Romney's Weakness on the Life Issue

Rather disturbing report over at NRO – first off, the Susan B. Anthony List has created a pro-life pledge for potential GOP candidates:

Only nominate to the U.S. Supreme Court and federal bench judges who are committed to restraint and applying the original meaning of the Constitution, not legislating from the bench;

Select pro-life appointees for relevant Cabinet and Executive Branch positions, in particular the head of National Institutes of Health, the Department of Health & Human Services, and the Department of Justice;

Advance pro-life legislation to permanently end all taxpayer funding of abortion in all domestic and international spending programs, and defund Planned Parenthood and all other contractors and recipients of federal funds with affiliates that perform or fund abortions;

Advance and sign into law a Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act to protect unborn children who are capable of feeling pain from abortion.

And then NRO notes Romney has refused it – and given the following explanation as to why:

“Governor Romney pledged in the last campaign that he would be a pro-life president and of course he pledges it today,” Romney spokesman Andrea Saul told National Review Online in a statement. “However, this well intentioned effort has some potentially unforeseen consequences and he does not feel he could in good conscience sign it. Gov. Romney has been a strong supporter of the SBA List in the past and he looks forward to continue working with them to promote a culture of life.”…

…Romney spokeswoman Andrea Saul e-mails NRO the details about the unintended consequences Romney is concerned about: “This pledge would require cutting off funding to thousands of healthcare facilities, including VA hospitals, that currently receive funding . It would also place severe restrictions on federal appointments to a broad variety of agencies.”

First off, if you are performing abortions you are not a “health care facility” – and if a determination to butcher children is so ingrained in an organization, then taxpayer dollars shouldn’t be going there, no matter what else they do. Secondly, if you are a pro-life President – as Romney claims he would be – then appointing a pro-abort to a position in which abortion is relevant would be a negation of “pro-life President”. I hate to say it, but it appears that all Romney wants to do is gain pro-life support without having to do all that tiresome, pro-life policy which would only crimp his style…after all, there might be some pro-abortion fanatic that Romney owes a favor to and what better way to reward such a person than to make them, say, head of the National Institutes of Health?

You either are or your are not pro-life – if you are pro-life, then the thought that an action of yours might in any way, shape or form advance the cause of abortion is a horror. Any pro-life person would eagerly sign such a pledge as this – and no one is forcing Romney to do so, but if you want to be pro-life it requires more than just a bit of lip service. Hopefully Romney will re-consider and do the right thing.