His reasoning?
"I would like to see each state be able to make its own law with regard to abortion. I think the Roe v. Wade one-size-fits-all approach is wrong."
As a reader has pointed out in an earlier post, while Mitt Romney is anti-Roe, he certainly is not pro-life. By refusing to support a Human Life Amendment to the Constitution, Romney is rejecting one of the key planks in the platform of the Republican Party that has been there since 1980. Furthermore, he finds himself to the left on life issues of even Sen. John McCain, who supports such an amendment.
Here is the actual text of Mitt Romney's published Q&A in the Feb. 10th issue of National Journal:
NJ: You would favor a constitutional amendment banning abortion with exceptions for the life of the mother, rape and incest. Is that correct?
What I've indicated is that I am pro-life, and that my hope is that the Supreme Court will give to the states over time or give to the states soon or give to the states their own ability to make their own decisions with regard to their own abortion law.
NJ: If a state wanted unlimited abortion?
The state would fall into restrictions that had been imposed at the federal level, so they couldn't be more expansive in abortion than currently exists under the law, but they could become more restrictive in abortion provisions. So states like Massachusetts could stay like they are if they so desire, and states that have a different view could take that course. And it would be up to the citizens of the individual states. My view is not to impose a single federal rule on the entire nation -- a one-size-fits-all approach -- but instead allow states to make their own decisions in this regard.
Could it be any clearer? If you are actually committed to ending the destruction of human life in womb, Mitt Romney is not your man -- he is not willing to support what needs to be done to make it happen. Don't let ignorant "pro-life" sellouts tell you otherwise.
