The “new” stuff references some of the things Reagan actually said and did at the time the bill was making its way through the Cali legislature and when it arrived at his desk.

I added some of Cannon’s and related commentary as an update. Thanks for the nudge. I also linked to a different Warner Todd Huston link for the same item in a different BizzyBlog post.

ADDED at 8PM: Steven, I also think it’s important to note the proaborts’ deception on “gravely threatening” and the number of abortions anticipated coming directly from contemporaneous reports, especially since Cali’s so-called “acceptance” of abortion on demand in 1967 was one of the reasons given in New York a few years later to institute it there without the mask.

I’d only add to your response to one of the comments lower down that if a pro-life position would have meant Romney could not get elected, then that is exactly what a pro-life person would have accepted.

I agree with that. Besides, Reagan won MA in 1984 and all but Minnesota “despite” being prolife. What if he did as well as he did partially because he was prolife?

Re Romney — Thompson campaign cites contrary evidence (first item at post):
http://www.bizzyblog.com/2007/12/17/quick-iowa-and-political-posts-121707/

it is an interesting subject, as are all things Reagan.

He was an FDR democrat at one time.

another subject, I’ve read Gov. Reagan signed Gun legislation into law at one point?

Did Romney sign any legislation that was abortion related into law as Gov. of Mass.? curious, I don’t know. seems like i heard him say once it came to his desk he vetoed it.

++++++++++++++

Feb. 8, 1976 NYT —

Ronald Reagan conceded today that the liberalized abortion bill he signed as Governor of California led to “abortion on demand” in many of that state’s hospitals.

++++++++++++++

It’s not difficult to see political opponents and the media turning this into “he was prochoice,” or creating the impression he was prochoice.

A comprehensive look at this would require trolling through the TV archives at Vanderbilt, because at the time the evening news had about 3-5 times as many viewers (as a % of population) and had an incredible amount of influence. The morning shows were probably at least 3x more powerful in their influence too.

jp, did you actually read past the headline at hotair? You didn’t interact with anything in the article.

In 2007, the term for that would be “nearly ardent prolifer.”

As to Romney, if anyone could have fought the good fight in MA and won, Romney could have. He was coming off a perceived-heroic management of the SLC Olympics. He won by 5% of the vote. There should have been some room for prolife passion.

I’m tired of ceding states to the proaborts, who do not have the ideological majority, just the megaphones.

Romney himself, I beleive, had to be pro-choice to have a political career in Mass. had he been pro-life, he never would’ve been elected and we would’t be discussing him right now. being a mormon, i doubt he’s really pro-choice. just political pressures got to him

It’s also, based on the above, historically incorrect, no twisting required. You’re welcome to counter with other contemporaneous information demonstrating otherwise.

I would posit that the current folklore arose and stuck during the 1980 campaign as the MSM, which controlled the media in a near deathgrip at the time, exaggerated the history and created a meme in an attempt to suppress prolife enthusiasm and turnout. It’s the 1980 version of the “Bush rejected Kyoto” garbage of the past few years, except today, they get caught (not that they stop repeating it, which they unfortunately do).

As to the “hatred” thing, Phil, geez, you should know better.

Let me remind you of something I wrote in my first Bob McEwen 2005 campaign post in OH-02:
http://www.bizzyblog.com/?p=162

It shouldn’t surprise you that I probably wouldn’t vote for Bouncin’ Bullheaded Bob McEwen if he was the only person on the ballot. I can forgive him for what he did and said 13 years ago, and wish him luck with the rest of his life, which appears to have been quite prosperous, fulfilling, and even exemplary. But forgiveness doesn’t require me to return him to Congress, and I won’t support that.

Very analogous situation here. Mitt Romney’s probably a great and even noble guy as long as he’s not anywhere near politics. But in politics, he was a disaster for his state, and he’ll be a disaster for this country.

Of course, things were found, some by me, some by others, in McEwen’s post-congressional career later in 2005 and then in his 2006 run that poked huge holes in the “exemplary” part. I don’t expect to find those holes in Romney, but, given everything else, I don’t have to.

I haven’t decided on a candidate. I know it’s not Mitt.

Just out of curiosity, are you supporting anyone, or is it more of an “anyone but Mitt” thing?