March 1, 2013 | 4 comments
February 12, 2013 | 0 comments
August 14, 2012 | 18 comments
August 12, 2012 | 16 comments
August 11, 2012 | 13 comments
It’s being reported that Mitt Romney has come out against the Blunt amendment, the religious conscience exemption I blogged about earlier. But based on the question and his answer, this doesn’t seem like a fair assessment of his views.
According to the Washington Post item I linked to above, Romney was asked if he supported the following: “Blunt-Rubio is being debated later this week that deals with allowing employers to ban providing female contraception.” Notice this says nothing about religious exemptions, conscience clauses, Catholic institutions or the like. So Romney answers: “I’m not for the bill. But, look, the idea of presidential candidates getting into questions about contraception within a relationship between a man and a woman, husband and wife, I’m not going there.” Again, nothing having to do with the substance of Blunt.
The Romney campaign has since released a statement reaffirming his support for the Blunt amendment. Romney has a history of flip-flops, support for mandates, and backtracking on the collective bargaining ballot initiative in Ohio. But I think on this particular question, Romney is getting a bad rap.
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.
It won’t take long for conservatives to scratch this presidential wannabe off their 2008 scorecard.
Was the President done in by the economy, or by the politics of the economy?