SUBSCRIBE NOW WELCOME BACK. Do you want to continue reading where you left off? New Republic subscribers can pick up where they left off no matter which device they were previously using. SUBSCRIBE NOW

Go Home The Wapo's Romney Drive-by

THE PLANK AUGUST 24, 2007

The Wapo's Romney Drive-by

BY TNR STAFF AND TNR STAFF

I realize I'm coming to this a little late, but it's egregious enough to weigh in on anyway: Like Marc Ambinder, I thought yesterday's Washington Post front-pager on Mitt Romney's continued abortion flip-flopping was pretty unfair.

The premise of the piece is that Romney has made contradictory statements about his abortion stance over the last few weeks. On August 6, Romney told George Stephanopoulos that he supports the so-called human life amendment to the Constitution. Then, a few days ago, Romney told Nevada political commentator Jon Ralston that he'd like to see Roe v. Wade overturned, which would let "states make their own decision in this regard." The Post's damning conclusion: "The two very different statements reflect the challenge for Romney, who has reinvented himself as a champion of the antiabortion movement in recent years and is seeking to become the conservative alternative to former New York mayor Rudolph W. Giuliani ..."

First, note the weaselly "reflect the challenge" wording--code in newspaper-land for "I'm trying to bust this guy but don't want to make a direct accusation because I'm not entirely sure it's legit and anyway daily reporters don't do that kind of thing." The question, of course, is whether the two statements would reflect a "challenge" for Romney if the Post hadn't insisted they were at odds. (ABC ran a similar story on its web site the day before, though it's slightly more circumspect.) I don't think they would, at least not in and of themselves, for the simple reason that I don't find the statements very contradictory.

Romney's position, as Ambinder points out, is that he'd like to see Roe overturned in the short-run and the human life amendment passed in the long-run. Now, if your position is that Roe should be overturned, and someone asks you about an implication of that position, as Ralston did (click here for a fuller transcript of the exchange, and here to watch it), I don't see how you avoid the conclusion that states will then get to set their own abortion policies. But that doesn't have any implications for what happens if the country subsequently passes a human life amendment. I'm hardly an authority on the Constitution, but my understanding is that it supercedes any state law. I suspect that's Romney's understanding, too. So there's really no ambiguity here, much less a contradiction.

Don't get me wrong. Romney's recent conversion on the abortion issue--even he has conceded he was "effectively pro-choice" in his early days as Massachusetts governor--raises legitimate questions about where he really stands. But to make front-page news out of two completely compatible statements strikes me as absurd. I wasn't a fan of this sort of thing when mainstream journalists did it to John Kerry and Al Gore. And, as satisfying as it might be in a partisan way to see the GOP get some payback, I can't say I'm much of a fan of it now, either.

--Noam Scheiber

SHARE YOUR THOUGHTS

Show all 23 comments

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

23 comments

If one day you say you are for letting the states control the issue, then a few days later say you're in favor of consitutionally taking the issue out of state hands, how can these positions not be contradictory? You appear to argue that a short-term / long-term perspective allows these mutually exclusive policies to be reconciled, but that seems to be a pretty shaky dodge, and only implies that Romney is being very dishonest about letting the issue be resolved at the state level.

- purcellneil

August 24, 2007 at 1:08pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

If Romney's position is incoherent, than so is just about every ostensibly pro-life politician's in the GOP. They almost all favor both overturning Roe and a human life amendment. Including George W. Bush...

- scheibern

August 24, 2007 at 1:41pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

His position (now) is that he wants to stop abortions any way he can. Overturning Roe v. Wade would stop people from getting abortions in some States, the Human life amendment would stop women from getting abortions in all states. The issue of states rights versus federal rights is irrelevant - he just wants to stop as many abortions as he possibly can.

- seanwright

August 24, 2007 at 1:47pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Maybe he thinks there was no constitutional justification for SCOTUS's (SCOTUS'?) ruling in Roe v Wade, therefore it should be overturned because it's a state's rights issue. After that, he wants an amendment, which then makes it a proper constitutional issue. So there's several plausible explanations as to why the positions are not incompatible. Did the author actually ask Romney (or the campaign) about the seeming disconnect before publishing?

- TMastermind

August 24, 2007 at 2:21pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

for years, anti-choicers (and conservatives generally) have challenged liberals to use the legislative process to guarantee abortion rights. Implicit in criticism of Roe is the notion that the Supreme Court "created" a new right that couldn't be won democratically. Now we're 25 years down the road, and two generations of women have come to rely on a right to abortion. After all this time, even assuming Roe was wrong (which I don't), why shouldn't conservatives have to use the democratic process to take the right to abortion away by passing a human life amendment? It seems to me that Romney has it backwards--conservatives should have to use the legislatures to make abortion illegal, rather than relying on the Supreme Court to take the right away. The notion of a "conservative" president appointing "conservative" justices to undo a right is ridiculous.

- corby_t_drone

August 24, 2007 at 3:54pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

The human life amendment is a proposed amendment to the Constitution which means it would have to be attained democratically. In fact it would require massive public support since it would take 299 votes in the house 67 in the senate and ratification by 38 States to amend the Constitution. Something tells me we don't have anything to fear from the HLA.

- seanwright

August 24, 2007 at 4:02pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

he says he favors overturning roe because he thinks it should be a state issue. he can say when he gets caught that he only wants it to be a state issue for awhile, but thats disingenuous. the way he worded it, it sounded like he wanted it to stay a state issue. still though, the piece was a bit rough on him, but i think there is a contradiction here.

- Mrdseitzer

August 24, 2007 at 4:48pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

is correct. You can't say it abortion should be up to the states, and then embrace a constitutional amendment. It is a contradiction, plainly. Why can't we leave this decision to the women themselves? In the end, women of means will go elsewhere for their abortions, and those without means will die in back alleys as they did before. Some pro-life position if you ask me - but then most pro-lifers are okay with Bush and his war. Talk about contradictions!

- purcellneil

August 24, 2007 at 5:23pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

There are three basic options with respect to federal abortion law: you can (1)require states to permit abortion (current law); (2) permit states to make their own decision whether abortion is permitted (the state of the law pre Roe); or (3) forbid any state from allowing abortion (the state of the law if Roe were overturned). Romney's position appears to be that, at the very least, states should be permitted to outlaw abortion and that an even rosier scenario would be for all women to be denied the right to an abortion all together.

- seanwright

August 24, 2007 at 5:33pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

The point wasn't just that he said Roe should be overturned, but that it should be overturned so that states could decide the issue. The point of the article is that he was saying that his position is, "Let states decide." That position is not the same as "Don't let states decide." Which does he *want*? Of course Republicans favor overturning Roe. They probably won't get a constitutional amendment, and letting states decide is a second-best, but it's not their goal. (Or is it? That's the question in Romney's case.) In light of Romney's past positions (mentioned early in the piece), I think this is a legitimate point. Romney has been pretty pathetic in parsing his contradictory positions -- nothing wrong with pointing it out.

- jhildner

August 24, 2007 at 6:17pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

You're number 3 isn't right -- abortion wouldn't be forbidden if Roe is overturned. The situation would go back to 2. The only way you get 3 is with the constitutional amendment. It may be that many view an amendment as ideal but overturning Roe as a more realistic and/or intermediate second best. But that's not what Romeny appeared to be saying. He was appearing to take the position that states ought to be able to decide this issue. That's a legitimate position many people have that is very different from supporting a federal abortion ban. As someone else said, it seems like Romney is being disingenuous.

- jhildner

August 24, 2007 at 6:21pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

On point number three I meant to say that abortion would be forbidden if the Human Life Amendment was ratified.

- seanwright

August 24, 2007 at 7:03pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

- seanwright

August 24, 2007 at 7:04pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

However, my view is pretty much the inverse of the one he articulates. I don't care about "states rights" as such. What I care about is the rights of individuals. I feel that the best option is number 1 aka the current law, the second best option is number 2 aka leave it to the states and the worst option is number 3 aka the Human Life Amendment. If the Supreme Court were to overturn Roe and then go on to find a constitutional right of the unborn to be born such that permitting abortion was found to be a violation of the constitutional rights of fetuses, I would lobby for returning to the State's choice model or even for a constitutional amendment enshrining a womans right to privacy/right to choose. I don't think that would be inconsistent. I want women to be able to choose whether they are going to carry a child to term because I think it is wrong for the government to interfere in that decision and the legal mechanism for allowing women that freedom is not that important to me. For Romney (purportedly) it's the opposite, he doesn't want women to be able to choose an abortiona and the legal mechanism for interfering with that right isn't that important to him. The more the law allows him to interfere with a woman's right to choose, the better he likes it. If Roe were overturned, at least in enlightened states like, Mississippi, North Dakota and Utah, women wouldn't be able to have abortions. Of course in cultural backwaters like New York, California and Massachussets, women would still have the right to choose an abortion, but one can't let the perfect become the enemy of the good. So, I'm not saying Romney may not have exhibited some disingenuity when he said he wanted states to decide, but his views can be reduced to 1 very straightforward and consistent principal and thus are not contradictory: Stop as many abortions as possible as soon as possible.

- seanwright

August 24, 2007 at 7:20pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

...my understanding is that there's no "c" in "supersedes."

- johncohen@gmail.com-old

August 25, 2007 at 11:14am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Isn't there such a thing as an argument which is logically sound, but also awfully convenient for a politician who wants to emphasize certain points at different places (or different times)?

- alexmparker

August 25, 2007 at 7:31pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Seanwright's polemic starkly illustrates the abortionists' hypocrisy and depravity.

Notice the way he crafts his second paragraph. He talks about how the Supreme Court would "go on to find a constitutional right..." a sly suggestion that the Supreme Court will contrive an excuse to overturn Roe v Wade. Hey, Asshole, if the Supremes could "go on to find a right" to an abortion, then it can just as well "go on to find a right" for the unborn.

Then, there's sw's all-too-common device of the abortion lobby to evade the issue by framing it under the bogus rubric of "choice". So they can always say, "Wait, I'm not advocating abortion, just a woman's right to choose." You can protest all you want, Asshole, but the issue is still about abortion, not choice, or reproductive freedom or any other catchphrase you employ as a smokescreen.

"a constitutional amendment enshrining a womans right to privacy/right to choose

Notice how the asshole uses "enshrine," to turn a base consumerist buzzword into some kind of sacred right.

Then, notice how the asshole sarcastically differentiates states that allow elective abortions and those who don't.

Yes, there are issues that people of good will can disagree over in good faith. Abortion is not one of them. Those who are for "choice" are not just wrongheaded; they are liars and hypocrites, both in the way they frame the issue and in the way they present themselves, as the paragons of virtue in the debate, while characterizing pro-lifers as troglodytes, as seanwright does here.

Liberal Nat Hentoff found this out. He sees what "choice" really means. Check him out on the issue.

- jm_rice

August 26, 2007 at 10:00pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Flip-flop? What an assinine assertion! Poli Sci 101 teaches that you campaign to your constituency. Romney is no longer campaigning to the Massachusetts constituency, he is campaigning to the national constituency. As such, he is absolutely NOT obliged to campaign for president as governor of Massachusetts. To demand consistency is to demand that he be parochial. You flip-flop queens are blowing it out your butts.

- jm_rice

August 26, 2007 at 10:12pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

- seanwright

August 26, 2007 at 10:36pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

For someone who hates pro-choice people so much, and thinks they are liars and hypocrites, then how can you support Romney who was basically pro-choice?

- jhildner

August 27, 2007 at 10:39am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I guess if you like Romney, you can overlook his most apparent flaws. But the rest of us see them too clearly to ignore them. Romney was pro-choice; although he says he always believed that abortion was immoral, he also believed that it was a decision best left to the woman and her physician. Now he says we should repeal Roe and leave the decision to the states -- except when he is saying that the decision really ought not to be made at the state level either. Personally, I am moderately pro-choice. I believe women will have abortions even if they are illegal (and more lives will accordingly be lost than if the mis-named pro-life mission fails). However, as a man, I don't think it's worth fighting over -- not while so many women seem to be willing to hand their choices over to the feds. So my criticism of Romney is not driven by an intensity of Roe partisanship. I just see the guy as unbelievably dishonest or confused on this issue. If that makes me a flip-flop queen, so be it.

- purcellneil

August 27, 2007 at 1:14pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Agree on Romney, but your explanation for your "moderate" pro-choice position -- it's not my problem because I'm not a woman -- seems a bit weak. You wouldn't say that about civil rights or equal rights for women generally. Sure many women are pro-life. Many (more) are pro-choice. I'm not arguing with your position -- just with the idea that not being personally affected (although you could be!) means it's not for you to take a position.

- jhildner

August 28, 2007 at 2:45pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I think gay marriage ought to be legal too, but I'm not willing to lose an election over it (though I have told my girlfriend we will have a civil union, not a marriage, as long as my gay friends are denied their civil rights). Ober the past 30 years or so - most of my adult life - I have watched the right-wing grow in power through bible-thumping, gay-bashing and pro-lifing. If accepting civil unions and restrictions on abortion will take some steam out of the GOP's theocratic impulse, that might be worth it to me. On the whole, I think the abortion fight has been bad for America -- a worse outcome than than the outright victory of either side. Personally, I am for a woman's right to choose - not as a civil right - but as a practical matter, and as a matter of fairness. I place a much higher value of the lives of women than I do on the lives of their unborn babies, and I know that women of means will always be able to go somewhere else and get what they want (while women without means will die of botched abortions as they did years ago). It is impractical and unfair to prohibit abortion. Alas, far too few women seem to care about this issue. Consequently, I am pro-choice -- but I am not passionate about it. I have higher priorities - like universal health coverage, tax equity, peace, and protection of civil liberties. If abortion gets in the way, I will give in on abortion. When women are dying in back alleys, maybe the real consequences of prohibition will be manifest to all, and the case for change less controversial than now. Maybe then American women will reject the GOP and the religious right for the harm they will have done (removing any need for me to compromise). I do take a position on abortion - my position is clearly pro-choice, but it isn't a position I would fight for.

- purcellneil

August 29, 2007 at 11:55am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

SHARE HIGHLIGHT

0 CHARACTERS SELECTED

TWEET THIS

POST TO TUMBLR

SHARE ON FACEBOOK

Close