romney’s defense of Catholic hospitals. But that defense did not last long.

The same day the Globe ran its editorial, Romney held a press conference. Now he said his legal counsel had advised him the new emergency contraception law did trump the 1975 conscience law.

“On that basis, I have instructed the Department of Public Health to follow the conclusion of my own legal counsel and to adopt that sounder view,” 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.”….

Lifesite News reported at the time, “Romney Does Flip-Flop and Forces Catholic Hospitals to Distribute Morning-After-Pill”:

In a shocking turn-around, Massachusetts’s governor Mitt Romney announced yesterday that Roman Catholic and other private hospitals in the state will be forced to offer emergency contraception to sexual assault victims under new state legislation, regardless of the hospitals’ moral position on the issue.

A constitutional law expert advising BCI says that the LEGISLATIVE INTENT was clearly to allow the 1975 statute to prevail. The formulation of the regulations is supposed to follow the legislative intent. Romney actually violated the law and his oath of office by NOT going with the legislative intent, and overruling the legislative intent (as well as the Constitution).

But it was not merely a legal interpretation by the legal counsel to Romney. Romney said he personally thought it was the “right thing” for hospitals to provide access to emergency contraception for any rape victims.

This is not mere “gotcha” stuff. And it has nothing to do with whether one believes rape victims should have access to the morning after pill. Just as is the case with Barack Obama’s new order requiring Catholic hospitals to provide insurance coverage for free abortifacients, this is a matter of religious freedom. This Obama order is becoming, quite rightly, a central issue in this year’s campaign. The record is that Mitt Romney was dead wrong on this issue. Period.

View all comments (41) |

Drek| 2.23.12 @ 11:34AM

Quin,

we all know full well that Romney trots out falsehoods, especially during debates.

But the thing is, he gets away with it.

Simon Templar| 2.23.12 @ 2:53PM

Drek,
See that does not count. Nor does Romney's work with Ted Kennedy on a host of legislation.

The idea is in this culture now that it is Ok to lie, distort, exaggerate, and misinform about someone. The burden of proof of innocence is on the accused. The lies stand and will not be dismissed unless the attacked somehow magically, skillfully, and effectively counter the lie and prove their innocence. Of course, the standard of what constitutes an effective response to the lie is a moving measure and in the eye of the beholders agenda.

So, what we are left with is a pile of misinformation and the strongest repeated lies that pretend to be truth. The best liar wins!

So far, progressives excell in this area. That is why they rule.

Betty Dobson| 2.23.12 @ 3:31PM

Newt Gingrich called Romney anti-immigrant until Romney attacked him in the Florida debate for telling this lie. Romney is anti-illegal alien and pro-illegal immigrant. Romney wants the millions waiting in line to come here legally to have their chance -- not an illegal alien sneaking across the border.

Kingsmill| 2.23.12 @ 11:37AM

Willard's M.O. : give ambiguous rhetorical support to conservative/pro-life/pro-family policy. Then undermine or completely overturn the execution of that policy in practice by means of administrative/legal action.

Willard adopted the same approach with so called "gay marriage" in Massachusetts. There is a reason that Willard purchased and destroyed the hard drives in the Governor's office.

Your Inner Voice| 2.23.12 @ 11:42AM

I would LOVE to see Ann Coulter be asked to answer this article in public, on television, and explain how she is still pro-life AND pro-Mitt at the same time. Ann Coulter is giving aid and comfort to a baby-killing politician which makes her complicit. But I guess a sharp lawyer like her could argue her conscience right out of that, no problem.

albert constantine jr| 2.23.12 @ 11:51AM

I am generally a fan of Ann Coulter, but one theme that emerges when you read enough of her columns is she doesn't like the Catholic Church much. Perhaps that is why she willfully puts blinders on when dealing with this issue.

Your Inner Voice| 2.23.12 @ 12:49PM

Actually, to be fair, one of Ann's parents was Catholic (her father, I think) and theology was argued vigorously around the dinner table through her youth (as was true in our house), but she is a Protestant, Presbyterian I think. Phylis Schlafly was her idol and role model politically, and that includes her stand against baby-killing. That is why us EX Ann-fans are so baffled and back-stabbed by her advisory position at GOProud (gay conservatives, HAH!, that is an oxymoron if ever there was one!)and her support of life-long baby-murder advocate Bishop Romney(from a religion vigorously opposed to abortion).

Betty Dobson| 2.23.12 @ 3:27PM

I had a call from Newt Gingrich's headquarters in Orlando before the Florida primary calling Romney a "baby killer" and I hung up on him. Romney has explained his position 100 times and still he is questioned at every debate. When is enough, enough??

2Anglico| 2.24.12 @ 10:02AM

This article is NOT about Gingrich. Now, why don't you give us a defense of what Romney did? Show us where he really didn't say what is quoted above.
I heard Romney, in his OWN voice say he has totally down with the "woman's right to choose" movement, so the question is, did you believe him then or do you believe him now? He was either lying then or now. Which lie do you believe, the one then or the one now? BTW, the "back then" was just a few years earlier this century.

Biggy G| 3.1.12 @ 1:18PM

I've heard him say that his experience as governor pushed him to the right. I'm not a Romney fan, but I don't see any inconsistency between occasionally violating papal mandates as governor, on one hand, and later deciding to be a down-the-line pro-lifer, on the other.

Garfield| 2.24.12 @ 12:54PM

Problem with your statement is that Gingrich is telling you the truth.

Romney did do what Gingrich has been accusing him of.

Sometimes the truth is scary and it can hurt, but it needs to be known because it is the truth.

Geyser | 2.23.12 @ 11:51AM

Finally i have found a blog where people can have a debate on relevant news! Subscribed!!!!

albert constantine jr| 2.23.12 @ 11:52AM

Don't feel confined to what is relevant.

Mickey Cochran| 2.23.12 @ 11:58AM

Again, Hillyer's virulent anti-Romney stance is anathema to his (Hillyer's) purported "Christian" beliefs.

mjs_pa| 2.23.12 @ 12:14PM

Are you questioning Quin's Christian values because he is exposing the truth?

Ryan| 2.23.12 @ 12:50PM

Are the facts wrong in Hillyer's post? If so, how?

Bill Hussein O'Stalin| 2.23.12 @ 12:12PM

Romney admitted this previously. So is the point that Romney should have violated the law?

mjs_pa| 2.23.12 @ 12:17PM

Well he sure as heck didn't admit it last night in the debate!

The point goes as much to his character--in general-- as it does to this specific issue.

Biggy G| 3.1.12 @ 1:20PM

Ah, character: as in Santorum's case? You know Santorum: serial voter for laws he now admits were unconstitutional, despite his oath to uphold the Constitution, because "politics is a team game?" Or maybe you mean character: as in Newt's case? LOL One needn't say more.

Mike 3/505| 2.23.12 @ 7:07PM

"So is the point that Romney should have violated the law?"

Actually, YES. Our forefathers did so on a matter of conscience. We tried and executed people at Nueremburg for "just following orders." If a law is unconscionable, then it is your DUTY to disobey it...and be man enough to suffer the consequences. Voting as part of a majority is easy. Standing up to a tyrannical majority, takes character.

Regards,

Mike

Garfield| 2.24.12 @ 12:58PM

To add to this,

This Massachusetts law was arguably in violation of the United States Constitution's 1st Amendment. Therefore Romney should have supported a legal challenge to this particular law. Romney didn't, instead he went along with it.

Biggy G| 3.1.12 @ 1:22PM

Actually, the First Amendment only limits the behavior of the Federal Government. It was a congressman from Massachusetts who insisted it not be drafted in such a way as to restrain the states. The Incorporation Doctrine, invented by leftists in the 20th century so that they could legislate through the courts, is bogus.

In other words, you're wrong.

Sashamanda| 2.24.12 @ 12:35AM

So, was Romney lying last night when he denied it, or was he lying when he admitted it?

DRed| 2.23.12 @ 12:37PM

Say a non-Catholic woman is raped and is brought to a Catholic hospital. Why should she be forced to have that child because the hospital happens to be Catholic? The hospital should be allowed to impose it's religious beliefs on the woman? What if Catholics changed their beliefs and thought that blood transfusions should be prohibited?

albert constantine jr| 2.23.12 @ 12:52PM

I'm not sure that most jurisdictions have only Catholic hospitals and pharmacies available within a day's travel time that would stop the hypothetical victim you propose from seeking out the treatment she desired, and that to deny abortifacients is to require a woman to give birth. You also seem to be suggesting that the patient should be able to force her beliefs onto the hospital.

One of the alternatives for the Church, in order to not be required to engage in behavior it believes is morally wrong, is to get out of the hospital business, in which case, your hypothetical victim is screwed yet again.

DRed| 2.23.12 @ 2:13PM

We have a long tradition in America of not excusing people from neutral laws for their religious beliefs. Religious pacifists can't avoid paying taxes that go toward the military. If you let your sick child die because of your heartfelt religious beliefs we'll throw you in prison. If you believe your religion requires you to take illegal drugs we'll prevent you from taking them. If you believed, for example, that red heads were the spawn of satan, would you be allowed to open a hospital that refused care to red heads?

albert constantine jr| 2.23.12 @ 2:22PM

There is, however, the conscientious objector laws regarding military service, that allowed those with religious objections to perform alternative service when drafted , which was why the previous exemptions were called the conscience clause.

DRed| 2.23.12 @ 4:04PM

Jehovah's Witnesses don't believe in blood transfusions. If they ran a hospital, should they be allowed to refuse to give patients blood transfusions?

albert constantine jr| 2.23.12 @ 4:41PM

Yes.

For example, while the hospital closest to me home has a decent shock trauma unit as a result of all the gun shot victims they treat. If I was shot, I'd choose to go there. On the other hand, if I was burned severely, I'd go (or likely, be taken) to the Burn Center in the other direction.

What I wouldn't do is go to a Christian Science reading room, but if I was brought there, I'd have no right to demand thet take up resection surgery or skin grafts, in violation of the tenets of their faith.

DRed| 2.23.12 @ 5:10PM

Well, it would be somewhat silly to go to a bookstore and ask for a skin graft.

albert constantine jr.| 2.23.12 @ 7:47PM

As that is how I am told Christian Scientists practice their faith and approach some types of medical care, I needn't comment upon it; I choose medical care consistent with my needs and faith, and don't wish to have the government force them to change to conform with me or anyone else.

George S| 2.23.12 @ 2:49PM

We once had a tradition of following the Constitution which NEVER contemplated giving the federal government powers in anything within a state's border. Commerce, trade, defense, diplomacy, treaties -- all of which a united collection of states can benefit from.

So how did it come to pass that a president -- who only enforces laws -- can wave his hand and declare what services a private individual MUST provide and what private individuals MUST purchase?

That's the issue. Arguing contraceptives misses the big picture. That's why Obama is successfully substituting parochial concerns for the American ideal of government by, of, and for the people. Don't be suckered.

mzk1| 2.23.12 @ 5:10PM

We also have a long history of religious accomodation. As a religious Jew, I depended on this for simple survival. This is an extreme situation, especially in the Catholic NorthEast.

I am not aware that there is a thousands-year-old tradition in Western Civilization of not helping red-heads (unless they were Irish, of course).

"They consider it a crime to kill a child" - Roman historian Tacitus' amazement at the barbaric Jewish practice of criminalizing infantacide.

Drek| 2.23.12 @ 1:00PM

Then the woman raped can be taken elsewhere.

The Catholic hospitals aren't the only game in town.

But say they were, say that there is some Catholic hospital in an area where no other medical care is available. Should then the Catholic institution be forced to conduct an abortion?

And the answer has to be no for if the contrary answer is accepted, then the free exercise clause becomes non-operative.

A woman's desire, {or "right" if you will} for an abortion can never be so privileged as to encroach on a preceding Constitutional freedom, and such a freedom of another citizen, or group of citizens.

We're dealing here with the free assembly and free exercise clauses. Can Catholics freely assemble and create a shared enterprise, a hospital, and can they after freely assembling then freely exercise their religious beliefs, here by helping provide health care.

George S| 2.23.12 @ 2:39PM

Yes. Then she can walk out the door and go into a Planned Parenthood sponsored clinic. So, once more... how exactly is the Catholic hospital forcing her to carry the pregnancy?

Stan| 2.23.12 @ 2:12PM

Felon voting supporting Dick got his ass kicked last night so you trot out old crap withour context. Typical of you Mr.Hilyer.

2Anglico| 2.24.12 @ 10:08AM

Wow, Stan, that is the most coherent, logical, convincing, reasonable argument I ever heard! "old crap", that is an Aristotle quote, right?

Betty Dobson| 2.23.12 @ 3:23PM

Mitt Romney has pledged to govern as a pro-life president and that is good enough for me. I am a life-long Catholic and I feel he will abide by the Constitution in guaranteeing our lst Amendment right to freedom of religion. Romney, being a Mormon, knows the wrath of prejudice and I don't think he will put up with it.

2Anglico| 2.24.12 @ 10:10AM

What if Romney is lying? What makes you so sure he is telling the truth today? Because not so long ago, he said the EXACT opposite!

Oldefarte| 2.23.12 @ 3:32PM

My-oh-my, gadzooks....Romney is anti-Catholic! Well, lo-and-behold what you'll be faced with if the current regime is re-elected in November [and Madame Nancy is re-installed as House Speaker]:

'.....Pelosi: Catholic Church Secretly Wants Govt Contraception ...Thursday, February 23, 2012 12:23 PM...By: Richard Wagner....House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi says the Catholic Church wants the federal government to enforce contraception because the church, by default, has failed to do so."Ninety-eight percent of women in childbearing age that are Catholic use contraception,” Pelosi, a Catholic, said in a speech at Texas A&M University in College Station.“So, in practice, the church has not enforced this, and now they want the federal government and private insurance to enforce it. It just isn't consistent to me," a CNSNews.com report quotes the California Democrat as saying.
Americans should pray for successful implementation of President Barack Obama's mandate that insurance companies provide healthcare plans with contraception, including sterilization and abortion-inducing drugs, Pelosi said."Abortion should be rare and safe," she said, so contraception offers women a logical choice.
"The same kind of science that can help women with the size and timing of their families is the same type of science that can help with infertility and other health issues that women face. So let's be prayerful of that and how we go forward on that," Pelosi said in response to a question from the audience.The Catholic Church opposes Obama's mandate, scheduled to go into effect Aug. 1. All 181 Catholic bishops in the United States have denounced the regulation and the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops have called it "an unprecedented attack on religious freedom.”......'

shell | 3.1.12 @ 10:18PM

basal cell tumorVery good to have the help very much. Welcome to my site

More Blog Posts by Quin Hillyer

http://spectator.org/blog/2012/02/23/romney-lied-about-forcing-cath

ADVERTISEMENT

The Spectacle Blog

Cummings Accused of Subverting IRS Investigation

Jeffrey Lord | 6:20AM

Let Pitchers Throw Complete Games

Aaron Goldstein | 12:10AM

Thoughts on New U.S.-Taliban Peace Talks

Aaron Goldstein | 6.18.13

Thank You, Bobby Jindal

Matt Purple | 6.18.13

Buzzfeed Faces $3.6 Million Lawsuit for Copyright Infringement

Kaylin Bugos | 6.18.13

Democrat Dan Maffei Blames Budget Cuts for Girl’s Rape, Mother’s Murder

Robert Stacy McCain | 6.18.13

Pro-Life is Smart Politics

Rich Lizardo | 6.18.13

Gerson, Wehner, and the Losing Old Ways Crowd

Jeffrey Lord | 6.18.13

Latest Headlines

Green Flags, Yellow Flags, and Black Flags

John Tabin|15 comments

Barack’s Brave New World Blarney

George Neumayr|5 comments

There’s Something About Cambridge

Daniel J. Flynn|7 comments

Obama’s Unaffordable Act

Peter Ferrara|12 comments

Celebrating Our Lady of Paris

Joseph A. Harriss|2 comments

Charter Schooling? Why Not Charter Housing?

Wayne Woodman|5 comments

Cash for Organs?

Eric Boehm|3 comments

Back in the Fray

Kyle Peterson|101 comments

SPONSORED LINKS

FLASHBACK TO: 1995

Clip of the Day

Most Popular Articles

The IRS Immigration Fraud Scandal

Jeffrey Lord | 6.18.13

Foreign Policy as Farce

Jed Babbin | 6.17.13

The Biggest Fool of All

Doug Bandow | 6.17.13

Can Liturgical Music Be Saved?

Patrick O'Hannigan | 6.17.13

Revenge of the Fruitcakes

Peter Hitchens | 6.17.13

Obama's Climate of Intimidation

Matthew Sheffield | 6.18.13

Whither Suburbia?

Steven Greenhut | 6.18.13

The Mole in Don Draper

James Bowman | 6.17.13

ADVERTISEMENT

Home |About |Contributors |Advertise |Donate |Privacy Policy |Contact

The American Spectator Foundation is the 501(c)(3) organization responsible for publishing The American Spectator magazine and training aspiring journalists who espouse traditional American values. Your contributions are tax deductible to the extent permitted by law. Each donor receives a year-end summary of their giving for tax purposes.

Copyright 2013, The American Spectator. All rights reserved.