I’m against abortion. And I’m going to limit your rights to have one. No wait, I’m not. That’s basically the gist of what Mitt Romney said this week about women’s abortion rights. It’s confusing. And he’s confused. Because he seems to want to say whatever people want to hear.
One day he’s campaigning telling people he will be a “pro-life president,” but less than 24 hours before that he told an Iowa newspaper that he saw “no legislation with regards to abortion that I’m familiar with that would become part of my agenda.”
Huh? So he’s anti-abortion and wants to defund Planned Parenthood and wants to “reinstate the Mexico City policy” (which prohibits federal dollars from being used by private organizations to pay for abortions “as a method of family planning), but if elected these things are no longer on his agenda? Does that mean he’s not really pro-life? Or maybe he’s only pro-life when speaking to voters who want him to be pro-life and the rest of the time he’s not going to do anything to support his stance in office?
His (also pro-life) running mate Paul Ryan says no:
Our position’s unified. Our position is consistent and hasn’t changed.
OK. Well. So then why doesn’t Romney just say that instead of confusing the issue because now we don’t know what to believe. Apparently he’s pro-life but won’t be doing anything about it.
President Obama told ABC World News anchor Diane Sawyer that this is par for the course with him:
This is another example of Governor Romney hiding positions he’s been campaigning on for a year and a half.
“Is it a lie?” Sawyer asked.
No, I actually think… when it comes to women’s rights to control their own health care decisions, you know, what he has been saying is exactly what he believes. [Romney] thinks that it is appropriate for politicians to inject themselves in those decisions.
What do you believe? Is Romney confusing the issue on purpose to solicit votes?