As anyone who’s been reading EFM already knows, we have been spending some time addressing Gary Glenn’s campaign to cast Governor Romney as pro-choice (Glenn is president of the Michigan Family Association). Glenn was kind enough to respond to EFM:
The only thing NARAL’s characterization of Gov. Romney indicates is that
they’re not as gullible as some. They knew better than to believe him.
Pro-lifers should be equally skeptical and have equally high standards for
Romney’s response to the National Abortion Rights Action League’s 2002
candidate survey: ”I respect and will protect a woman’s right to choose.
This choice is a deeply personal one. Women should be free to choose based
on their own beliefs, not mine and not the government’s. The truth is, no
candidate in the governor’s race in either party would deny women abortion
Notably, Romney refused to answer Massachusetts Citizens for Life’s
Please feel free to publish.
My response: No one is disputing his past statements on abortion, and no one could credibly argue that he was a pro-life candidate in 1994 or 2002 (though he was certainly much more pro-life than his opponents). The question is, “has he changed?” If I didn’t believe that the answer was “yes,” I would not be working on this site, and I definitely would not have spent hour upon hour organizing the Memphis Surprise.
I am not the gullible type, and I’m especially cynical about political positioning, so any declaration of a changed mind on abortion issues has to be accompanied by actions for me to find it credible. It’s clear that the Governor now says he is pro-life, but what about his actions? Here, his record is clear and impressive. He has not just resisted attempts to expand the availability of abortion in Massachusetts, he has also become a leader in the battle against expanded (and life-destroying) stem cell research. Moreover, he has been quite clear in his belief that judges should not be deciding abortion policy.
But what about his opponents? Rudy is firmly pro-choice, even to the point of opposing bans on the hideous practice of partial birth abortion. And John McCain? He’s had a solid pro-life voting record, but on the issue of judges–the single most important aspect of presidential leadership on the abortion issue–he has not only blinked in the face of Democratic opposition, he led the charge for a compromise that has left several conservative nominess unconfirmed and has given effective veto authority over future court appointments to a group of self-described “moderates” whose pro-life credentials range all the way from suspect to nonexistent.
I’ll gladly support an active and credible pro-life convert over a a current (and proud) architect of an unacceptable compromise.