Congratulations To Mitt Romney
As a female, I enjoy my freedoms in this nation. They are thoroughly enumerated in the Constitution. Governor Mitt Romney recently vetoed a bill that would have done many things to set back abortion in this nation. Of course, when I say "set back," I mean a set back for those in favor of this abhorrent act. Below, I have cited his entire op-ed piece in today’s Boston Globe.
Why I vetoed contraception bill
By Mitt Romney July 26, 2005
YESTERDAY I vetoed a bill that the Legislature forwarded to my desk. Though described by its sponsors as a measure relating to contraception, there is more to it than that. The bill does not involve only the prevention of conception: The drug it authorizes would also terminate life after conception.
Such an idea is disgusting and reprehensible to young ladies like myself. I applaud the governor for this step. It was necessary to send a message to the dealers in death that supported an illegal measure. Yes, I said "illegal." If anyone would like to challenge me on the jurisprudence of Roe, I would be happy to debate the topic. Not from an emotional side, but rather the legal side, as my better half has instructed me.
Signing such a measure into law would violate the promise I made to the citizens of Massachusetts when I ran for governor. I pledged that I would not change our abortion laws either to restrict abortion or to facilitate it. What's more, this particular bill does not require parental consent even for young teenagers. It disregards not only the seriousness of abortion but the importance of parental involvement and so would weaken a protection I am committed to uphold.
Children under the age of 18 must obtain parental permission to receive a piercing or a tattoo in Massachusetts, so why would they be able to avoid an abortion. Is defacing the human body more egregious than terminating a life?
I have spoken with medical professionals to determine whether the drug contemplated under the bill would simply prevent conception or whether it would also terminate a living embryo after conception. Once it became clear that the latter was the case, my decision was straightforward. I will honor the commitment I made during my campaign: While I do not favor abortion, I will not change the state's abortion laws.
Despite my misgivings for moderate or liberal Republicans in the northeast, I must respect the governor’s decision. I do oppose abortion, mostly for legal reasons, but I will respect his pledge not to trump the voice of the people through their legislature or via ballot.
I understand that my views on laws governing abortion set me in the minority in our Commonwealth. I am prolife. I believe that abortion is the wrong choice except in cases of incest, rape, and to save the life of the mother. I wish the people of America agreed, and that the laws of our nation could reflect that view. But while the nation remains so divided over abortion, I believe that the states, through the democratic process, should determine their own abortion laws and not have them dictated by judicial mandate.
It should not have been determined through judicial fiat in the first place, and while I share the governor’s views, I disagree with his assessment over the division of the nation on this subject. Well over 70% of this nation dislike the concept of abortion, and wish they had a voice in it. As they do not, they accept—grudgingly so—the mandate set down by the Supreme Court. Had they their "druthers," I am positive a majority of this nation would outlaw abortion in a heartbeat.
Because Massachusetts is decidedly prochoice, I have respected the state's democratically held view. I have not attempted to impose my own views on the prochoice majority.
For all the conflicting views on this issue, it speaks well of our country that we recognize abortion as a problem. The law may call it a right, but no one ever called it a good, and, in the quiet of conscience people of both political parties know that more than a million abortions a year cannot be squared with the good heart of America.
America is not happy with abortion, which is why it is such an influential and potentially-explosive issue in debate. This debate will rage over our hemisphere for years to come, unless the Supreme Court grows a set, and decides to revisit it. This is a concept, I doubt, I will see in my lifetime, but there is hope.
You can't be a prolife governor in a prochoice state without understanding that there are heartfelt and thoughtful arguments on both sides of the question. Many women considering abortions face terrible pressures, hurts, and fears; we should come to their aid with all the resourcefulness and empathy we can offer. At the same time, the starting point should be the innocence and vulnerability of the child waiting to be born.
As my better half would shout, "BINGO!!! Give the guv his fuzzy bunny." He hit the nail on the head. Since 1973, we have selfishly looked to the woman’s right, yet disregarded the right of the child to live. We have done so because we have debased that child to the title of "embryo" or "fetus," and in doing so, we have stripped it of it’s most basic asset. That of identification as a human male or female. That idea is too personal to pro-abortionists. That is too personal for the mother, where we are only looking to her feelings. To hell with the mother. What of the child? Does the mother trump the child in cases not of rape, incest or her life being in danger? It should not. Her right should end the moment she decides to deny another of life.
In some respects, these convictions have evolved and deepened during my time as governor. In considering the issue of embryo cloning and embryo farming, I saw where the harsh logic of abortion can lead -- to the view of innocent new life as nothing more than research material or a commodity to be exploited.
I have also observed the bitterness and fierce anger that still linger 32 years after Roe v. Wade. The majority in the US Supreme Court's Casey opinion assured us this would pass away as Americans learned to live with abortion on demand. But this has proved a false hope.
America may have "adapted" to the reality of Roe, but given the opportunity to change it, I believe that it would be banned by a great majority of this nation. Despite the skewed polls showing different ideas, I firmly believe that those polls—like those taken during the presidential election—would be proven wholly wrong.
There is much in the abortion controversy that America's founders would not recognize. Above all, those who wrote our Constitution would wonder why the federal courts had peremptorily removed the matter from the authority of the elected branches of government. The federal system left to us by the Constitution allows people of different states to make their own choices on matters of controversy, thus avoiding the bitter battles engendered by ''one size fits all" judicial pronouncements. A federalist approach would allow such disputes to be settled by the citizens and elected representatives of each state, and appropriately defer to democratic governance.
Sounds like the text from a textbook speaking on the Constitution in 1781.
Except on matters of the starkest clarity like the issue of banning partial-birth abortions, there is not now a decisive national consensus on abortion. Some parts of the country have prolife majorities, others have prochoice majorities. People of good faith on both sides of the issue should be able to make and advance their case in democratic forums -- with civility, mutual respect, and confidence that democratic majorities will prevail. We will never have peace on the abortion issue, much less a consensus of conscience, until democracy is allowed to work its way.
That is the primary focus of the debate. Let the people decide; one way or another. I will not condemn people of other states for choosing to approve of abortion, just as I would not condemn a state for outlawing it. But it should have been handed to the people to decide. It was wholly improper of the Supreme Court to usurp the voice of the people—via ballot or elected representative—in pushing an ideologically partisan issue such as abortion. This was a matter best left to the people, not to the non-elected minority of jurists on the highest federal bench.
Mitt Romney is Governor of Massachusetts.
Marcie Packard is a student at ASU.
The Bunny ;)
As a female, I enjoy my freedoms in this nation. They are thoroughly enumerated in the Constitution. Governor Mitt Romney recently vetoed a bill that would have done many things to set back abortion in this nation. Of course, when I say "set back," I mean a set back for those in favor of this abhorrent act. Below, I have cited his entire op-ed piece in today’s Boston Globe.
Why I vetoed contraception bill
By Mitt Romney July 26, 2005
YESTERDAY I vetoed a bill that the Legislature forwarded to my desk. Though described by its sponsors as a measure relating to contraception, there is more to it than that. The bill does not involve only the prevention of conception: The drug it authorizes would also terminate life after conception.
Such an idea is disgusting and reprehensible to young ladies like myself. I applaud the governor for this step. It was necessary to send a message to the dealers in death that supported an illegal measure. Yes, I said "illegal." If anyone would like to challenge me on the jurisprudence of Roe, I would be happy to debate the topic. Not from an emotional side, but rather the legal side, as my better half has instructed me.
Signing such a measure into law would violate the promise I made to the citizens of Massachusetts when I ran for governor. I pledged that I would not change our abortion laws either to restrict abortion or to facilitate it. What's more, this particular bill does not require parental consent even for young teenagers. It disregards not only the seriousness of abortion but the importance of parental involvement and so would weaken a protection I am committed to uphold.
Children under the age of 18 must obtain parental permission to receive a piercing or a tattoo in Massachusetts, so why would they be able to avoid an abortion. Is defacing the human body more egregious than terminating a life?
I have spoken with medical professionals to determine whether the drug contemplated under the bill would simply prevent conception or whether it would also terminate a living embryo after conception. Once it became clear that the latter was the case, my decision was straightforward. I will honor the commitment I made during my campaign: While I do not favor abortion, I will not change the state's abortion laws.
Despite my misgivings for moderate or liberal Republicans in the northeast, I must respect the governor’s decision. I do oppose abortion, mostly for legal reasons, but I will respect his pledge not to trump the voice of the people through their legislature or via ballot.
I understand that my views on laws governing abortion set me in the minority in our Commonwealth. I am prolife. I believe that abortion is the wrong choice except in cases of incest, rape, and to save the life of the mother. I wish the people of America agreed, and that the laws of our nation could reflect that view. But while the nation remains so divided over abortion, I believe that the states, through the democratic process, should determine their own abortion laws and not have them dictated by judicial mandate.
It should not have been determined through judicial fiat in the first place, and while I share the governor’s views, I disagree with his assessment over the division of the nation on this subject. Well over 70% of this nation dislike the concept of abortion, and wish they had a voice in it. As they do not, they accept—grudgingly so—the mandate set down by the Supreme Court. Had they their "druthers," I am positive a majority of this nation would outlaw abortion in a heartbeat.
Because Massachusetts is decidedly prochoice, I have respected the state's democratically held view. I have not attempted to impose my own views on the prochoice majority.
For all the conflicting views on this issue, it speaks well of our country that we recognize abortion as a problem. The law may call it a right, but no one ever called it a good, and, in the quiet of conscience people of both political parties know that more than a million abortions a year cannot be squared with the good heart of America.
America is not happy with abortion, which is why it is such an influential and potentially-explosive issue in debate. This debate will rage over our hemisphere for years to come, unless the Supreme Court grows a set, and decides to revisit it. This is a concept, I doubt, I will see in my lifetime, but there is hope.
You can't be a prolife governor in a prochoice state without understanding that there are heartfelt and thoughtful arguments on both sides of the question. Many women considering abortions face terrible pressures, hurts, and fears; we should come to their aid with all the resourcefulness and empathy we can offer. At the same time, the starting point should be the innocence and vulnerability of the child waiting to be born.
As my better half would shout, "BINGO!!! Give the guv his fuzzy bunny." He hit the nail on the head. Since 1973, we have selfishly looked to the woman’s right, yet disregarded the right of the child to live. We have done so because we have debased that child to the title of "embryo" or "fetus," and in doing so, we have stripped it of it’s most basic asset. That of identification as a human male or female. That idea is too personal to pro-abortionists. That is too personal for the mother, where we are only looking to her feelings. To hell with the mother. What of the child? Does the mother trump the child in cases not of rape, incest or her life being in danger? It should not. Her right should end the moment she decides to deny another of life.
In some respects, these convictions have evolved and deepened during my time as governor. In considering the issue of embryo cloning and embryo farming, I saw where the harsh logic of abortion can lead -- to the view of innocent new life as nothing more than research material or a commodity to be exploited.
I have also observed the bitterness and fierce anger that still linger 32 years after Roe v. Wade. The majority in the US Supreme Court's Casey opinion assured us this would pass away as Americans learned to live with abortion on demand. But this has proved a false hope.
America may have "adapted" to the reality of Roe, but given the opportunity to change it, I believe that it would be banned by a great majority of this nation. Despite the skewed polls showing different ideas, I firmly believe that those polls—like those taken during the presidential election—would be proven wholly wrong.
There is much in the abortion controversy that America's founders would not recognize. Above all, those who wrote our Constitution would wonder why the federal courts had peremptorily removed the matter from the authority of the elected branches of government. The federal system left to us by the Constitution allows people of different states to make their own choices on matters of controversy, thus avoiding the bitter battles engendered by ''one size fits all" judicial pronouncements. A federalist approach would allow such disputes to be settled by the citizens and elected representatives of each state, and appropriately defer to democratic governance.
Sounds like the text from a textbook speaking on the Constitution in 1781.
Except on matters of the starkest clarity like the issue of banning partial-birth abortions, there is not now a decisive national consensus on abortion. Some parts of the country have prolife majorities, others have prochoice majorities. People of good faith on both sides of the issue should be able to make and advance their case in democratic forums -- with civility, mutual respect, and confidence that democratic majorities will prevail. We will never have peace on the abortion issue, much less a consensus of conscience, until democracy is allowed to work its way.
That is the primary focus of the debate. Let the people decide; one way or another. I will not condemn people of other states for choosing to approve of abortion, just as I would not condemn a state for outlawing it. But it should have been handed to the people to decide. It was wholly improper of the Supreme Court to usurp the voice of the people—via ballot or elected representative—in pushing an ideologically partisan issue such as abortion. This was a matter best left to the people, not to the non-elected minority of jurists on the highest federal bench.
Mitt Romney is Governor of Massachusetts.
Marcie Packard is a student at ASU.
The Bunny ;)
posted by Syd And Vaughn | 10:28 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home