*Romney Discusses His Pro-Life Convictions!

Why I vetoed contraception bill

By Mitt Romney  |  July 26, 2005 (Published in the Boston Globe)

Yesterday I vetoed a bill that the Legislature forwarded to my desk. Though described by its sponsors as a measure relating to contraception, there is more to it than that. The bill does not involve only the prevention of conception: The drug it authorizes would also terminate life after conception.

Signing such a measure into law would violate the promise I made to the citizens of Massachusetts when I ran for governor. I pledged that I would not change our abortion laws either to restrict abortion or to facilitate it. What's more, this particular bill does not require parental consent even for young teenagers. It disregards not only the seriousness of abortion but the importance of parental involvement and so would weaken a protection I am committed to uphold.

I have spoken with medical professionals to determine whether the drug contemplated under the bill would simply prevent conception or whether it would also terminate a living embryo after conception. Once it became clear that the latter was the case, my decision was straightforward. I will honor the commitment I made during my campaign: While I do not favor abortion, I will not change the state's abortion laws.

I understand that my views on laws governing abortion set me in the minority in our Commonwealth. I am prolife. I believe that abortion is the wrong choice except in cases of incest, rape, and to save the life of the mother. I wish the people of America agreed, and that the laws of our nation could reflect that view. But while the nation remains so divided over abortion, I believe that the states, through the democratic process, should determine their own abortion laws and not have them dictated by judicial mandate.

Because Massachusetts is decidedly prochoice, I have respected the state's democratically held view. I have not attempted to impose my own views on the prochoice majority.

For all the conflicting views on this issue, it speaks well of our country that we recognize abortion as a problem. The law may call it a right, but no one ever called it a good, and, in the quiet of conscience people of both political parties know that more than a million abortions a year cannot be squared with the good heart of America.

You can't be a prolife governor in a prochoice state without understanding that there are heartfelt and thoughtful arguments on both sides of the question. Many women considering abortions face terrible pressures, hurts, and fears; we should come to their aid with all the resourcefulness and empathy we can offer. At the same time, the starting point should be the innocence and vulnerability of the child waiting to be born.

In some respects, these convictions have evolved and deepened during my time as governor. In considering the issue of embryo cloning and embryo farming, I saw where the harsh logic of abortion can lead -- to the view of innocent new life as nothing more than research material or a commodity to be exploited.

I have also observed the bitterness and fierce anger that still linger 32 years after Roe v. Wade. The majority in the US Supreme Court's Casey opinion assured us this would pass away as Americans learned to live with abortion on demand. But this has proved a false hope.

There is much in the abortion controversy that America's founders would not recognize. Above all, those who wrote our Constitution would wonder why the federal courts had peremptorily removed the matter from the authority of the elected branches of government. The federal system left to us by the Constitution allows people of different states to make their own choices on matters of controversy, thus avoiding the bitter battles engendered by ''one size fits all" judicial pronouncements. A federalist approach would allow such disputes to be settled by the citizens and elected representatives of each state, and appropriately defer to democratic governance.

Except on matters of the starkest clarity like the issue of banning partial-birth abortions, there is not now a decisive national consensus on abortion. Some parts of the country have prolife majorities, others have prochoice majorities. People of good faith on both sides of the issue should be able to make and advance their case in democratic forums -- with civility, mutual respect, and confidence that democratic majorities will prevail. We will never have peace on the abortion issue, much less a consensus of conscience, until democracy is allowed to work its way.

Interview with Hugh Hewitt, July 27, 2005

HH: Governor Romney, big headlines about you in the Boston Globe today, and an opinion piece by you at the same time. And I wanted to check in on this. You vetoed a bill for emergency contraception/emergency abortion. You've come under fire from National Abortion Rights Action League and others on the left. Can you explain why you vetoed the bill, and your opinion piece earlier today?

MR: Well, it's pretty straight forward, Hugh, and that is that many people speak about emergency contraception. But in fact, the drug that they're referring to not only is a contraceptive, but it's also an abortive product. And that is in individuals who've already become impregnated, and that have a living embryo within them, take this drug, and it will end the life of that embryo. So, it's not only a contraceptive, it's abortive. And I promised the people of Massachusetts I would not change Massachusetts abortion laws. Even though I am pro-life, I said I'd leave things where they are. And they can't have it both ways, obviously. They can't keep on saying they want to expand abortion laws. I believe in this case as well that because the product would be available to people under 18 without parental involvement, it would violate a very important principle. And that is when abortion occurs, young women under 18 should have the involvement of their parents in that decision.

HH: You know, Governor Romney, that...I did get that from the Globe article. It's not very widely reported that part of this law being pushed, in fact, removes parental consent from the taking of a very serious pill. And I'm wondering, in Massachusetts, do you need parental consent to get a tattoo? Do you need parental consent, you know, to get a driver's license? Or get married underage?

MR: Isn't it something? In Massachusetts, if you're under 18, you have to get parental consent to get a tattoo, but the abortion rights organizations want to make it such that you can get a abortive morning-after pill if you're under 18, actually, if you're under 10 or 12, whatever age. No age limit whatsoever. And actually, they want to remove the...or reduce the age of consent from 18 to 16, which would mean it's easier to get an abortion in Massachusetts than it would be to get a tattoo. And you know, abortion is a real problem in our nation. Some people call it a right, but no one calls it a good. And we have to make sure that we're mindful of the concerns that people have about this procedure, but fundamentally, at the beginning, we have to respect human life. And the wellsprings of life, it's an element of any civilized society, to have a great concern for life. And that's something which I think is important, even for Massachusetts.

HH: Now obviously, a lot of people around the country are looking at this decision, and your opinion piece today, with interest on your possible run for the presidency in 2008. You've never been described as a pro-life governor. Are you in fact a pro-life governor?

MR: I am a pro-life governor. And I indicated during my campaign that I did not favor abortion. But I'm in a very pro-choice state, and I committed to the people that if elected, I would not change the laws. I would put in place a moratorium if you will, a status quo provision, that there would be no changes in the abortion laws, one way or the other. And so this emergency contraception bill was an effort to sort of get around that, and to try to get me to change my commitment. And I, of course, wasn't going to do that. But I am pro-life. I have made that quite clear today. Usually, I have not used that term. I've just said look. I don't favor abortion. But I wanted to make it clear that over the past two and a half years serving as governor, I've watched an activist court. I've also had the experience of seeing what happens with embryo farming, and embryo cloning being considered. And I just recognized that we have to be very clear in standing up for the importance of the sanctity of life.

HH: Let's break down a couple of specifics. In your piece today, you write except on matters of the starkest clarity, like the issue of banning partial birth abortions, there is not now a decisive national consensus on abortion. I read that mean that you agree that there is a national consensus that it is a horrific procedure, and that it ought to be banned?

MR: Yes, that's right. With regards to partial birth abortion, I think you have an overwhelming consensus in this country that it's wrong, that it should be banned, and for that reason, I would ban it nationally. With regards to abortion, I think the Supreme Court in the Casey decision, forecast that after a couple of decades of Roe V. Wade being in practice, that abortion would be accepted in America. Well, it's not. It's still highly divisive. And therefore, a one size fits all judicial pronouncement like Roe V. Wade, just isn't the right answer. The right way to approach a controversy of this nature is to allow the democratic process to be carried out in each state. Basically, to allow federalism to work, and let each state take its own course, as to whether or not they're going to be a Roe V. Wade state.

HH: Would you welcome the overturning of Roe V. Wade, Governor Romney?

MR: Well, I would welcome the overturning of that portion of Roe V. Wade that says abortion has to apply in every single state, and removes from the state the opportunity it has to make important decisions of its own. I believe in democracy, believe in the right of states to deal with difficult issues in different ways, state to state. I mean, that's...fundamentally, that's one of the things that allows our country to hang together, is that we allow each state to choose its own course when there's controversy. When we come together with a national consensus, why, we can do something of a national level. But when there's a great deal of controversy, let's let the states deal with it through a democratic process, rather than have a judiciary make a pronouncement of one size fits all.

HH: Governor Romney, a lot of people say you're running for president. Have you made that decision yet?

MR: I certainly haven't. I can't imagine wanting to make that decision until the last possible moment, for anyone. My guess is there about 50 governors thinking about it, and about 100 Senators. But most of us are going to keep on doing what we've been doing. I love being Governor. It's a real battle to be in a state that's so heavily Democratic. But, you know, I'm able to battle for the people, and now and then, win one. And I like the job I got.

HH: Now, in terms of, though, calibrating where Governor Mitt Romney is on the spectrum of Republicans, would you say that George Bush's positions on abortions are your positions on abortion?

MR: Well, I can't find any gap between his view and my view. And I must admit not to have studied every aspect of his position. But he and I agree, I believe, and that is I fundamentally believe that Roe V. Wade has some serious errors, and the application of Roe V. Wade to every state is one of them. I would rather see each state be able to make its own decision on abortion laws, and under that kind of a scenario, if a state were overwhelmingly pro-choice, it could remain so. If a state were overwhelmingly pro-life, it could remain so. And we allow the people and democracy to work the way the nation's founders had intended.

HH: So, you would oppose a Constitutional amendment, one size fits all, banning abortion in the United States?

MR: Well, America's not there yet. I would hope that at some point, America would recognize that over a million abortions a year is just not right. And at the heart and the minds of the people of American would come to agree on a national consensus that abortion should not exist in our land. But we're not there yet. And I've read the president's comments on the same point, and he feels the same way. That's just not where we are as a nation. Instead, where we are is at a point where each state should be able to make its own decision, and allow those states that are strongly pro-life to make laws that fulfill the will of their own citizens.

HH: Now Governor, you've seen the John Roberts nomination. I'm very enthusiastic about it. John and I were in the White House Counsel's office together. Nobody knows what he's going to do when Roe V. Wade presents itself to him as a Justice. Do you approve of the Roberts nomination? Do you think it's a good nomination?

MR: I think Roberts is one of the best nominees that I can recall. This is a person of a superb intellect, and you, I'm sure, know that better than I, because you served with him. But I looked at his academic record, and anyone who graduates Summa Cum Laude from Harvard College, and then graduates with high honors from Harvard Law School, on the Law Review, argues before the Supreme Court 39 cases, sits on the Circuit Court in Washington, D.C. Some call it the First Circuit, if you will, because it's right next to the Supreme Court. This is the kind of qualifications that no one can argue with.

HH: I thought maybe as a Harvard Business School grad, you might look down your nose at the law school across the river there. But in any event...

MR: Well, actually, Hugh, I had the fun of going to both. I went to law school and business school at Harvard...

HH: Oh, I had forgotten that.

MR: I know how tough Harvard Law School is. So anyone who did as well as he did deserves a tip of the hat.

HH: Now Governor, when you come to appoint judges, either in your capacity as governor or should that ever occur that you are in the White House, what will you...will you ask for a litmus test? Will you want to know about Roe V. Wade? Or will you follow the Bush precedent of doing it more on character and credentials?

MR: Well, I think you look for judicial temperament, character, credentials, qualifications, capability. But you also want to see what their judicial philosophy is. And clearly, having an individual who is committed to interpreting the law, interpreting the Constitution and not creating the law, is essential. And that of course means that a person like Judge Roberts would look at a Roe V. Wade, had he been the one that encountered it thirty-two years ago, and he'd said look. This isn't the province of the Supreme Court to decide. This should be decided state by state, in the democratic process, which the founders envisioned. And so now we have a precedent in place, Roe V. Wade, that states have been living with for some years. How he'll deal with that? Who knows? It depends on the case, probably, that's brought before him. But we have the kind of intellect, and the kind of judicial philosophy, that I think is appropriate on the Court. And don't forget. People...you know, they're saying, well let's have a pro-choice Supreme Court nominee. Don't forget. We elected George Bush. He's a pro-life president. He ran as a pro-life president. And he, therefore, as he fills the seats on the Supreme Court, has every right to nominate someone who has his beliefs.

HH: Let me touch on a related issue. You're obviously for parental consent, of minors seeking abortion. You're obviously against the pill that was being marketed there. How about RU...the abortion inducing pill? 435 I think it is, right? That's what it is, yeah. Is that also something you think ought to be heavily restricted? 486, excuse me.

MR: Well, in our state, for instance, if someone brought forward a bill that said let's expand access to RU-486, I would veto that bill. And very simply, I've indicated that as governor here, I do not want to extend abortion rights. I've established, if you will, a moratorium on changing the laws relating to abortion in Massachusetts. So, I would not expand access to RU-486.

HH: Okay, and stem cell research. Are you with the president? Or would you expand stem cell research?

MR: I am in favor of stem cell research, as I know the president is as well. And I would add one line that he does not favor at this point. I would add to stem cell research the surplus embryos from in vitro fertilization, if the parents wish to donate the embryo in that manner. I'd also create adoption procedures so that that could be a course that's taken as well. What I would not allow is the cloning of embryos, through somatic cell nuclear transfer, and embryo cloning, or the farming of embryos, which is taking sperm and egg, and putting it togther, and creating new embryos. Those things were both allowed in my state this last year by specific legislation. I vetoed it. But it was overridden, of course, and I'm committed that embryo farming and embryo cloning are wrong, and should not be extended.

HH: Last question, Governor Romney. We've got about a minute and a half. Your state has same sex marriage, because of an edict from your Court, 4-3. How has that impacted your state? And what is your opinion, a year after, or more than a year after, that decision on the role of the courts in so ordaining?

MR: Well, there are two ways in which that decision has impacted us of significance. The first is, that there's a great deal of confusion relating to the rights of children, either adopted by or born to same sex couples, particularly if they move to other states, their concerns with regards to divorce procedures, rights of inheritance, and so forth. It's kind of a legal mess, because the disparity between different states and the lack of clarity in our own state creates an uncertain set of rights and obligations on the part of the parents and in favor of the child. But the real impact of same sex marriage is not something you're going to recognize in a year or two. The impact is over generations. I believe each child in America has the right to have a mother and a father.

HH: Governor Romney, we are out of time. Always a pleasure to talk to you. Thanks for spending time to explain these things today.