Romney’s Pro-Life Credentials TODAY problematic

There has been much discussion of Mitt Romney’s views of abortion and his “pro-life conversion.” I am not about to doubt the authenticity of his change in views.

I am much more concerned about a pair of recent news reports, one which garnered some media attention and one which has not, that even given his view’s TODAY Romney does not accept key tenents of the pro-life platform:

From an interview this week with National Journal:

NJ: You would favor a constitutional amendment banning abortion with exceptions for the life of the mother, rape and incest. Is that correct?

What I’ve indicated is that I am pro-life, and that my hope is that the Supreme Court will give to the states over time or give to the states soon or give to the states their own ability to make their own decisions with regard to their own abortion law.

NJ: If a state wanted unlimited abortion?

The state would fall into restrictions that had been imposed at the federal level, so they couldn’t be more expansive in abortion than currently exists under the law, but they could become more restrictive in abortion provisions. So states like Massachusetts could stay like they are if they so desire, and states that have a different view could take that course. And it would be up to the citizens of the individual states. My view is not to impose a single federal rule on the entire nation — a one-size-fits-all approach — but instead allow states to make their own decisions in this regard.

As pointed out over at the Students for Brownback blog, this is a departure from the Republican platform position, which has always endorsed a federal Human Life Amendment to the Constitution. While state-by-state regulation of abortion is better than the status quo, obviously, it is not the optimal situation compared to a federal Human Life Amendment, something that Presidents Reagan and Bush 41 and 43 supported.

Then, today’s Boston Globe (and I recognize that the Globe is not Romney’s greatest fan) reports on a troubling nuance to his position on embryonic stem cell research:

Unlike many on the right, Romney supports research on excess embryos created during fertility treatments. Because couples are making embryos to have a baby, he reasons, it is ethical to use the leftovers for research when they would otherwise just be discarded.

Romney’s position, however, is at odds with the views of many conservative anti abortion activists, who believe that any work on stem cells derived from human embryos is wrong, because it destroys the embryos in the process. Some say Romney’s views make him unacceptable to many voters and will complicate his attempt to win the 2008 GOP nomination by appealing to the party’s conservative flank.

Now, to be sure, Romney supports President Bush’s veto of the federal ban on tax-payer funding for embryonic stem cell research. However, he does not see the use of frozen embryoes as “destroying life.” And that’s problematic. The Globe story cites folks from the Southern Baptist Convention’s Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission, National Catholic Bioethics Center, Family Research Council, South Carolina Baptist Convention, and the National Republican Coalition for Life, all of which shared a general unease about Romney’s position. Now Hugh Hewitt, whom I always enjoy, says that social conservatives should take Jim Bopp’s imprimatur as assurance that Romney is good on life – but that doesn’t change the hard time I’m having with both of these stories…

Then again, New York Magazine has one Republican consultant who thinks social conservatives will get used to Romney’s not-quite-perfect-but-almost position:

The case for Romney’s viability, therefore, boils down to this: He’s the minimally acceptable man to the right who has a chance of winning. “Social conservatives rarely get their first choice, but they have veto power,” says [Dan] Schnur, McCain’s communications director in 2000. “Romney doesn’t need to be their best friend; he just needs to be better than McCain or Giuliani. He needs to be the tallest jockey at the track.”

• Tom Barrett's Savings Plan - June 8th, 2010
• C.J. Abrahamson on J. Stevens - April 11th, 2010
• Why always Bill Bablitch? - March 24th, 2010
• Suhr on Nixon on Health Care - February 23rd, 2010
• Did the USCCB Foresee Dead People? - February 8th, 2010