ROMNEY LIED: HE DID FORCE CATHOLIC HOSPITALS TO ISSUE MORNING AFTER PILLS

During last night’s debate, John King tossed what he apparently thought was a softball question to Mitt Romney about a decision the latter made as Governor of Massachusetts concerning Catholic hospitals:

Governor Romney, both Senator Santorum and Speaker Gingrich have said during your tenure as governor, you required Catholic hospitals to provide emergency contraception to rape victims … Governor, did you do that?

Romney replied as follows:

No, absolutely not. Of course not.

Romney is a liar.

He claimed to be against it, and even issued a potemkin veto of a bill passed by his legislature requiring such hospitals to do so. But, as the Boston Globe reported in 2005, he eventually executed another of his famous flip-flops:

Governor Mitt Romney reversed course on the state’s new emergency contraception law yesterday, saying that all hospitals in the state will be obligated to provide the morning-after pill to rape victims.

Don’t get suckered into thinking this is about whether rape victims should have access to the morning after pill. It’s about whether government has the power to force religious institutions to do things that undermine their own teachings.

President Obama and his creatures at HHS believe the government has this power. So does Mitt Romney. Both men have proven it through their actions. Both men continue to lie about their true positions.

Neither should be permitted to live in the White House after 2012.

[ht Quin Hillyer]

Comments 6

  1. Marc Brown wrote:

    A hospital isn’t a ‘religious institution’. If it was, you wouldn’t need doctors, only pastors to perform miracles. Talking of which, you’ll need a miracle to get any of your hopeless GOPsters into the White House.

    Posted 24 Feb 2012 at 12:53 pm
  2. Diogenes wrote:

    Marc, your ignorance on this surpasses (against all odds) any previous comment you have contributed to this forum.

    Catholic hospitals, run by nuns, were providing free health care to the poor long before there was a progressive movement or any notion that the government should be involved in such things.

    I myself am neither Catholic nor particularly religious, but that doesn’t prevent me from being outraged by the arrogance and unconstitutionality of the anti-conscience mandate.

    The only thing more offensive is breathtaking hypocrisy of progressives on this issue.

    Posted 25 Feb 2012 at 8:12 pm
  3. Marc Brown wrote:

    Diogenes, in case you hadn’t noticed many of today’s ‘Catholic’ hospitals are huge modern enterprises vying for federal and state funds and indeed many states already require them to act like any other employer.

    By all means campaign for a return to nun-run clinics but I think you’ll find there won’t be much of a budget left for physicians and technology.

    Posted 26 Feb 2012 at 11:23 am
  4. Diogenes wrote:

    Hmm … what’s that smell … Oh, of course … red herring.

    Not that you progressives give a rat’s ass about patients, but if this causes Catholic hospitals to get out of health care (as they got out of adoption work in MA), the consequences would be catastrophic for a lot of people.

    Catholic hospitals constitute 12% of U.S. hospitals and treat more than 100 million patients a year, including 15 million ER patients. Most of these people are covered by government programs that do not cover costs (that’s costs, Marc, not charges).

    Does the religious bigotry that drives progressive opinion in this matter render you so blind that you think the Obama anti-conscience edict is worth putting so many patients at risk?

    Posted 27 Feb 2012 at 9:44 pm
  5. Marc Brown wrote:

    You make my point – these hospitals are far too important not to offer a comprehensive health service to women, and indeed many do despite this phoney outrage (and don’t forget the vast majority of Catholic women practise contraception).

    Posted 28 Feb 2012 at 6:45 am
  6. Diogenes wrote:

    It’s clear, Marc, that serfdom has so vitiated your capacity for critical thinking that you are incapable of grasping the point. Perhaps you should change your name to Winston Smith.

    Nonetheless, I’ll give it one more shot: In a free society, the services offered by such entities are determined by those entities. It’s NOT THE GOVERNMENT’S CALL.

    Posted 28 Feb 2012 at 10:59 am

Post a Comment

Your email is never published nor shared. Required fields are marked *