This Guy is from Massachusetts?
Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney, eagerly seeking to give life to a possible run for the White House, has
vetoed the morning after pill legislation in Massachusetts. The bill, which makes it much easier to obtain the morning after pill, even in Catholic hospitals and without a prescription at pharmacies around the state, is veto-proof. So it is a symbolic gesture. But what is the symbol? That he is clueless?The governor said he believed that the pill sometimes functioned as "an abortion pill," not just contraception.That he lied to get elected?
In 1994, during his failed effort to unseat Senator Edward M. Kennedy, he told The Boston Herald in response to a question: "I think it would be a positive thing to have women have the choice of taking the morning-after pill. I would favor having it available." And during his successful run for governor in 2002, he replied yes when asked on a Planned Parenthood questionnaire, "Do you support efforts to increase access to emergency contraception?"That he has Rove-esque sensibilities?
He said supporting the legislation would mean breaking a promise he made during the governor's race that while he personally opposed abortion, he would not change the state's abortion laws. At the time, that promise was widely interpreted as an effort to satisfy the majority of Massachusetts' constituents by pledging not to make abortion laws more restrictive. But Mr. Romney said Monday that he would also not change the laws to make them more permissive.You choose.
contribute a comment
Comments have been closed for this post.
comments
The article explains further:
"""The governor wrote that his "convictions have evolved and deepened during my time as governor" as he considered issues like embryonic stem cell research and "observed as well, more clearly than I did as a private citizen, the bitterness and fierce anger that still lingers 32 years after Roe v. Wade."""
- by Beverly on Jul 26, 2005 at 5:23 AM | link
A politician caught in a lie? Never.
A politician answer in jibberish? Yep.
Sad but true, my friends.
LOL
- by John Di Saia MD on Jul 28, 2005 at 12:26 AM | link
After knowing one rape victim who was, to her increased distress, _repeatedly_ "offered" the "morning-after" pill after she said no, and another victim who was handed a "morning-after" pill without being told what it was (she'd thought it was pain meds but fortunately she asked before taking anything), I would be absolutely terrified to go to a hospital if I were ever raped. It is difficult to guard against these situations when one is already dealing with that level of distress. In the attempts to make this pill even more accessible, I haven't seen any discussion of how to protect women from accidentally taking or being coerced into taking a contraceptive and/or abortifascient pill. I thought women would be safe in a Catholic hospital, but from what your statement says about this legislation, apparently not.
- by withheld due to privacy concer on Aug 10, 2005 at 7:08 PM | link