Within the GOP, there is a wide-range of positions on abortion. And while the official platform position is one supportive of a Human Life Amendment to the Constitution, there is a sizable group that simply believes that Roe v. Wade needs to be overturned and the matter left to "the several states". This latter group includes folks who are vocally pro-choice and vocally pro-life, but who agree that the major flaw of Roe is its nationalizing the so-called "right to an abortion" in a manner that cut off political debate and imposed a "one size fits all" policy on a sharply divided nation. Such folks prefer that the issue of abortion be dealt with as a question of federalism not federal preemption.

Mitt Romney seems to have placed himself in this camp with his latest statements about abortion.

Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney said Tuesday in a Nevada television interview that he supports letting states "make their own decision" about whether to keep abortion legal.

"My view is that the Supreme Court has made an error in saying at the national level one size fits all for the whole nation," Romney told Nevada political columnist Jon Ralston in a televised interview. "Instead, I would let states make their choices."

Asked by Ralston if it was "OK" with him that Nevada is a "pro-choice state," Romney said, "I'd let states make their own decision in this regard. My view, of course, is I'm a pro-life individual. That's the position I support. But, I'd let states have this choice rather than let the federal government have it."

Some are going to accuse Romney of waffling on the abortion issue. I don't think that is fair, and believe that such criticism is coming from those who were opponents from the get-go -- both from the hard-core pro-life advocates who cannot be reconciled to his previous pro-choice rhetoric and the liberals who would never have supported a clean-living conservative Mormon under any condition.

Frankly, I fall into the same camp as Romney. There is no way that a Human Life Amendment is going to pass in the short term. And the legislative solution of a congressional resolution stating that the 14th Amendment applies to the unborn would be legally weak and politically unsustainable as partisan control of Congress shifts back and forth. The best we who are pro-life can hope for is a situation in which we can fight and win the battle on the state level, with the ultimate goal of creating a political reality in which stronger defenses of the unborn can be enacted. That doesn't indicate tepid support for a pro-life position -- it reflects a reasoned strategy towards the goal of protecting innocent human life. And I say that as someone who has been involved in pro-life activities for over 30 years, including service as the founding vice president of the pro-life group at my college.

OPEN TRACKBACKING AT Perri Nelson's Website, Blog @ MoreWhat.com, The Virtuous Republic, Rosemary's Thoughts, The Random Yak, Nanotechnology Today, Jeanette's Celebrity Corner, Big Dog's Weblog, Nuke's News & Views, Stuck On Stupid, Webloggin, The Bullwinkle Blog, The Amboy Times, Conservative Cat, Conservative Thoughts, Inside the Northwest-Territory, third world county, Right Celebrity, , The World According to Carl, Planck's Constant, The Pink Flamingo, Dumb Ox Daily News, The Yankee Sailor, and Gone Hollywood, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.

Posted by: Greg at 01:18 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 575 words, total size 6 kb.