Alan Keyes
If 'legislation' regarding abortion is not on Mitt's agenda, is he really pro-life?
By Alan Keyes
Yesterday, someone sent me the link to an essay in which a person well known for his pro-life convictions says that Mitt Romney is "pro-life and upholds the Biblical family...." As stated, this is simply untrue. It would be accurate to say that Mitt Romney says that he is pro-life and claims to uphold the Biblical family. His deeds, however, have consistently contradicted his claims. People shilling for Romney who fail to take note of this fact can be said, at the very least, to co-operate in deception — unless, of course, they are simply ignorant of the facts.
Such ignorance is hardly excusable, however, since hardly a day passes without some new evidence that makes a mockery of the claim that Romney is pro-life.
Just this morning, I read a report that has Romney telling the Des Moines Register's leftist editorial board, "There's no legislation with regards to abortion that I'm familiar with that would become part of my agenda."
I immediately thought of the legislation that will be needed to repeal the coercion of conscience involved in Obamacare and remove the unaccountable decision-making bodies it establishes (with powers that deserve the "death panel" label often applied to them.) Romney's apologists say he will repeal Obamacare, but apparently he intends to do so without changing existing legislation. (That's a good trick if he can manage it, but I fear that tricking the conservatives who actually believe what he says about repealing Obamacare is the only trick he has in mind.)
Given Romney's record as Governor of Massachusetts, it also occurs to me to wonder what he means by legislation. Whenever people like me point out that then-Governor Romney abused his executive power to impose "gay marriage" in Massachusetts, Romney's apologists respond by claiming that he had to follow the "law" laid down by the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court. But the Court's assertion of marriage rights for homosexuals had no basis in the Constitution or laws of Massachusetts. In fact, the Massachusetts Constitution explicitly denies the state's judiciary any share in the legislative power of government. By claiming that his imposition of gay marriage was required by law, however, Romney treats the Court's opinion as legislation.
Because he takes the view that judicial opinions have the force of law, when Romney says that "no legislation with regards to abortion...would become part of my agenda," it is reasonable to assume that his words encompass Court decisions that alter the current jurisprudence regarding abortion.
One of the main arguments used by Romney's apologists is that he will appoint pro-life judges and justices to the Federal Judiciary. But it's Romney's view that in and of themselves, judicial opinions have a force of law that supersedes existing legislation — i.e., judges and justices can legislate from the bench. So the statement that his agenda includes no legislation with regards to abortion logically implies that it is not part of his agenda to appoint judges and justices likely to overturn Roe v. Wade. Please keep in mind that the logic I refer to derives from what Romney includes in the meaning of legislation (judicial opinions per se), not what you or I (or common sense and constitutional reasoning, for that matter) include in that term.
Of course, the fact that Romney speaks doesn't mean that we should actually take his words seriously (i.e., think through their implications), right? We should just take the opinion of this or that supposedly pro-life leader as sufficient proof that, no matter what common sense and reason suggest, Romney is pro-life, and that's all there is to it. Just as his claim that he's for the traditional family, notwithstanding his unlawful, unconstitutional imposition of gay marriage in Massachusetts; his commitment to continuing Obama's policy of commanding military personnel to accept open homosexuality in their ranks; his criticism of the Boy Scouts' policy against homosexuality in scouting; his insistence that honoring Dan Cathy's support for the traditional family (Chik-fil-A day) is no part of his campaign, etc.
Apparently, even though Romney wants no part of the effort to defend the unalienable right to life or the natural right of family life, we are supposed to accept him as pro-life and pro-family. Whatever else Romney does or does not achieve, if he's elected on this basis, these heretofore conservative political causes will have no practical political substance. Indeed, I think that's the whole point. If Mitt Romney is pro-life, if he is a defender of marriage, then adherence to those causes no longer requires political action; they no longer involve any purpose or intention with respect to law and government in the United States. They are just rhetorical devices, used to gull the voters whose goodhearted faith they appeal to and exploit. Romney keeps demonstrating this in various ways. But his shills are counting on self-described conservative voters to be like the people Christ described when he said: "...seeing they see not; hearing they hear not, neither do they understand."
Sadly, what they willfully refuse to see is likely to deprive their children and grandchildren of their birthright of liberty, for the willful blindness of one generation becomes the helpless ignorance of the generations yet to come. What a fateful, fatal surrender of America's hope! Why are some people so sure that the prospect of that surrender is "less evil" than the increasingly explicit political, legal, and civil turmoil Obama's re-election is likely to usher in? Is it really less evil quietly to surrender liberty than boisterously to fight for it? Or are these "lesser of evils" capitulators secretly certain only of this — that despite their professed love of decent liberty, they no longer have the faithful courage required to risk life and fortune for the sacred honor of upholding it?
[Will you say no to Obama? Will you say no to Romney? Will you say no to socialism, whatever party label it wears? Will you join in giving an unmistakable, visible political mandate to the GOP "Platform Republicans"? If you will consider the "Platform Republican" voter strategy for the 2012 election, just send me an email at alan@loyaltoliberty.com. Put "Yes I will" in the subject line. No further message is needed. Of course, your additional thoughts and suggestions will be welcomed. As the implementation of this approach develops, I'll send email updates to the reply address you use. Also, please share this idea with others so they can consider it for themselves.]
October 11, 2012
Yesterday, someone sent me the link to an essay in which a person well known for his pro-life convictions says that Mitt Romney is "pro-life and upholds the Biblical family...." As stated, this is simply untrue. It would be accurate to say that Mitt Romney says that he is pro-life and claims to uphold the Biblical family. His deeds, however, have consistently contradicted his claims. People shilling for Romney who fail to take note of this fact can be said, at the very least, to co-operate in deception — unless, of course, they are simply ignorant of the facts.
Such ignorance is hardly excusable, however, since hardly a day passes without some new evidence that makes a mockery of the claim that Romney is pro-life.
Just this morning, I read a report that has Romney telling the Des Moines Register's leftist editorial board, "There's no legislation with regards to abortion that I'm familiar with that would become part of my agenda."
I immediately thought of the legislation that will be needed to repeal the coercion of conscience involved in Obamacare and remove the unaccountable decision-making bodies it establishes (with powers that deserve the "death panel" label often applied to them.) Romney's apologists say he will repeal Obamacare, but apparently he intends to do so without changing existing legislation. (That's a good trick if he can manage it, but I fear that tricking the conservatives who actually believe what he says about repealing Obamacare is the only trick he has in mind.)
Given Romney's record as Governor of Massachusetts, it also occurs to me to wonder what he means by legislation. Whenever people like me point out that then-Governor Romney abused his executive power to impose "gay marriage" in Massachusetts, Romney's apologists respond by claiming that he had to follow the "law" laid down by the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court. But the Court's assertion of marriage rights for homosexuals had no basis in the Constitution or laws of Massachusetts. In fact, the Massachusetts Constitution explicitly denies the state's judiciary any share in the legislative power of government. By claiming that his imposition of gay marriage was required by law, however, Romney treats the Court's opinion as legislation.
Because he takes the view that judicial opinions have the force of law, when Romney says that "no legislation with regards to abortion...would become part of my agenda," it is reasonable to assume that his words encompass Court decisions that alter the current jurisprudence regarding abortion.
One of the main arguments used by Romney's apologists is that he will appoint pro-life judges and justices to the Federal Judiciary. But it's Romney's view that in and of themselves, judicial opinions have a force of law that supersedes existing legislation — i.e., judges and justices can legislate from the bench. So the statement that his agenda includes no legislation with regards to abortion logically implies that it is not part of his agenda to appoint judges and justices likely to overturn Roe v. Wade. Please keep in mind that the logic I refer to derives from what Romney includes in the meaning of legislation (judicial opinions per se), not what you or I (or common sense and constitutional reasoning, for that matter) include in that term.
Of course, the fact that Romney speaks doesn't mean that we should actually take his words seriously (i.e., think through their implications), right? We should just take the opinion of this or that supposedly pro-life leader as sufficient proof that, no matter what common sense and reason suggest, Romney is pro-life, and that's all there is to it. Just as his claim that he's for the traditional family, notwithstanding his unlawful, unconstitutional imposition of gay marriage in Massachusetts; his commitment to continuing Obama's policy of commanding military personnel to accept open homosexuality in their ranks; his criticism of the Boy Scouts' policy against homosexuality in scouting; his insistence that honoring Dan Cathy's support for the traditional family (Chik-fil-A day) is no part of his campaign, etc.
Apparently, even though Romney wants no part of the effort to defend the unalienable right to life or the natural right of family life, we are supposed to accept him as pro-life and pro-family. Whatever else Romney does or does not achieve, if he's elected on this basis, these heretofore conservative political causes will have no practical political substance. Indeed, I think that's the whole point. If Mitt Romney is pro-life, if he is a defender of marriage, then adherence to those causes no longer requires political action; they no longer involve any purpose or intention with respect to law and government in the United States. They are just rhetorical devices, used to gull the voters whose goodhearted faith they appeal to and exploit. Romney keeps demonstrating this in various ways. But his shills are counting on self-described conservative voters to be like the people Christ described when he said: "...seeing they see not; hearing they hear not, neither do they understand."
Sadly, what they willfully refuse to see is likely to deprive their children and grandchildren of their birthright of liberty, for the willful blindness of one generation becomes the helpless ignorance of the generations yet to come. What a fateful, fatal surrender of America's hope! Why are some people so sure that the prospect of that surrender is "less evil" than the increasingly explicit political, legal, and civil turmoil Obama's re-election is likely to usher in? Is it really less evil quietly to surrender liberty than boisterously to fight for it? Or are these "lesser of evils" capitulators secretly certain only of this — that despite their professed love of decent liberty, they no longer have the faithful courage required to risk life and fortune for the sacred honor of upholding it?
[Will you say no to Obama? Will you say no to Romney? Will you say no to socialism, whatever party label it wears? Will you join in giving an unmistakable, visible political mandate to the GOP "Platform Republicans"? If you will consider the "Platform Republican" voter strategy for the 2012 election, just send me an email at alan@loyaltoliberty.com. Put "Yes I will" in the subject line. No further message is needed. Of course, your additional thoughts and suggestions will be welcomed. As the implementation of this approach develops, I'll send email updates to the reply address you use. Also, please share this idea with others so they can consider it for themselves.]
To see more articles by Dr. Keyes, visit his blog at LoyalToLiberty.com and his commentary at WND.com and BarbWire.com.
© Alan KeyesThe views expressed by RenewAmerica columnists are their own and do not necessarily reflect the position of RenewAmerica or its affiliates.
(See RenewAmerica's publishing standards.)
