Slog

News & Arts

The Stranger Suggests

Critics' Best Bets
Music Arts & Food

Line Out

Music & the City
at Night

  |  

Wednesday, February 29, 2012

2012 Romney Sounds Reasonable, Retracts Reasonable Opinion One Hour Later

Posted by on Wed, Feb 29, 2012 at 3:25 PM

Wait, Mitt Romney is against the Blunt Amendment? That means he believes the Catholic Church should pay for its employees' contraception? Looks like it!

Jim Heath, a reporter for ONN-TV in Ohio, just Tweeted a remarkable piece of news: Mitt Romney told him he does not support the Blunt amendment, which would empower employers and insurers to deny health coverage they find morally objectionable.

I mean, I guess this makes sense, since that's the Romneycare stance on contraception. I just figured that this version of Romney would flip-flop into extremist territory, as he's been doing for the last year. But it looks like he's taking a stand against the extremists in the Republican Party, this time. Here's video of the exchange:

Well, you know what? Good for Mitt Romney. Way to take a stand against his party's bullshit stance on contraception. This honestly shouldn't even be a debate in 2012, anyway. This could be the dawning of a whole new, moderate Romney...

...or his campaign could walk the whole thing back exactly one hour later:

“Regarding the Blunt bill, the way the question was asked was confusing," a spokesman told TPM. "Governor Romney supports the Blunt Bill because he believes in a conscience exemption in health care for religious institutions and people of faith.”

Scratch that whole "Good for Mitt Romney" thing. What a fucking asshole the entire Romney campaign is.

 

Comments (6) RSS

Oldest First Unregistered On Registered On Add a comment
1
It's worth reminding people just what Blunt's legislation would do, as described by someone extremely well informed: Blunt himself:
“The Respect the Rights of Conscience Act doesn’t mention any medical procedure. It doesn’t mention anything specifically. It treats Christian Scientists like Catholics, and Muslims just like Methodists,” Blunt says. “The principle is you cannot tell people they have to do things that violate their faith beliefs. It’s as simple as that.”

Note that Blunt himself invoked Christian Scientists. Observant Christian Scientists are opposed to medical care. Period. This is a law that as described by its author would literally make health insurance meaningless. And it's one that Willard "Mitt" Romney dare not oppose.
Posted by Warren Terra on February 29, 2012 at 3:53 PM
Zebes 2
If I'm a doctor, and I'm inspired by my religious convictions to deny someone help because I think they deserve to suffer and/or die, are my beliefs protected by all this religion-pandering hootenanny?
Posted by Zebes http://www.badrap.org/rescue/index.html on February 29, 2012 at 4:10 PM
Phoebe in Wallingford 3
Well, on the bright side he might flip back after we wins the nomination.
Posted by Phoebe in Wallingford on February 29, 2012 at 4:12 PM
Karlheinz Arschbomber 4
It's all bloody-rag waving hiding the true single platform item: Get Rid of the Black Guy.
Posted by Karlheinz Arschbomber http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arschbombe on March 1, 2012 at 1:46 AM
5
I am quite religious and I completely believe that each one has his belief's.
foreclosed homes las vegas
Posted by austinnd on March 1, 2012 at 2:07 AM
6
So access to contraception is going to be an election issue. Wonder why Repubs think that this is a winning issue for them.
Posted by Patricia Kayden on March 1, 2012 at 4:42 AM

Add a comment

Advertisement
 

All contents © Index Newspapers, LLC
1535 11th Ave (Third Floor), Seattle, WA 98122
Contact Info | Privacy Policy | Terms of Use | Takedown Policy