| Well, Romney's Mormomism has come up. On the radio, WRCB, yesterday
the Boston Globe was probing into his stand on women's rights,
abortion, blacks. They stated that Mormons were anti-abortion, but
Romney said "he supported abortion rights". I expect the
sensationalist Globe reporters will have a field day on this.
My wife and I had a discussion on abortion. We concluded that
Mormonism supports a limited Pro-Choice position because the Church
says a choice can be made to abort in cases of rape, incest, or the
health of the mother. However, other abortion choices such as
inconvenience, wrong timing for my career, financial burden, wrong sex,
etc., illegitimacy, etc. are not acceptable.
I have talked to non-Mormon friends about Mitt and they are impressed
with him, his honesty, charisma, and "squeaky clean" image. I was on
the High Council with Mitt as Stake President, and can tell you some
wonderful stories about his humility, honesty, openness and
spirituality, plus ability to seek and hear counsel from others,
concern for individuals, sensitivity to women and minority issues,
ability to laugh at himself, admit mistakes, etc.
Paul
|
| When I made my run for office (Office of the State Auditor) I was also
faced with the abortion issue. (Coincidentally, I was also serving
with Paul Rondina on the High Council with Mitt Romney at about that
time.) The slate I ran with (with one exception) was officially
against abortion, but allowed it in cases of rape, incest and so forth.
We worked to get the endorsement of the Massachusettes Citizens for
Life. They had endorsed a Republican candidate for governer who was
pro-life, but who wound up not making the ballot. It was reported by
the news (and not refuted by the MCFL) that they endorsed Weld -- even
though Weld was very much pro-abortion.
We (I) protested to the MCFL. In response, they told me that the MCFL
was not a political organization and did not endorse candidates.
Rather, their leadership had formed a spin off organization that *did*
sponsor candidates. This organization, given the choice between Silber
and Weld, had said that they weren't going to endorse since both were
pro-abortion. But, if they had to pick, they'd pick Weld. Umina (our
candidate) was not considered by them because although he was the third
on the ballot and was pro-life, he was not considered "viable." My
response was that the news had reported that the MCFL had endorsed
Weld. They basically blew me off at that point with something along
the lines of how they couldn't be responsible for how the news reported
it.
At a convention of the MCFL that we attended, in our interactions with
folks they also felt that the MCFL had endorsed Weld. Some we spoke
with were surprised when we pointed out that Weld was pro-abortion and
that there was a third candidate that was pro-life. In fact, some were
enraged that the MCFL had basically left the one pro-life gubernatorial
candidate high and dry.
As for me, in my statements I was pro-life. But, nobody really cared
much in truth. More real issues, such as the delays in audits of the
MWRA that resulted in $Ms of loss, the fact that the Boston Housing
Authority didn't apparently have *any* audits on record and so forth
never got much news. When I showed up for debates, the other two
candidates didn't show. When they had debates, I wasn't invited. That
kind of stuff. Press releases go unnoticed. Yet, the press will say
you don't say anything.
Mitt Romney has several advantages that we didn't have. He has a
famous name. He has money. (I only spent $600 for my campaign as well
as a lot of time. Hey, it's all I could afford. Our slate needed
financing, but we refused to make the kind of "deals" it apparently
took to get certain types of funding.) He has been in the press before
and has done well. I really, really hope Mitt gets the election.
Having worked with him in the past in Church, I am confident about his
abilities and his integrity.
I'm a bit puzzled about the statement quoted here regarding his
position on abortion. I mean, from what I've read here, his position
is not much different from our own and we were definitely pro-life.
I expect that in truth, stating that you are for or against "abortion
rights" is subjective. Folks can probably claim either position and,
without changing their own beliefs, successfully defend that position.
Steve
|