Romney lied in the debate – he did force Catholics to violate their conscience

This is Friday’s must read. The Boston Catholic Insider (BCI) have done their own fact checking analysis of Romney’s claim in the debate that he did not force Catholics to violate their conscience in Massachusetts:

KING (Moderator): 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.

And Mr. Speaker, you compared the governor to President Obama, saying he infringed on Catholics’ rights.

Governor, did you do that?

ROMNEY: No, absolutely not. Of course not.

There was no requirement in Massachusetts for the Catholic Church to provide morning-after pills to rape victims. That was entirely voluntary on their part. There was no such requirement.”

According to the BCI, this is fundamentally a lie from Romney. He did in fact force Catholic hospitals to provide emergency contraception and the so-called “morning-after pill” to rape victims even though the intent of the law passed was to allow for conscience. Here is a summary of what happened, but you MUST go read the BCI article for a much more thorough analysis of the facts.

In 2005 Romney vetoed a bill to provide access to the so-called “morning-after-pill,” knowing his veto would be overridden, but months later, he decided Catholic hospitals did have to give the morning-after pill to rape victims. Key points to note:

  1. Romney had publicly claimed the bill did not apply to private religious hospitals
  2. He reversed his own July 2005 veto against abortifacients by signing an October bill seeking a federal waiver to expand distribution of Plan B abortifacients.
  3. On December 7, 2005, Romney’s Department of Public Health said that Catholic and other privately-run hospitals could opt out of giving the morning-after pill to rape victims because of religious or moral objections
  4. On December 8, 2005 Romney reversed the legal opinion of his own State Department of Public Health, instructing all Catholic hospitals and others to provide the chemical Plan B “morning after pill” to rape victims.  He was quoted as saying, ““I think, in my personal view, it’s the right thing for hospitals to provide  information and access to emergency contraception to anyone who is a  victim of rape.”

Whatever his original intent, Romney bowed to pressure from the left and went well past the intent of the law to force Catholics to violate their conscience. And now he’s lying about it to the American people, hoping no one will reveal the truth.

Again, here’s the link to BCI. Read and pass along.

Comment Policy: Please read our new comment policy before making a comment. In short, please be respectful of others and do not engage in personal attacks. Otherwise we will revoke your comment privileges.
  • Trust1TG

    Of course he did. He lied seven times in the last debate…it has been documented. One lie was caught on the air by Wolf Blitzer and Romney just put on his trademark sheepish grin.

    This time Newt just sat there and looked at him incredulously, knowingly. Smirking at him.

    Romney is a poseur. A fake. And sad to say, a liar.

    Romney Resolute? Hardly.

    From a commenter at Legal Insurrection:

    Mittens IS resolute:

    Romneycare 3PM “I’m pro Life”

    Romneycare 4PM “I’m pro choice”

    Romneycare 5PM “I’m pro life and pro choice”

    Romneycare, whatever you are, he’ll be, until he meets someone new!

    • NCHokie02

      I wish one of the other 3 would have called him out on that during the debate….wonder why Ron Paul didn’t….

    • Maxsteele

      Amen my friend. Of course there will be the typical response “all politicials are liars” like some how this condones his constant and never ceasing deceptions. Romney is a liar, amoral and also one of the most negative politicians I have ever seen in my life time. How are we giving anyone an alternative to Obama with someone like Romney?
      Are we preying to the lowest common denominator or should we instead be setting the bar high knowing that people will recognize it and reward it.
      Santorum or Newt are the only real choices. Not that they are perfect, not that they have not made mistakes but that they seem to have their hearts and minds in the right place as well as standing for something. I may not agree with everything they say but I have to respect that they say it and believe it. Romney is just a charlitan that will say or do anything to get elected.

    • p m

      The BCI summation is excellent, at the bottom of the page. They ask for the other candidates and media to ‘out’ these particular lies, so thank you yet again RS for doing so. Praying that Newt and Santorum will do their bit too – they’re the ones who will be hurt most by the LSM spinning all this.

      BTW a bit off topic, sorry, but I was never so disgusted at any of the debates as when Mr.Repulsive, Ron Paul, said that Santorum was a fake – and smiled when he said it. No-one countered it, and as the so-called moderator handed it to Paul on a platter, no doubt he was gratified too. Scumbags, both.

      Newt and Santorum better get together to counter the other two.

  • johnos2112

    Oh Lord. Please place your wisdom, love and common sense into the primary voters and have them realize that only Santorum is the closest thing to a true bonafide conservative!

    • virginiagentleman1

      Johnos, I hear your prayer and agree to a point. I would add this, that God will put the name of HIS chosen into the souls, hearts and minds of voters in the primaries as well as the general.
      There is not anyone running who can save this nation. Not one man or woman. If America is to be saved, it will be God’s will and not ours, my friend.
      We are at a turning point in our history and this is the most crucial election in our short time as a nation.
      The issue isn’t whom amoungst the candidates is the most ‘conservative’. Instead, it is whether or not we are still a nation blessed by the hand of God. We will know HIS answer after the convention in Tampa.
      One way or another, we will soon know if America is to survive as a Constitutional Republic UNDER GOD.

  • Romney’s very public ‘rape exception’ is well documented.

    • Rshill7

      As are his many ‘truth exceptions’.

  • badnewzbearz

    Romney lies as easily as Obama does . . .

    • sDee

      And the media seamlessly covers for him as they do Obama. Interesting isn’t it.

  • Rshill7

    Geppetto would be so upset with his wooden boy Pinocchio.

    Let’s all be woodchucks 🙂

    I’m surprised his pants didn’t catch on fire as they should when one’s a liar, liar.

  • Romney lies at the debate… In other news, water is still wet…

    THIS is just one example of why we need someone OTHER than this sleazy used car salesman as the GOP nominee… Do you really want our nominee to be another lying scumbag like THEIR nominee? (Rhetorical question, since I know most of you don’t want that… 😉 )

    • sDee

      Problem is that the GOP invested in all the cars he is peddling.

      Mitt Romney Loves Cars

  • sDee

    Of course he did. Government healthcare is neither about health nor care. It is about permanent, centralized government control. Romneycare was the trial balloon. The citizens, the churches, the insurance companies and the providers in Massachusetts rolled over like dogs in heat.

    The three pillars of socialism/communism are education, healthcare and energy.

    – Government control of our children’s minds is complete.

    – Obamacare, unless immediately repealed, will successfully cripple and collapse the free market helathcare system. Romeny is no coincidence. He is the backup plan to keep Obamacare in place should Hussein lose.

    – Global warming and cap&trade retreated but will regroup. Gas and energy prices will reach “crisis” level. Just listen to O’Reilly to get to flavor of the Statists next run at government control of oil companies.

    Americans line up at the ballot box like sheep to slaughter.

    • virginiagentleman1

      sDee, my dear friend, the anger in your comment is PALPABLE! What’s more, I completely agree with you!
      This coming election will decide the direction and the FATE of our beloved country. If Obama or Obama-lite (Romney) wins, we are in peril as a Constitutional Republic, possibly we will witness it’s demise. Ron Paul has sold out. Neither Gingrich or Santorum appeal to me but either one would be better then Obama or Romney.
      I hope for a CONTESTED convention rather then a brokered one. While I still pray for Palin to get in, I admit that it doesn’t seem likely. At the end of the primary sessions, I will vote for the repub nom unless it is Romney. All down ticket conservatives will get my vote, no elites or establishment types will.
      As a praying man, I’m praying for the salvation of my country, and trusting that God will provide HIS answer to our prayers.

      • sDee

        We stand together.

        • virginiagentleman1

          Yes, we do stand together.

    • Patriot077

      Yup. MA is the petri dish for the fungus in DC.
      If Romneycare doesn’t scare the bejeebers out of us, I recall Mitt being PROUD to be the first state to cap CO2 emissions, too.

      I don’t know how so many are willing to overlook these fatal flaws.

      • sDee

        If people only saw the pattern, the plan, they would see how Romeny fits in. . Autocracy is age old, well proven and quite simplistic.

        But doncha know, these are modern times, things are more complicated, we are much smarter.

    • badnewzbearz

      The conservative/tea party base is wide awake though, and know what this nation is facing. We can only pray that enough folks wake up in time to save us. What a tragedy if we must leave to our children a nation in decline and well on its way to some form of totalitarian socialism.

    • Nukeman60

      The three pillars of socialism/communism are education, healthcare and energy‘ – sDee

      So true, sDee, so true. I have been saving this for the right time and place, and it looks like this is the time to mention it.

      Obama is about to spring a firestorm that will guarantee his re-election, in my opinion. It will secure the #3 that you talk about above.

      Obama is about to unleash a new and powerful mandate. The contraceptive mandate was just a test (one that he could easily afford to lose) to find out if mandates were possible and acceptable to be able to slip by the masses.

      Obama is about to mandate free gasoline to anyone on entitlements. This will ensure his re-election as the 47% will vote for him enmasse, while the 53% have to pay for it.

      How will this be possible, you say?

      He has been talking for a long time now how gas prices need to be like Europe. What is the difference in European gas prices and our gas prices. Taxes. If you take away the government taxes from European gas prices, they match ours perfectly. Obama will double the price of gas (which will match European prices) for the 53% and give it free to the 47%. That will be revenue neutral and Congress will naturally buy into that.

      I have been wondering why Billo has been pushing that ‘Evil Oil Companies’ need to be hauled in front of the President and made to explain why they are gouging the ‘folks’. I believe O’Reilly wants a position in the new Obama administration and pushing this agenda will get him there (he has been a left-leaning moderate for some time now).

      Oil companies are not gouging the masses. They make 8-8.5% profit margins and that is modest. Their large quarterly ‘profits’ are due to the fact that they are the largest companies (LSM pushes this narrative). But profit margins is what they earn above and beyond expenses, not gross profits.

      So, there it is. Sorry about the long post, but it takes a lot to say it. It is only my opinion, but watch for this to happen.

      Obama wants the gas prices raised (he has said it), taxing is the natural way to do it (as all world-wide prices are the same, minus taxes), and mandating free gas to ‘those poor unfortunates’ that need help to survive will guarantee a massive voting block for him (how could we deny those poor unfortunates? We need to do our fair share!).

      If he does this, I don’t see any way that we can combat this with any form of truth and logic. If he gets the ‘unwashed masses’ again like he did in ’08, we are lost and it will have to be revolution from there.

      BTW, I live in northern Illinois, so if, in the next couple of weeks, you hear about an Illinois terrorist taken down and eliminated, you will know they found me. No conspiracy, just fact.

      • virginiagentleman1

        Nuke, you’ve raised some intriging points and your take on gas taxes around the globe is spot on.
        There are a few points, however that we differ on. Free gas to the poor under the guise of ‘doing our fair share’ will not be supported by most Americans, poor or not. Those who are paying will stop paying. $4.50 seems to be the magic number where most of us curtail our gas consumption. If gas isn’t being pumped into our cars, there aren’t any taxes to collect. Commerce also slows down as fleet buyers purchase less fuel for their semi’s. This pattern has been repeated each time gas has risen beyond a level drivers are willing to pay. Semi drivers take fewer runs if their companies aren’t picking up the fuel tab.
        The ‘revolution’ will have to come from the voters at the ballot box. While I understand your pessimesum, I don’t share it. I believe in a Divinely inspired document, the Constitution, and most of all I believe in the creator of divinity, God.
        If, as we believe, that God has indeed shed His grace on America, He will act to save her. I think that as God allowed Satan to tempt Jesus, God has allowed America to be tempted as well. This impending election in November will speak volumes about our trust in God or man. A new beginning for Constitutional America, or the end of our Constitutional Republic.
        Trust in God. He has the keys that set men free. Let go, and let God work His will, my friend. The truth will present itself in a few months.

        • Nukeman60

          I agree with what you say. You put it very distinctly. However, what I see is what I perceive as Obama’s desires. Who would have thought that the ‘masses’ would accept mandated contraceptives, either? If Obama promises the mandate and there are a vast majority of ‘unwashed masses’ out there wanting it, they would gladly vote for it.

          Food, housing, and energy are the three big expenses we have. Obama has increased the ranks of food stamp recipients, he has worked to give mortgage relief to the masses, and now he will shoot for the gas relief to the same said masses.

          I just bring this up so as not to be a big surprise when Obama attempts it. I am working on, and as yet don’t know, how to combat it. The guise he will use is a ‘crisis’ of national importance and may force the issue.

          I’m just trying to put together all the items that have been happening in the last few days and weeks. I hope I’m wrong, but I wasn’t wrong when I saw Obama elected in ’08 after seeing that everything he talked about then screamed that we should not elect him.

          ‘Trust in God. He has the keys that set men free. Let go, and let God work His will, my friend. The truth will present itself in a few months’ – vg

          I do, and like with you, He is my salvation. The answer may come soon and I’ll be thankful when I see it. I just pose the stumbling blocks in order to jump over them when they come up.

          Or maybe I just see ninjas in the nighttime too much. I don’t trust anything Obama does. There is a reason why he appears so confident that he has 5 more years.

  • sjmom

    This is what I have been saying all along Mitt Romney is just like Obama and just like Barack he lies through his teeth and smiles at the same time, so he is not to be trusted. Lying with intention and purpose is pure evil, so this needs to make national headlines and quickly. The voters in Michigan, Arizona and on Super Tuesday need to know it is a prevaricator for whom they have been asked to cast a ballot.

    RS: I don’t know where you got this but can you please get this out?

    • sDee

      The approach pattern to sell Romney to the American public reminds me EXACTLY of the pattern they flew for Obama.

      What Romney and Obama share in common is who they sold their souls too.

      • sjmom

        Well said.

  • Sorry this blog is full of false information. Instead of going to a blog, of a person who wasn’t there, how about going to those who were, such as:

    – Cardinal O’Malley He supported Romney after this whole ordeal and was quoted to say:
    “Cardinal O’Malley in Boston has said that Romney was a better friend to the Catholic church than any other MA governor in decades, and he was about the only one that wasn’t Catholic.”

    – Mass. Citizens for Life – If this blog was true, why would Mass Citizen’s for Life endorse Romney vehemently. Remember Mass Citizens for Life were there during the ordeal advising Romney.

    – The Vatican Envoy endorse him over the two Catholic candidates.

    – The Pilot Catholic News of Boston also defend Romney during this whole ordeal and in the end after all was said and done defend Romney against his critics. They were the one that described the battle Romney had with his own attorney general who said he would fight in court against Romney if he pushed the issue of contraception into the court system. Romney had no other option and that is when he went to talk to Cardinal O’Malley and converse about their options.

    Romney was a great friend of the catholic church and worked hard for their religious freedom, at least that is what those who were there said.

    • sDee

      There is evil everywhere. The Catholic Church is ripe with political activists, opportunists, social justice and subversives.

      We’ve a house cleaning going on and I pray it moves with haste. The Catholic Church is essential to our battle for humanity.

      • I agree with your comments, sDee, but how is it that so many Catholics are Democrats?

        • sDee

          As with many Jews. It is a question that I look for answers to. Some are compassionate who fail to see the evil of their party. Some believe their church is wrong. Too many have placed intellectual liberalism above fundamentals of Christianity.

        • CINO

    • virginiagentleman1

      We always find it interesting that when a first time commenter with no discus history suddenly appears to tell us how false OUR views and opinions are when compared to their own. Go blog with Romney.
      You failed, as so many one-hit wonders have before you.

      • sDee

        This too is a Romney and Paul pattern taken from the 2008 Obama campaign. Pay trolls to flood blogs with talking points and hundreds of comments so that regular readers and commenters give up.

        The comment moderation at TRS is exceptional and something I thank them for!

      • KenInMontana

        I noticed of him, like many of the “drive byes”, many accusations but not a single link to substantiate any of his charges. Sadly typical.

        • virginiagentleman1

          Ken, it seems that if they repeat the same tired lies often enough, they feel they will slowly gather some small modicum of truth. Same game plan as Obama and the marxists. Romney= Obama lite, if you ask me.

          • Nukeman60

            VG, to you and me, it’s a modicum of truth. To those on the left (read – Meggie McLame), it’s an emoticon of truth.

            • virginiagentleman1

              So true, my friend!

  • Trust1TG

    “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.”

    FEBRUARY 22, 2012, ARIZONA DEBATE (4.7 million viewers):
    KING: “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. And Mr. Speaker, you compared the governor to President Obama, saying he infringed on Catholics’ rights. Governor, did you do that?”

    ROMNEY: “No, absolutely not. Of course not.”

    Romney, Romney, Romney…. This comes after seven documented lies in the Jacksonville, FL CNN Debate, one proven on air by Wolf Blitzer.

    Romney’s campaign runs ads that lie. Newt has threatened to sue any TV stations in GA that run Romney’s ad claiming Newt supported China’s one child forced abortion policy.

    Such hypocrisy, chutzpah – coming from Romney who supported abortion and Planned Parenthood with MA state funds and through Romneycare, which was underwritten by US taxpayer funds.

    Romney is the consummate politician, and taxpayer money grabber – funneling US taxpayer money for the Olympics (1.5 billion, plus 340 million, Bain (10 million, plus 44 million, plus millions on other deals)…and Romney care and the MA budget received untold US government funds to keep them afloat.

  • kim

    Did any of you all see this comment over at the link?

    Romney also “misrepresented” the Catholic Charities/adoptions by homosexuals case. Excerpt from Mitt Romney’s Deception here:

    Detail Catholic Hospitals & Catholic Charities also at: “Mitt Romney’s CPAC Speech: His Claims vs. the Truth,”

  • Thank you for posting this. As many, I’ve come to expect that politicians will exaggerate a bit, but outright lying is completely unacceptable. Unfortunately, Gov. Romney didn’t just make a mistake here – he lied. That is just plain wrong.

    As out of vogue as it may be, character matters.

    • sDee

      For the majority of Americans the falling tree does not make a sound if they are not in the forest.

      It is not a lie unless the media says it is so.

  • salabby

    LOVED when Newt stared down Romney and brushed off Mitt’s lies and spin with ‘nice try’. Romney must think we are all idiots. It’s sad to see someone like Romney pretend to be a Christian and then lie and lower himself to Obama’s level.

    • stage9

      All liberals think we’re idiots. He’s no different.

  • stage9

    Thanks for reporting Scoop…this needs to be brought out by more news outlets.

  • Been_There_BT

    If they make a movie about him, will it be titled: The Two Faces of Romney?

    Must Defeat Romney.

    • p m

      Agree B_T_BT, they should do a movie and maybe get it done by Janus Films.

      They might want to just cut to the chase and call it ‘The Liar’.

  • freebreezer

    The MSM is playing the right like a fine tuned violin and making us all fools … Show that Romney is a turn coat on contraception, thus bolstering Santorum. But Santorum is having his whole middle of the road voters (a very large portion of young and middle age women) stripped by labeling him a religious nut case. The conservatives are jumping on this food trap fight like hungry pigs that haven’t been fed for weeks, this all at the Obama’s glee. Oh if you all haven’t forgot there are some major problems out there … like the country going bankrupt, Iran nukes, Europe/Bank insolvency, gross corruption at all level of government via cronyism, Islamic radicals wanting our destruction … Opps brain lapse …Very important, Romney countered Santorum on contraception by saying …….

  • Somebody ought to be calling Santorum’s campaign, and telling them to run with this. Furthermore, they should include the fact that Ron Paul, Willard’s sock puppet, may support the same thing:

    A well-made commercial showing how Romney is a liar, and no more inclined to support the First Amendment, than Obama, as well as showing how Ron Paul has become his attack dog and will more than likely support him if he becomes VP or a cabinet member, would go down just fine.

  • johnos2112

    Hey Rick plaster this all over the campaign. You do this and he is DONE!

    • Yep, if this really gets out there I think it’s over for Romney.

  • badnewzbearz

    Rush is leading with this story . . .

  • Sober_Thinking

    Once again, how is he different than Maobama?

    • c4pfan

      That’s the problem.

  • GetWhatYouPayFor

    Just like Hussein. Get him to release 10 years of tax returns. He tripped and stuttered so badly on that issue I am sure it will open the curtain on just the type of man he is. Funny how that was put to bed by the media for now. You can bet Obama operatives are sitting on the info. They sent wolf packs of dirt diggers to Alaska, the IRS is just down the street!

  • MiketheMarine

    And he keeps right on lieing. I hate how dishonest Romney is.

    • virginiagentleman1

      You hate his dishonesty Mike, because you are a Marine and live by the code of honor set forth by the Corps, although I suspect your Mom and Dad drilled it into you first.
      Romney, on the other hand, has no concept of honor as shown by his constant lies and ‘mis-statements’. Semper Fi, Marine. Always faithful! VG

      • MiketheMarine

        Exactly right. I always feel like it is my job to “counsel” a liar about cause and effect. Their lying causes me to effect the position of their noses on their faces.

        • virginiagentleman1

          Seems quite reasonable to me! Carry on Marine.

  • Trust1TG

    “The issue turns on whether Romney’s admonition of what was ‘right’ carried more weight, or force of law, than that of any other individual, and in this instance it did.

    From the article:

    On December 8, 2005, Romney reversed the legal opinion of his own State Department of Public Health, instructing all Catholic hospitals and others to provide the chemical Plan B “morning after pill” to rape victims.

    As with all things Romney, it matter little what he said, it is what he – through his State Department of Public Health – did that matters.

    He ordered the hospitals to participate.”

  • SurfinCowboy

    Always nice seeing something I though was false and did not want to research was done by another – thanks for the link!

  • denbren52

    Actions speak louder than words. He will claim he is pro-life until he wins the nomination and then he will point to his own record during the general election, thereby losing his base in order to gain independents. The result will be 4 more years of Obama’s Marxism and the end of America. He seriously thinks voters have no memory.

  • Seriously folks we don’t need a GOP Liar n Chief like Obama.

    Bush threw us in a hole, Romney would bury us.

    • Whether we like it or not Romney would represent conservatism. Which is why I won’t vote for the creep.

  • virginiagentleman1

    Amazing! Your alter-ego Zack Edwards was here just a little while ago!

  • They’ve all lied — including — Santorum, Newt & Perry.
    Still feel there’s something partly true about Cains accuser — but that doesn’t matter anymore.
    But we all grow thru life — including our consience & knowledge regarding views we carried from experience &/or education.
    ALL have sinned & come short of the Glory of God…
    and Santorum, Newt & Perry certainly ain’t no saints.
    Ron Paul — bless his heart — is just a loon. LOL 😉
    Those without sins — cast the 1st… 😉

    • Trust1TG

      A SAINT only becomes a Saint one way – through REPENTANCE – and by the substitutionary sacrifice and the cleansing Blood of the ONLY RIGHTEOUS MAN WHO EVER LIVED – JESUS CHRIST.

      Our only righteousness is Christ’s righteousness – imputed by God onto the sinner.

      This is the only righteousness Heaven recognizes.

      Newt has repented of his sins and of believing the false data presented int global warming dishonest science. When the Gore-lies were exposed, Newt repented (unlike Pelosi and Gore).

      Santorum has repented of his mistakes and would not vote for Title 10 and No Child Left Behind again…he saw the problems it has produced.

      Romney is still giving ample evidence through his lies, and continued defenses of Romneycare and denials of his actions, that he has not repented.

      Quiz question: Who is called the ‘father of lies’ in Scripture?

    • Ah yes, they’re all equally bad.

  • [If providing morning-after pills was “voluntary” on the part of the Catholic Church, then that would mean that Cardinal O’Malley volunteered to have Catholic hospitals give out abortifacients.

    That is simply not true.]

    Anyone else considering that Obama’s choice to force Catholic institutions to violate their faith has Willard’s name on it?

    “Hey there Mitt, I believe you did it first.”

  • TPDanbo

    Yes, Romney KING OF THE FLIP-FLOPPERS!!! I can’t wait to hear the the Romney-bots try to spin this story!!!

  • Trust1TG

    Here is a VERY Thorough and Truthful* examination of Romney’s stance and actions:

    This site will pay $100. to anyone who finds an error in their information.

  • Trust1TG

    Here are a 2/23/12 article and video refuting Romney’s claim in the Arizona debate:

  • Trust1TG

    Another letter with numerous signatures and references/citations refuting Romney’s claim to be Conservative and Pro-life:

  • Seriously? We’re now actually deciding to oppose giving EC to rape victims? This is controversial now?

    Honestly, I’m sorry, if a woman gets raped in a county/district whose main healthcare provider is a catholic hospital and she goes for a rape kit, she should have the option of taking emergency contraception- and if the hospital is so bold enough as to choose to refuse it, then I am totally fine with a law saying that they have to dispense it. EC has a time limit — and I’m much more comfortable with forcing a hospital that is theoretically there to provide treatment for anyone who comes in having to live with the fact that there’s an off chance that they might have prevented a just-fertilized egg from implanting than I am with forcing a rape victim to drive around to a 24-hour pharmacy to try and find emergency contraception.

    If some personnel at the hospital don’t want to dispense EC for “conscience reasons” then fine. The solution is that they should call someone over whose willing to do it.

    Why should the rape victim be robbed of the option of taking whatever legal measures that she feels are necessary because she happened to get raped in an area where the proprietor of the primary healthcare facility happens to be the Catholic church? And if the hospital refuses to act of their own volition, then I think it’s more than appropriate for the government to intervene; when it comes to securing rights, I put the mother’s right to self-determination ahead of the Catholic church’s right to violate it by an accident of geography.

    That said, if the GOP wants to run on this, be my guest, but it’s hard to imagine more of a losing issue.

    • We’re now actually deciding to oppose giving EC to rape victims? This is controversial now?



      • Okay, is “you guys” better?

        I meant it as the national “we” as in “in 2000 and 2004 we elected George W. Bush, and in 2008 we elected Barack Obama. Who will we elect in 2012?”

        • Major914

          You and the scarecrow must have something in common.

          Why should the rape victim be robbed of the option of taking whatever legal measures that she feels are necessary because she happened to get raped in an area where the proprietor of the primary healthcare facility happens to be the Catholic church?

          Nobody is “robbing” anybody of anything–where did you get the idea that the Catholic Church could somehow legitimately be required, in the very first place, to violate its own essential moral tenets and conscience? Regardless of what crimes are committed by third parties in their vicinity…. How does someone else’s crime rightfully implicate the Catholic Church, and somehow compel them to violate their deeply held morals? The Catholic Church believes that children conceived as the result of rape are every bit as innocently and actually human as everyone else, and cannot be killed–not by a pill, or by any other means…

          • Yes, and if we were talking about a church providing spiritual guidance, I wouldn’t say that they should have to do anything that they feel violates their moral conscience or the tenets of their faith, but since they’re choosing to be a primary healthcare provider for millions of people, their primary obligation should be to treat their patients. EC in most cases prevents ovulation and thickens cervical mucus to prevent sperm from ever entering the uterus – conception never taking place. In some cases, when both of these measures fail, it’s known to prevent implantation of the zygote (or blastocyst, if it’s been more than four days since fertilization). Of course, EC only works for about 72 hours with its efficacy decreasing as time passes, and it’s not 100% effective. Incidentally, about 70% of zygotes fail to implant as it is. None of these things is “abortion,” in the traditional sense, since abortion necessarily requires a pregnancy and if a blastocyst fails to implant, the woman never becomes pregnant – it just flushes out at her next period and nobody is the wiser.

            At least that’s the prevailing view in the medical community, but alright, the Catholic Church holds that life begins at conception and a zygote is a human being. Fine. Ignoring the fact that this means that well over half of human beings die before they even begin to develop (a zygote/blastocyst doesn’t have a heartbeat and won’t until after about 22 days. If it fails to implant, it will be flushed out long before that), it puts them in a tricky situation when dealing with rape victims – because if the victim asks for EC, isn’t provided it, and ultimately becomes pregnant, chances are quite high that she’s going to elect to have an abortion since she didn’t want to become pregnant in the first place. Even most mainstream pro-life politicians support rape/incest exceptions, so she shouldn’t have much trouble getting one, even if Roe v Wade is one day overturned. Considering that, honestly, if it were me, I’d imagine it preferable to provide requested – and widely accepted (by the medical community) – treatment that most of the time will simply prevent fertilization and on the off chance that fertilization does occur, it will simply increase the likelihood that the zygote will fail to implant, than it would be to create a situation in which the victim will later abort an actual fetus, which will be much more painful to the victim, cost about 100 times as much money, and – of course – means that a developing life with a heartbeat, hands, legs, and a brain will be cut off.

            But I’m not Catholic and the Catholic Church likes to be black and white about things. I get it – just because most zygotes fail to implant anyways doesn’t mean that we have the right to interfere; after all, 10% of pregnancies end in miscarriage, that doesn’t mean abortion is okay. From their standpoint, they’d rather our victim get pregnant and go abort elsewhere, so at least they wouldn’t have any part in it. I’m relatively pro-choice (first trimester on-demand, second trimester only in special cases (rape, incest, life of mother, and cases of euthanasia, which is to say the discovery of an incurable birth defect that will ensure that the baby lives a short and painful life because I’d rather it die before it fully develops a central nervous system than have it come into and leave the world in pain), and by the third trimester only if giving birth is literally going to kill the mother or, again, some rare and incurable defect is discovered. That’s my stance, but it’s not the church’s stance, and I respect that. That’s where the conscience angle comes into play – and I respect people’s rights to their religious beliefs.

            So why is this different? Simply put, it’s not so cut-and-dry because there are two groups whose rights you need to consider: the conscience of the church, and the victims right to self-determination (life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness).

            One thing that people generally respect – regardless of their personal views on artificial contraception and abortion – is the right of men and women be able to determine – or at least influence – when and how they get pregnant. The Catholic Church encourages the rhythm method for married women precisely because they recognize this fact. I don’t know of any groups that object to the rhythm method itself, but even if then, they would say that people can abstain from sex should they wish not to get pregnant. None of these methods, of course, is foolproof (except for abstinence, but that fails when people succumb to their baser instincts). We expect that people who choose to have sex are aware of that fact.

            When these various methods fail is when our various views on the subject start to diverge – there are pro-life absolutists who view the zygote as a full life, pro-choice absolutists who feel that abortion is okay pretty much until birth, and people in the middle, like myself. But, to be redundant, in all cases, we believe that even if they’re having sex (in or out of wedlock) people should have the right to take measures to reduce the possibility of their becoming pregnant unexpectedly – and we expect them to take responsibility – whatever we as individuals think that means – for their actions if they do become pregnant by accident. Catholic hospitals shouldn’t have to provide EC to couples if condom breaks, because the couple knew the risks of using a condom, and if they want EC, it’s OTC and they can get it elsewhere.

            Rape, however, robs the victim entirely of her right to influence her pregnancy. It violates probably our most basic human right – to control our own bodies. When rape occurs, the woman has lost total control of her own sexual destiny; her most fundamental freedom has been violated, and she has the right to try and regain it by some measure, including by taking steps that will allow her to control the circumstances by which she becomes pregnant – and once sperm has entered the vagina, EC is the only measure that gives her that option.

            As noted above, we don’t all agree on artificial contraception, but we do all agree that people have a basic God-given right to self-determination. And that’s where the government comes in.

            Rape victims are not teenagers with a broken condom – the latter has engaged in activity out of their own free will while the former has not. Condom-users recognize the risks of what they’re doing and are exercising their right to determine what happens to their bodies, rape victims aren’t afforded that liberty. While, should the former choose to go to a catholic hospital, the only right in play is the church’s conscience rights, when the latter gets rushed to a catholic hospital for a rape kit, her rights also come into play, and it becomes a matter of determining whether the church’s rights or the victim’s rights take precedence – because in this case, she can’t just get in a car and drive around to try and find a pharmacy that will accomodate her. It’s a zero-sum game at the end of the day, I feel hers are more basic, and thus ought be protected, and government should take the measures to secure her rights. That’s its purpose, no?

            The other issue, of course, is that we’re talking about a hospital, whose primary objective should be to ensure the wellbeing of their patients (first do no harm). By not providing EC to rape victims, a very solid ethical argument could be made that they’re inflicting more pain on top of what she has already been through. Not that they’re “punishing her with a baby,” but that they’re further depriving her of the right that she’s already been deprived of by her rapist.

            And that’s why this issue is much more complicated than we want it to be.

            • Marky_D

              Really good and well argued post but I think the real issue here is that Romney knowingly lied – not so much what he lied about. I suspect Romney shares your views – hence the decision to force catholic hospitals to provide contraception. However, I wish he had the confidence of his convictions to argue his corner, as you have, rather than deny them to avoid another potential blow to his already faltering reputation as a conservative.

              • Thank you – I don’t expect you to agree with me, but I’m happy that you read it and got something out of it.

                Yeah, I agree with you on that. The one reason I do admire both Santorum and Paul is that even if I don’t agree with them, they definitely have the courage of their convictions. They’re not demagogues, they’re honest guys with an honest set of beliefs – unlike one certain former speaker of the house.

                And honestly, if Romney can win the governorship in Taxachusetts, I imagine if he had just remained consistent he have won the presidency handily* – especially with the way things are now – but his inability to stand on his own convictions has definitely done some serious damage. It’s 2004 all over again.

                *although, to be fair, he’d probably lose the primary before that could happen

            • Major914

              Yes, and if we were talking about a church providing spiritual guidance, I wouldn’t say that they should have to do anything that they feel violates their moral conscience or the tenets of their faith

              This just highlights the utter irrelevance of your entire argument. You, nor any of our elected representatives, have any right or authority to proclaim that the Catholic Church is somehow limited to a merely verbal exercise of their religion. Such a thing is neither true nor possible–no matter who arrogates to themselves the alleged right to decree it…

              This type of idea comes from secularists and materialists, and is an inversion of reality generally and the US Constituion specifically.

              Religion is not merely verbal, ‘offering spiritual guidance’–that is incredibly absurd. True religion is by definition super-rational, meta-material, etc.,–it is not a sideline or sub-category within materialism, but exactly the other way around. Religion is not limited by a materialist worldview as secualrists wish–and the founding fathers well understood this truth.

              The Church holds simply that the life which begins at conception is a gift from God, an inscrutable authority higher than any Kingdom or State, and that man cannot overrule God by taking it upon himself to kill–nothing about age, sex, victimhood, or anything else does, or could possibly, modify this absolute truth in the least.

              Materialists of all stripes find all of this difficult to understand and accept.

              The founding fathers well understood that the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob precedes and supercedes the Sate, and that the State must scrupulously limit itself so as not to interfere with the free exercise of religion.

              • 1,500 words and that’s all you have? A reiteration of the same point and an insistence that I could never understand something – while having the nerve to call me arrogant?

                I think I made it quite clear that I understand how the Catholic church feels and that I respect and would defend their rights to believe whatever they believe. I didn’t say that they should stop providing healthcare, and I rather specifically stated that in general they shouldn’t have to do anything that violates their conscience. It’s not that I don’t “understand” how they feel, it’s just that I don’t necessarily feel the same way that they do – and I’m not the only one.

                The situation that we’re discussing here is both extreme and extremely rare. How I went against the Constitution in arguing my point I’m not sure; the Constitution rather explicitly deems that government’s reason for existence is to secure the blessings of liberty, and while freedom of religion falls under that umbrella, so does the natural right to self-determination. Perhaps the founding fathers felt that the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob precedes and supersedes the State, perhaps they didn’t, but one thing is clear, they wrote the Constitution as a secular document – rather boldly making absolutely no mention of God. Heck, the original document didn’t even mention freedom of religion.

                So if we want to work from a constitutional standpoint, we must adhere to the Constitution. Freedom of religion is in there, but so are a whole host of other freedoms, and sometimes there are situations in which the protection of one right comes at the expense of another. When that happens, we must determine which one is to be protected.

                I’m sure you have things to say that would address the post I made directly as opposed to just telling me that I’m an idiot and then explaining something that anyone with a fundamental knowledge of Christian theology would know to be true. I’d actually be interested to hear what you have to say.

              • Also, on an unrelated note, where do you stand on the death penalty?

                And let’s say someone gets murdered and the sole witness is a Catholic bishop. It’s a death penalty case and his testimony is pretty much guaranteed to put a needle in the murderer’s arm. If he refuses to testify, should he be held in contempt until he does or is this a violation of his right to freedom of conscience?

                • Major914

                  The door to a weighing and balancing never opens, under anything you conveyed–whether you took 15 or 15,000 words to convey it is, likewise, irrelevant.

                  And this is one of the basic fallacies of secularism/liberalism–that there is, necessarily, always some kind of detailed weighing and balancing that must go on pro forma.

                  But it is this very ‘weighing and balancing’, when it takes place, as it often does, innapropriately–that is, not in accordance with superceding religious principle, but in willful ignorance, or suspension thereof–which merely serves as a fig leaf for materialists to reach an irreligious result while attempting to avoid direct acknowledgment that the result is, in fact, irreligious.

                  Rape does not make the killing of an innocent child permissable–there is no weighing and balancing beyond that–a rape victim’s very real pain, and the pain of a husband and other loved ones, under Catholic doctrine, simply does not rise to, or approach, the level of the inviolability of innocent life.

                  With your bishop-as-sole-witness scenario: if the facts of the case were known, as you state, the bishop’s testimony could not be needed. His being compelled to testify, if such a thing did occur, does not compare to his being forced to provide the chemicals or the syringe.

                • You write very well.

                  So essentially your argument is that the victims right to exert some measure of influence over when and how she becomes pregnant is terminated once there is a very real possibility of her becoming pregnant, regardless of the circumstances that brought about that result, yes? If that’s what you believe, then obviously the hospital shouldn’t be forced to dispense EC; if I believed that, I’d agree with you.

                  I freely acknowledge that my result is irreligious – after all, I’m saying quite openly that I think that in extreme cases the government has a right to literally mandate Catholics do something that, to them, is essentially murder – and that my conclusion is the product of a disinterested examination of the facts at hand. I disagree, however, with the argument that I’m merely engaging in some sort of pro forma dialectic; the Constitution, again, is a secular document, and the rights derived therefrom do not necessarily coincide with values championed by religion. To whit, “a rape…under Catholic doctrine, simply does not rise to, or approach, the level of the inviolability of innocent life” — obviously that’s true, but this country isn’t built on Catholic doctrine, or any other religious doctrine for that matter, and there are cases when constitutional doctrine and religious doctrine may directly conflict. While freedom of religion is fundamental, when the LDS church came up against established bigamy laws, the LDS church lost; if an Orthodox Jew decided to live by the Mosaic code, he’d still be arrested for stoning his child to death, no matter how disrespectful he/she might have been. Why? Because sometimes some rights trump others.

                  As for the example, let’s say that the entire case hinges upon the bishop’s testimony. Can the state force him to testify?

  • Major914

    The response by the blogger to comments at the Boston Catholic Insider are absolutely fantastic!

  • Stylin

    Romney lying …..Is anyone really suprised?

  • xjesterx

    It doesn’t matter. This is how Romney debates. He knows so few people will see posts like this, it doesn’t matter. He’s already up in Michigan by 6.

    I will NEVER forget him looking in the camera and LYING. He is lying to every viewer, including me. Yes, (and his little handlers are planning on this) I will HAVE to vote for him if he’s the nominee, because a RINO liar is better than Obama. But I won’t EVER forget his bald face lying while looking the American people right in the eye (so to speak).

    You don’t win the nomination “at any cost”. This just says we will get liberal nominations to the Supreme Court, screwed up legislation that makes us all go “WTF?!”, and half hearted walk backs to appeal to the precious “independents” during the general election.

    I have long thought we would end up very much mirroring Britain. They got a mushy “conservative” in office, but he BARELY squeeked by in the election. If Romney wins, I think it will be closer than any of us wants and it will scare the crap out of us it will be so thin a margin. Then we’ll have a liar who doesn’t act conservative at all.

    YES, YES, YES…before someone says it, even with all that said, I know it’s better than Obama. (that’s pretty sad, right?)

    Maybe someday we’ll get something close to another Reagan….someday? I hope in our lifetimes it comes true!!

  • sparkie139

    Poor Mitt a Morman souldn’t lie

  • MassManny

    More on his lies about Catholic Hospitals and Catholic Charities + adoptions by homosexuals: