Some Questions for Mitt Romney
Some Questions for Mitt Romney
Deal W. Hudson
(The following is a combination, slightly updated, of three Windows written at the beginning of last year about the candidacy of Mitt Romney.)
One of the likely candidates for the 2008 presidential nomination, former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney, has positioned himself as a pro-life, pro-family "social conservative." This seems to be playing well among some prominent social conservatives, but Boston-area grassroots Catholic activists familiar with his record are not so enthusiastic.
Reviewing his record as governor, a look at Romney's positions on abortion, emergency contraception, gay marriage, and gay adoption raises serious questions for Catholic voters.
ABORTION
Today Romney describes himself as "pro-life," and explains he converted to this position in late 2004 at 57-years-old. But, his public statements and actions present a mixed history of pro-choice vs. pro-life positions with conflicting conversion stories.
Romney as Pro-Choice
During his 1994 Senate campaign against Ted Kennedy and in his 2002 gubernatorial campaign, Romney campaigned as a pro-choice candidate. In a televised debate against Kennedy in October of 1994, Romney said he felt "abortion should be safe and legal in this country," and he believed this because his mother took that position in her 1970 US Senate campaign.
When Kennedy labeled his opponent, "multiple choice," Romney rebutted that since the time of a close relative's death from an illegal abortion years ago, "My mother and my family have been committed to the belief that we can believe as we want, but we will not force our beliefs on others on that matter, and you will not see me wavering on that."
Romney thus suggested he may have previously been neutral or pro-life, but converted to pro-choice two years before Roe v Wade (Conversion #1). He maintained that pro-choice position through his 2002 gubernatorial campaign, when he answered to Planned Parenthood and NARAL questionnaires saying he supported "the substance of the Supreme Court decision in Roe v. Wade," and ''I respect and will protect a woman's right to choose…Women should be free to choose based on their own beliefs, not mine and not the government's."
Oddly, Romney refused to answer the candidate questionnaire sent to him that year by Massachusetts Citizens for Life.
Romney as Pro-Life
By spring of 2005, Romney was highlighting his personal opposition to abortion in out-of-state speeches. "I'm in a different place than I was probably in 1994, when I ran against Ted Kennedy, in my own views on that." On May 23, 2005 Romney was quoted in USA Today saying, he was "personally pro-life" but declined to say more. "I choose not to elaborate on those because I don't want to be confusing to people in my state."
Massachusetts Citizens for Life was "unimpressed with those moves," and still considered Romney an abortion-rights supporter.
Romney has attributed his pro-life conversion (Conversion #2) to a November 2004 stem cell research discussion with a Harvard researcher. He now claims he has joined company with other political figures such as Ronald Reagan and Henry Hyde who changed their views.
Everyone welcomes politicians who are open to realizing the truth about the evils of abortion. Reagan and Hyde changed their views once and became stalwart supporters of a culture of life.
But will Mitt Romney, if elected president, turn out like Ronald Reagan and Henry Hyde?
And is Romney asking us to believe he converted twice-first to pro-choice before abortion was ever legalized by Roe v Wade, and then 34 years later from pro-choice to pro-life as a result of one brief meeting?
What prevents Romney from converting back again? And how does he explain why one of his political consultants, Charles Manning, said, "Mitt has always been consistent in his pro-choice position" in 1994, while another Romney political consultant, Michael Murphy said last year, "He's been a pro-life Mormon faking it as pro-choice friendly."
Which Mitt Romney should Catholic voters believe?
Tom McClusky of the Family Research Council summarized his view last year. "For a lot of people, especially Christian conservatives, it's one of those black and white issues. You're either pro-life or not. That's the trouble with Governor Romney -- he's gray."
EMERGENCY CONTRACEPTION
The Boston Globe claims a visible result of Romney's abortion shift was his July 2005 veto of a bill making the "morning-after pill" (Plan B) available over-the-counter at state pharmacies and requiring hospitals to offer it to rape victims.
If Gov. Romney has indeed suddenly become committed to the culture of life in the past two years of his political life, why did he eliminate the conscience exemption allowing Catholic hospitals to opt-out of the intrusive law that his own Department of Public Health decided to grant them?
On December 7, 2005, the Globe reported that Romney's Department of Public Health had determined Catholic and other privately-run hospitals could opt out of giving the morning-after pill to rape victims because of religious or moral objections. A statute passed in previous years said privately-run hospitals could not be forced to provide abortions or contraception, and indeed, Article II of the Massachusetts Constitution guarantees such freedom of religious practice.
When pro-choice groups complained, Romney immediately caved-in, or "flip-flopped," as Massachusetts Democrats described it, saying that after legal review, his own lawyer found all hospitals in the state would be forced to provide the morning-after pill to rape victims.
On December 9, 2005 the Boston Globe reported, "Governor Mitt Romney reversed course on the state's new emergency contraception law...The decision overturns a ruling made public this week by the state Department of Public Health that privately run hospitals could opt out of the requirement if they objected on moral or religious grounds."
Will Romney, himself a Harvard-trained attorney, plan to bring the same timid legal counsel to Washington to protect and defend life?
Why did Gov. Romney not simply abide by the state constitution and the decision of his own Public Health Department? He instead abandoned Catholic hospitals, setting them up for possible court battles if they upheld their constitutionally guaranteed freedom of religion.
These are some of the legitimate questions that Catholic voters will want answered by Gov. Romney before they decide who will get their vote.
AY RIGHTS
By now, many readers know that for the past two and a half years Gov. Romney has become a crusader against same-sex marriage and activist judges. But his gay-friendly positions from his 1994 campaign against Kennedy have recently come back to haunt him, and reams of documentation by Massachusetts pro-family activists and the Boston-area gay newspaper, Bay Windows, show how Romney's pro-gay actions as governor have not matched his conservative rhetoric.
Romney's previous comments reported by the New York Times, Boston Globe, and other papers are troubling on their own. In 1994, Romney won the endorsement of the gay-advocating Log Cabin Club of Massachusetts, saying he would be a stronger advocate for gays than US Senator Edward M. Kennedy. "We must make equality for gays and lesbians a mainstream concern. My opponent cannot do this. I can and will."
During his 2002 run for governor, Romney supported full domestic partnership benefits for gay and lesbian couples which had been opposed by Democratic legislative leadership, and his campaign distributed pink flyers during Gay Pride promoting equal rights for all citizens regardless of their sexual preference.
During that same 2002 run, Romney also denounced as "too extreme" an effort by pro-family groups to enact a state Marriage Protection Amendment banning gay marriage, civil unions and same-sex domestic-partnership benefits which could have preempted the November 2003 same-sex marriage court decision.
Romney's inactions as governor that allowed the gay agenda to advance among young people are even more troubling. For example, the Governor's Commission for Gay and Lesbian Youth promotes gay-lesbian-bisexual-transgender (GLBT) education in schools via speaking presentations, films, books, dances (such as transgender proms), handouts, and establishment of GLBT clubs.
Although Romney had legal control over the entity, he never tried to limit its use of funding, impact the membership, or dissolve the Commission until after the Legislature created a redundant commission several months before the end of his 4-year term in office. In fact, Romney's fiscal 2006 budget included $250,000 for the Commission, twice what he proposed spending in 2005. Romney signed annual proclamations recognizing "Youth Gay Pride Day.
Romney's Department of Public Health supported publication of "The Little Black Book…Queer in the 21st Century," a pamphlet which includes graphic instructions about safely performing gay sex acts, which even liberal Boston Herald columnists described as "filled with crude vulgarities" and a "vile little pamphlet...dirt, dummied-down poison to the mind."
Romney's Department of Education provides extensive instructions to schools on forming Gay/Straight Student Alliances, advocates school children should attend gay pride parades, proposes agendas for a gay/lesbian "Day of Awareness" including a panel of transgender individuals talking about transvestite/transsexual issues, and suggests top ten Gay Straight Alliance meeting topics such as "What would the world be like if 10% of people were straight and 90% were gay?" and "What would it be like if parents wanted their children to grow up gay?"
If Gov. Romney did not care enough about protecting family values and children's education to eliminate or curtail these programs when he had direct management authority over the sponsoring agencies in Massachusetts, why should Catholics believe he will do any better in Washington?
RECAP ON ABORTION AND EMERGENCY CONTRACEPTION
As discussed in Part 1, Gov. Romney attributes his pro-life conversion to a November 2004 discussion with a Harvard researcher about stem cell research, claiming, "Like Ronald Reagan and Henry Hyde and others who became pro-life, I had this issue wrong in the past."
To faithful Catholics and committed pro-lifers, who have written since our report came out, this late-life conversion more than 30 years after Roe v Wade, raises eyebrows. We know that Reagan and Hyde were pro-life early in the public debate over abortion, with Reagan favoring a ban on abortion except in rare cases in his 1980 presidential campaign, and Hyde being pro-life by 1976 when the Hyde Amendment passed. Expecting people to overlook Romney's multiple conversions to and from being pro-life requires more explanation from a would-be President of the United States.
Is Gov. Romney also asking Catholics to ignore his stated support for abortion rights from 1970 to 2004? Are Catholics expected to feel comfortable that his views were apparently unswayed during thirty-five years of polarizing public debate about abortion? Are Catholics supposed to accept that he supported a woman's "right to choose" through nearly a decade of Congressional action and passage of bills to ban partial-birth abortion? Are Catholics expected to believe he only concluded that abortion is immoral and life begins at conception in 2004 (coincident with his interest in the presidency)?
Furthermore, if Romney is really "committed to promoting the culture of life" as he now says on the campaign trail, why did he force emergency contraception on Catholic hospitals last year, despite a previous statute that his own Department of Public Health said exempted them from the intrusive law?
ROMNEY'S JUDICIAL APPOINTMENTS
For all of Romney's rhetoric about activist judges, his own judicial appointments also leave much to be desired. The Boston Globe reported in July of 2005 that, Romney has "passed over GOP lawyers for three-quarters of the 36 judicial vacancies he has faced, instead tapping registered Democrats or independents -- including two gay lawyers who have supported expanded same-sex rights."
In May of 2005, Romney selected for a district court judgeship Stephen Abany, a former board member of the Massachusetts Lesbian and Gay Bar Association who organized the group's opposition to a 1999 bill to outlaw same-sex marriage. The MLGBA is "dedicated to ensuring that the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court decision on marriage equality is upheld, and that any anti-gay amendment or legislation is defeated."
Ironically, the Globe reports that two days before Abany's nomination, Romney was lamenting the liberal tilt of the state's bench, telling Fox News that ''our courts have a record here in Massachusetts…of being a little blue and being Kerry-like."
Catholics would no doubt also be surprised to hear another Romney choice for the bench is Marianne C. Hinkle, who described herself in her application for the bench as a longtime active member of Dignity/USA, a group which wants to reform the Catholic Church's views and teachings on gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgender activity.
What exactly explains the contradiction between Romney's staff/judicial choices and his conservative rhetoric? Since lower-court appointments are often stepping-stones to higher-court judicial appointments, should Catholics conclude that these choices are indicative of the sort of judges Romney would appoint as President?
GAY ADOPTION
Massachusetts Catholics say that Gov. Romney's positions on adoption of children by homosexual couples are contradictory at best, and that inaction on his part contributed to Catholic Charities of Boston exiting their adoption ministry in 2006 after more than 100 years of service.
In terms of his public rhetoric, Romney tries to have it both ways. He has been dismissive of same-sex parenting to South Carolina Republicans, saying sarcastically that some gay and lesbian couples "are actually having children born to them," while in Massachusetts, he says he recognizes that homosexual couples "have a legitimate interest in being able to receive adoptive services."
Romney's action and inaction on this issue has been different from his stated position. In late 2005 and early 2006, when Catholic Charities of Boston was under fire for having complied with a state regulation requiring adoption agencies to broker adoptions to homosexual couples, Romney initially claimed he could not unilaterally exempt them, as an exemption would require legislation "and would not be something I would be authorized to do on a personal basis." Since legislative leaders had previously declared such legislation would be effectively dead-on-arrival, Catholic Charities proceeded to exit the adoption business, and Romney's subsequent decision to file legislation asking for the exemption indeed went nowhere, with zero benefit to the agency.
But Catholics deserve to know why Romney refused to simply use his executive powers to change the regulation, and even former Gov. Michael Dukakis weighed in to say Romney's legislation was "unnecessary," in that "the state's anti-discrimination statutes do not preclude an exemption for the Catholic organization." Abortion is constitutionally protected, yet Catholic hospitals that do not perform abortions on religious principle are not prevented from being reimbursed for Medicaid eligible services. Since the liberal Gov. Dukakis, who signed the original gay rights bill during his tenure, said there was nothing mandated in this area and observed, "governors can change regulations if they want to, that's up to him," why did Romney back down?
THE BOTTOM LINE
Although Gov. Mitt Romney brings what many describe as intelligence, solid management skills, optimism, and charisma to the presidential race, an increasing number of Catholics are concerned that Romney's recent conversion to pro-life, pro-family conservatism contrasts dramatically with his public record of speaking and governing as a social moderate or liberal, routinely backing down when the going gets tough, and accomplishing few conservative successes.
Despite preparing a "track record" to portray governance as a conservative, in the end, Catholic activists say Romney's own leadership failures enabled the social liberals to win the battles. He vetoed emergency contraception knowing the veto would easily be overridden, and then he forced it on Catholic hospitals.
He campaigns against activist judges, but he himself appointed gay activists as judges.
He claims to be pro-family, but he did nothing to stop his own Department of Public Health and Department of Education from their activities that encourage gay activity for young people.
He criticized gay adoptions, but refused to grant a small internal regulatory exemption that would have allowed Catholic Charities to continue brokering adoptions.
Why does the conservative publication, Human Events, list Romney at #8 on their 2005 list of "Top Ten Republicans in Name Only (RINOs)? Is Romney really an embattled "conservative" fighting the forces of liberalism in one of the most liberal states in the country, or is he a moderate liberal "in sheep's clothing" himself?
Can Catholics trust that the 59-year-old Romney who was pro-choice and was unaffected by three decades of public debate over abortion-would carry his new pro-life convictions over into Cabinet personnel decisions, judicial appointments, and public policy?
If Romney is a true-blue conservative, why didn't he try to slow down or occasionally defeat the liberal agenda during four years of governance by using the executive powers granted in the Constitution, rather than pleasing his liberal constituencies?
And most important of all, with a track record of 4 years of setbacks or losses in Massachusetts on life and family issues across stem cell research, emergency contraception, marriage, and the gay agenda in public schools, what actual pro-family and pro-life results, wins, and accomplishments can Romney point to? Finally, if Romney does suddenly have pro-life and pro-family beliefs, why should Catholics believe he holds them deeply enough to fight hard when the going gets tough in Washington when he didn't fight for them in Massachusetts?
The gap between how Mitt Romney appears in public statements vs. his record is substantial enough that committed Catholics are raising legitimate questions about his highly promoted conversion to conservatism which Romney will need to answer.
GAY MARRIAGE
As many people know, on November 18, 2003 the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court (SJC) ruled in Goodridge vs. Dept. of Public Health that same-sex couples should not be denied the right to marry in Massachusetts.
Since that time, Romney has pushed aggressively for a marriage-protection amendment in Massachusetts. This amendment passed its first round in the Legislature on January 2.
Gov. Romney, however, previously opposed a 2002 marriage-protection amendment that would have preempted the court ruling of November 2003.
Romney has also been one of the more outspoken politicians on the national scene in favor of defining marriage as between one man and one woman, and against activist judges whose rulings paved the way for gay marriage.
However, what most people don't know, and what is most overlooked by the media, is that John Adams had the foresight in 1780 to write specific provisions in the Massachusetts Constitution, the world's oldest functioning written Constitution, to prevent judicial activism of this sort.
Unfortunately, Romney made no attempt to exercise most of his constitutional options in order to block same-sex marriages before they began or stop them while in office, and Catholic activists would like to know why.
Romney could have declared the ruling null-and-void and unenforceable immediately after it was made in November of 2003. How? Article 5 of the Massachusetts Constitution says, "All causes of marriage, divorce, and alimony… shall be heard and determined by the governor and council." Romney could have said that the Court simply had no subject matter jurisdiction to rule over the definition of marriage.
Why was Romney silent on this point?
The Massachusetts Constitution also has specific provision for removing judges without cause via a "bill of address."Instead of responding to a problem of activist judges by going through a lengthy process of amending the Constitution, the offending judges can simply be removed from office for distorting the Constitution to impose their own views.
Such a procedure has been successfully used several times in the past in Massachusetts. In the spring of 2004 Romney could have supported the active grassroots effort and Democratic-sponsored legislation to remove the judges who wrote the Goodridge decision.
If Romney was genuinely troubled by the role of "activist judges" in the same-sex marriage issue, why did he refuse to support this move in 2004?
Next, Romney could have followed the precedent of Abraham Lincoln in the 1857 Dred Scott case-which Romney himself referred to in a Wall Street Journal editorial-and respected the decision of the Court with regard to only the litigants in THAT specific case.
As described in National Review by Prof. Hadley Arkes, Abraham Lincoln and his party did not try to set the slave Dred Scott free once the Supreme Court had confirmed him to remain in slavery. Lincoln only accepted the ruling for the parties in the specific case, and he did not allow the public policy of the whole country to be affected by the Supreme Court's decision.
Romney could have announced that he would respect the decision for the plaintiffs, but he could have insisted then that clerks issue licenses of marriage ONLY to couples who had come through comparable litigation and received a comparable order from a court.
If Romney was such an enthusiast for Lincoln's response to the Dred Scott decision and so determined to block same-sex marriage, why didn't he pursue the same strategy to try and block same-sex marriage from propagating beyond the small group of Goodridge litigants?
Finally, and most importantly, since the ruling stopped short of changing the previous marriage law, a strong governor could have simply refused to do anything.
Article X of the Massachusetts Constitution provided Romney clear justification for ignoring the court order. "The people of this Commonwealth are not controllable by any other laws than those to which their constitutional representative body have given their consent." And Article XX says, "The power of suspending the laws, or the execution of the laws, ought never to be exercised but by the Legislature."
The justices who wrote the Goodridge decision knew this-which is why they specifically did not strike down the previous law. But the Legislature was then given 180 days in which to act.
GLAD Attorney Mary Bonauto, representing the seven gay couples who sued the state, agreed saying immediately after the 2003 Goodridge ruling, "The only task assigned to the Legislature is to come up with changes in the law that will allow gay couples to marry at the end of the 180-day period."
All three branches of government concurred. The SJC clarified their ruling in February of 2004 writing to the Senate, "The purpose of the stay was to afford the Legislature an opportunity to conform the existing statutes to the provisions of the Goodridge decision."
Romney himself in April of 2004 said, "The Legislature…has yet to follow a directive from the SJC to change the state's marriage laws. I believe the reason that the Court gave 180 days to the Legislature was to allow the Legislature the chance to look through the laws…and see how they should be adjusted…for purposes of same-sex marriage; the Legislature didn't do that."
And State Sen. Bruce E. Tarr, a gay-marriage supporter, also said in April of 2004, he believed the Legislature would ultimately pass bills that would insert gender-neutral language into the state's marriage laws in time for the May 17, 2004 deadline. ''No one should interpret inaction thus far with the idea that no action is forthcoming,''
The Massachusetts Legislature NEVER acted to change the law. What happened between April 2003 and May 17 when Romney decided a "new law" existed and ordered town clerks to follow it by issuing same-sex marriage licenses?
And since the court ruling never ordered the Governor to do anything, why did Romney order justices of the peace to perform the unions or resign their positions if they objected on moral grounds?
Even if some people not familiar with the Massachusetts Constitution felt that somehow the Court did change the law, since the Court had violated their constitutional authority, what would have happened if Romney had had the courage to stand up and defy the Court?
Considering that the SJC had previously ruled they could not force the Legislature to perform their sworn constitutional duty, what consequences was Romney afraid of in defying the activist judges?
Would the Court have directed state employees to begin accepting applications from homosexuals for marriage licenses?
Would they have furthered their own power grab by trying to usurp executive powers from the Governor?
Would they have found him in contempt for ignoring a ruling that was in contempt of the Constitution and had no legal basis?
Virtually every pro-family conservative in the country urged Romney to stand strong at the time and defy the Court. The Family Research Council said, "Most important right now is for the governor to stand firm [and] not allow any marriage licenses to be handed out on May 17."
Concerned Women for America urged Romney to intervene via executive order and "put the brakes on this madness. He needs to make it clear that the law has not changed, and that on May 17 homosexual couples cannot make a mockery of God's institution of marriage."
Patrick Buchanan called on Romney to declare, "There is no basis for it [the Court's decision] in law…in the letter or spirit of the Constitution of our Commonwealth…And as I took an oath to defend the Constitution of the Commonwealth, I intend to disregard the court order of last November."
The Massachusetts Catholic Conference went on the record saying the SJC "exceeded their authority," and Gov. Romney failed in his duty to "uphold the Constitution."
Instead of standing up for his supposedly strong beliefs on marriage and defending the Constitution, he exercised his leadership by ordering justices of the peace to perform same-sex marriages.
Then he started traveling in other states actively campaigning against activist judges and against the very same-sex marriages that he could have blocked via executive order.
Romney's supporters and some conservative lawyers today still claim the Court somehow "changed the law" and say Romney could not have defied the Court without incurring subsequent court action. But these same people ignore the fact that it is the Massachusetts Constitution that bans courts from legislating from the bench.
Since Romney failed to exercise stronger executive leadership, today the Constitutional amendment he has enthusiastically backed, and which recently passed its first round in the Massachusetts Legislature, remains the most politically viable option for stopping same-sex marriage in Massachusetts.
But, it still faces long odds of ever making it to the people for a vote, given pro-family losses in the new legislature where it must undergo a second approval. The presence of a new liberal Democratic governor who is already on the record as saying he will work hard to see it killed in the Legislature is another obstacle.
Romney has portrayed that he was "forced" into implementing homosexual marriages, but he refused to pursue other options backed by pro-family conservatives and his own state Constitution.
Now Romney campaigns against the marriages he himself, not the court, implemented and made a reality.
Perhaps Romney was a victim of poor legal advice at the time, but marriage defenders have kept him continually informed about his constitutional options and obligations from 2004 to the present.
Mitt Romney is a strong candidate for the Republican presidential nomination. But, given his campaign focus as a "social conservative," Catholics and other conservatives are entirely justified in asking questions about his effort in defending marriage against the judicial activists on the Massachusetts Supreme Court.
