Jakubczyk on Life

I listened to a portion of the Mitt Romney interview on the Hugh Hewitt show this evening. As many of you know the former governor form Massachusetts has been courting conservatives and especially pro-lifers since making his announcement to seek the Republican nomination for president. Romney has some baggage on the right to life issue. When he ran against Ted Kennedy in 1994, he presented himself as very "pro-choice" and said that if elected he would support a "woman's right to choose." In 2002 he also stated that he was pro-choice in his run for governor. AS governor he has not had a very stellar record in support of pro-life measures and he incurred the wrath of the Massachusetts Citizens for Life Since announcing his candidacy, Romney has been tauting his "conversion" and raising the name of Ronald Reagan who while governor of California made the colossus error of signing a liberal abortions bill into law - a move he would later regret and attempt to make amends be endorsing a Human Life Amendment to the Constitution when he ran against Gerald Ford in 1976. He has hired certain prominent pro-life lawyers to be on his advisory committee. He has a very polished script and one could get the impression that his conversion is sincere.

Until you listen to the Hewitt interview.

Romney does not get it at all.

Abortion kills babies. It is not acceptable from the pro-life perspective to simply want to "return to the states" and let the states decide.

Decide what ?

Whether it is to be legal to kill children in the womb?

Whether it should be legal to kill them at 12 weeks or 20 weeks or because they are not "perfect."

Now don't get me wrong. There are some very dedicated pro-lifers who think the "states' strategy is the best way to end abortion in the land. They will argue that the movement is stronger at the local level and can get more accomplished once Roe v. Wade is overturned. These individuals would continue the battle until the scourge of abortion is driven from the land.

But Romney did not say that during the interview. He spoke of how each state should be able to decide, how one size does not fit all.

Excuse me? but what does he mean ?

Does he not understand the concept of equal protection under the law? Remarks like this indicate to me that he does not get it. He does not understand that we in the pro-life movement are very serious when it comes to giving our support for the right candidate. We do not need to get burned again when it comes to politicians who will say anything to get elected. Lest anyone think that this was a mere slip of the tongue, Romney's comments regarding the Terri Schiavo tragedy point out his lack of understanding of that matter as well. He does not know the meaning of the term pro-life. He has no business calling himself pro-life when he is unwilling to stand up and protect ALL human life. Those who are shilling for him should be aware that he does not have a true understanding of the situation.

And a final note. When Reagan made his mistake, it was 1970. When George Herbert Walker Bush sat down with Jack Wilke to view the slides, it was 1980. Both Reagan and Bush then embraced the notion that the nation needed a Human Life Amendment to the U.S. Constitution to end the nightmare. Mitt Romney has had the benefit of watching and listening to the pro-life movement and these previous presidents for the last 34 years. Mitt Romney has had the opportunity to view the latest in 4D ultrasound. Mitt Romney can go over to Youtube and see the unborn child. So why does he wait until he decides to run for president to 'find the light."

I will spare you the analysis of what he did or did not do in Massachusetts for another time.