October 5, 2011

Gregg Jackson Reviews Mike Huckabee’s Mitt Romney Interview, Finds the Same Old Abortion and Same-Sex Marriage Lies

Filed under: Health Care,Life-Based News,Taxes & Government — Tom @ 10:42 am

RomneyNo0808Mitt Romney’s Sunday interview with former Arkansas Governor and Fox show host Mike Huckabee was fraught with falsehoods.

Gregg Jackson exposed the two biggest — the Mittster’s contention that RomneyCare’s abortion coverage with a $50 copay wasn’t his fault, and that he fought to prevent same-sex marriage in Massachusetts (claiming he fought for an after-the-fact state constitutional amendment, an exercise author Amy Contrada describes in her book, “Mitt Romney’s Deception,” as “doomed to failure”).

First, regarding abortion coverage in RomneyCare (bolds are mine throughout; internal links are in original):

Whopper #1: Romney claimed that Romneycare doesn’t cover abortions at $50 each and that the supreme court put it into place and that he had no choice but to sign a healthcare bill into law that covered elective surgical abortions for $50 each.

Fact: … The truth is, that Romneycare includes a $50 co-pay for any elective surgical abortion which Mitt Romney and Mitt Romney alone signed into law 3 years AFTER his fake “pro-life conversion.”

Here are the facts Romney conveniently omits when he falsely claims that the courts forced Romneycare to subsidize abortions at $50 each which you can see for yourself here.

The court decision Romney is referring to is a 1981 MSJC (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court) decision that ruled that the state constitution required payment for abortion services for medicaid eligible women. (Moe v Secretary of Admin & Finance, 1981) which was re-affirmed in1997 in (Planned Parenthood League of Massachusetts v. Attorney General, 1997). Both were only declaratory OPINIONS. The court can only interpret the law in specific cases. But they can’t make law. Only the legislature can do that. The Mass Courts have no power to create, suspend, or alter law. In short, these opinions were just that… opinions. They were not orders. And the legislature never created any law that required any government subsidized healthcare plan to cover abortions. Romney’s bill (that was endorsed by Planned Parenthood, Ted Kennedy and Hillary Clinton) was the first that included this provision.

Romney used his line item veto authority to strike down eight sections of the bill that he found objectionable, including the expansion of dental benefits to Medicaid recipients. But he did not strike Planned Parenthood’s guaranteed board representative role on his advisory board (with no pro-life representative appointee incidentally) and did nothing to prohibit tax payer funded abortionsin his plan. (”Romney’s Health Care Vetoes,” Associated Press,4/12/06 [link not available -- Ed.])

Next, same-sex marriage:

Whopper #2: Romney claimed that he “fought to protect marriage between one man and one woman in Massachusetts.”

Fact: Mitt Romney, and Mitt Romney alone, unilaterally, illegally and unconstitutionally authorized the alterations to and issuance of marriage licenses to same sex couples in Massachusetts in violation of at least 8 article of the oldest functioning constitution in the world, the Massachusetts Constitution authored by John Adams (Proof Here).

While he falsely claimed that the “court legalized same sex marriage in Massachusetts” and that he was merely “following the law” and was “under a court order,” the fact of the matter is that even the Goodridge court admitted that they didn’t even have the authority to alter the existing marriage laws to accommodate same sex “marriage” in any way and that if the marriage laws (chapter 207 of the Mass General Laws) were ever to be altered or amended in any way to accommodate same sex “marriage”, it would have to be done via the legislature, which, to this day, the legislature still has never done! … (This) means that the same sex “marriage” licenses are as legally null and void today in 2011 as the were when Mitt Romney first began illegally altering and issuing them in 2003 (Proof Here).

… Mitt Romney ushered in homosexual “marriage” to America via the Cradle of Liberty, Massachusetts. … After all, Romney had made certain campaign promises to certain homosexual Republican activist groups when running for governor (Proof Here).

Here is the key passage from the New York Times item Gregg cited:

… over breakfast one morning in 2002. Running for governor of Massachusetts, he was at a gay bar in Boston to court members of Log Cabin Republicans.

Mr. Romney explained to the group that his perspective on gay rights had been largely shaped by his experience in the private sector, where, he said, discrimination was frowned upon. When the discussion turned to a court case on same-sex marriage that was then wending its way through the state’s judicial system, he said he believed that marriage should be limited to the union of a man and a woman. But, according to several people present, he promised to obey the courts’ ultimate ruling and not champion a fight on either side of the issue.

“I’ll keep my head low,” he said, making a bobbing motion with his head like a boxer, one participant recalled.

As Gregg explained, there was nothing to “obey” until the Leglislature passed an enabling law. It never has. Mitt Romney unilaterally imposed same-sex marriage all by himself. As Bryan Fischer at the American Family Association’s Rightly Conerned blog asserted in June: “The U.S. Has Gay Marriage Because of Mitt Romney” — even though it has never won approval in any statewide popular vote (31 failures through November 2009).

Huckabee’s non-response to Romney’s false claims about his role in implementing same-sex marriage in Massachusetts is odd, simply because in the run-up to John McCain’s vice-presidential selection in August 2008, he said that Romney should not have “complied” (as noted above, there was nothing with which to comply, because a court opinion is NOT a court order).

Huckabee’s Sunday failure to bring his August 2008 position up again was truly negligent.

_______________________________________________

BizzyBlog Blast from the Past, December 6, 2007 — “The NY Times’s Accidental Journalism Reveals the Full Scope of Mitt Romney’s Same-Sex Marriage Deception, and His Unfitness to Be President”:

Even though there was no “ruling” to obey, only a court opinion that the legislature had not enabled into law, Mitt Romney extra-constitutionally, and in direct violation of his oath of office, imposed same-sex marriage in the Bay State.

Please grasp the significance of this: It isn’t that Mitt Romney was weak and simply caved in to pressure, or was misled by “bad advice.” Instead, Romney consciously kept a 2002 campaign promise to the Log Cabin Republicans to (in typical Times mischaracterization) “obey the courts’ ultimate ruling,” and considered that promise more important than the oath he swore when inaugurated as governor to uphold and follow the Massachusetts Constitution.

This is not arguable.

Not that any answer he provides would be credible, but someone should ask Mitt Romney what presidential oath-breaking promises he has made to groups whose last interest is the rule of law.

Yet this is a man who has now been endorsed for president by some of the alleged leading lights of conservatism, even of social conservatism.

This is madness. It must be stopped.

What he has consciously, proactively, and cynically done to break the oath he swore to the people of Massachusetts, and before God, while pretending now to be a warrior against the very thing he put into place, makes him objectively unfit to serve as president.

Our country’s Founders would agree.

And that, folks, is also not arguable.

Share

1 Comment

  1. Great reminders, Mr Blumer.

    Piling on.

    “Mitt Romney. … He continues to ride high in the national polling, holding ***steady*** at near one quarter of the likely Republican primary voters.”

    And he will go no higher. His high name recognition means his current support is the peak of his support.

    “Republican Romney supporters seem to be counting on sheer dislike for President Obama to carry Romney to victory. That logic is not compelling. Democrats thought the same thing when they nominated John Kerry against the unpopular incumbent George W. Bush. But an empty suit will not beat an unpopular incumbent.”

    Read the whole thing here:
    http://townhall.com/columnists/benshapiro/2011/10/05/the_tea_party_vs_the_establishment/page/full/

    Bottom Line: “…when conservatism embraces the politics of convenience, it always loses. If the establishment GOP succeeds in nominating Mitt Romney, it will be able to add another black mark to its long record of failure — and, even worse, it will have co-opted the greatest Constitutionalist movement in a century for its own pathetic purposes.”

    Comment by Cornfed — October 5, 2011 @ 10:11 pm

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.