About those Mitt Romney abortion 'lies'

Earlier this week, Mitt Romney told The Des Moines Register that he wouldn’t pursue abortion-related legislation during his presidency. ???There???s no legislation with regards to abortion that I???m familiar with that would become part of my agenda,??? he explained to the editorial board.

Doubtlessly, this sort of namby-pamby answer will drive social conservatives nuts. The Romney campaign clarified his remarks, explaining that the candidate was “proudly pro-life and will be a pro-life president.”  Andrea Saul told National Review that ???Governor Romney would of course support legislation aimed at providing greater protections for life.???

But Romney did write in NRO more than a year ago that, “I will advocate for and support a Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act to protect unborn children who are capable of feeling pain from abortion.”

Moving to the middle? No doubt. And it’s certainly no secret that the GOP nominee has changed his position on the issue. “I believe that since Roe vs. Wade has been the law for 20 years that we should sustain and support it and I sustain and support that law and the right of a woman to make that choice,??? he explained during a 1994 debate with Ted Kennedy — another politician who’s  changed his position on abortion.

Whoops … I apologize: you evolve into a pro-choice position, you flip-flop into a pro-life one.

You can trust Romney on this issue, or not. As for Democrats, they’re all in.

All that said, there is a real dishonesty in the Democrats’ reaction. The New Republic called it “Mitt Romney’s Weaselly Abortion Lie.” Here’s the basic two-pronged case from Brad Woodhouse, the Democratic Party communication director, via Twitter.

1 -No, Romney can???t get rid of Planned Parenthood, he can only get rid of government funding for the organization. But what does that have to do with abortion anyway? Repeatedly we???re told that Planned Parenthood doesn’t use taxpayer funding for abortion procedures. Surely you’ve heard that to do so would be illegal via the toothless Hyde Amendment.

Of course, in reality, dollars are fungible and taxpayers do fund abortions — which is why Democrats are so accommodating in the first place and why they’re bringing it up now.

2 – Sorry, those who supported the Blunt Amendment, which would have allowed employers with moral objections to the coercive coverage requirements of Obamacare to opt out, do not want to ???let employers make health care decisions for women.???

Since when do women (and men) have a State/God-given right to work for a particular company? That???s a choice employees make. And most companies already cover birth control anyway. You have the choice to work for someone whose values comport to yours, or you’re free to get “reproductive” health care anywhere you please, including your local, well-funded, Planned Parenthood.

The only choice being taken away is the choice of the employer — which in this day doesn’t seem to count for much.