Below are Governor Romney's excellent remarks at the National Right To Life Convention. (In other new, who is the one candidate to not make an appearance at this event?)

This speech is a powerful defense of the life movement.

"Thank you Carol. We appreciate your many years of dedicated service to the cause of life.

"I was honored to accept your invitation to address the National Right to Life convention.

"I am humbled to be standing among the many who have toiled for the pro-life movement for so long, when I arrived at this place of principle only a few years ago.

"I appreciate the decades of dedication and the effective advocacy of people like Jim Bopp, the Special Adviser to my campaign on life issues.

"I know that it is not time but conviction that unites us.

"I proudly follow a long line of converts – George Herbert Walker Bush, Henry Hyde, and Ronald Reagan to name a few.

"I am evidence that your work, that your relentless campaign to promote the sanctity of human life, bears fruit.

"Consider the double standard at work here, by the way. When a pro-life figure changes to pro-abortion, they get praised for their courage. But when someone becomes pro-life, the pundits go into high dudgeon.

"And so, I am humbled but also grateful to be welcomed so warmly by so many with whom I share a common dedication.

"Anyone here from the pro-life community in Massachusetts knows they were always welcome in my office when I was Governor. Together we worked arm in arm.

"I can promise you this – you will be welcomed, and we will work together, if I'm fortunate enough to be elected President.

"People often ask me how a conservative Republican such as myself could have been elected in Massachusetts. I tell them that there were three things that helped account for my improbable victory.

"First, the state was in a fiscal crisis. A meltdown, of sorts. State government couldn't get budgets done on time. Another big tax hike looked like it was on the way. I promised to balance the budget without raising taxes. And together with the legislature, that's what we did. We eliminated a $3 billion shortfall. And by the time I left, my surpluses had replenished the rainy-day fund to over $2 billion.

"Second, we were in an economic crisis. Massachusetts was losing jobs every month and our citizens were afraid of losing more. I went to work to bring employers back to our state. By the end of the recession, we added 60,000 new jobs. We got our economic development act together – which explains much of the economic growth that the Commonwealth continues to experience even today.

"And third, we were in the beginnings of a cultural crisis. Social values also played a role in my campaign success. My opponent said she would sign a bill that would sanction same sex marriage. I said that I would oppose gay marriage and civil unions. My opponent favored bilingual education. I did not. I said that to be successful in America, children need to speak the language of America. And my opponent wanted to lower the age of consent for an abortion from 18 to 16 – and I did not.

"And so, social conservatives, many of them Democrats and Independents, joined fiscal conservatives to elect a Republican.

"That being said, I had no inkling that I would find myself in the center of the battlefield on virtually every major social question of our time.

"The first battle came when the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, by a one vote majority, found a right to same sex marriage in our constitution. John Adams wrote that constitution. I'm sure he'd be surprised.

"The Court said that traditional marriage – the natural union of one man and one woman – 'is rooted in persistent prejudices' and 'works a deep and scarring hardship … for no rational reason.'

"No rational reason? How about children? Isn't it clear that marriage provides the best environment for the development and nurturing of children? And isn't a child's development enhanced by having both a mother and a father?

"I believe that the Court got it wrong because it focused on the desires and perceived rights of adults.

"The Court should have focused on the needs of children. The ideal setting for the raising of a child is a home built on a marriage between a loving mother and father.

"Then came the 'slippery slope' – not the argument but the reality.

"The implications of the marriage decision quickly went well beyond adult marriage. Efforts were made to change birth certificates by removing 'mother' and 'father' and replacing them with 'parent A' and 'parent B.' I said no to that. And parents of a child in second grade were told that their son is required to listen to the reading of a book called the 'King and the King,' about a prince who marries another prince. The school's rationale was since same sex marriage was legal, the education system should advance the idea.

"And then another slide along the slippery slope. The Catholic Church was forced to end its adoption service, which was crucial in helping the state find homes for some of our most difficult to place children. Why? Because the Church favors placements in homes with a mother and a father. Now, even religious freedom was being trumped by the new-found 'right' of gay marriage. I immediately drafted and introduced legislation to grant religious liberty protection, but the legislature wouldn't even take it up.

"When I was Governor, we took every conceivable step within the law to stop, block or slow down this unprecedented court decision.

"Our goal was to take the decision away from the Court and give it back to the people. But yesterday, the Massachusetts state legislature, at the urging of the new Democratic Governor, refused to allow the voice of the people to be heard.

"The fight is not over.

"We need to take this battle to Washington again. We need to explain the far-reaching implications of the push to dramatically change our marriage laws. Now is the time to pass a federal marriage amendment to protect marriage in all 50 states.

"In the midst of that battle, another arose. It involved cloning and embryo farming for purposes of research. I studied the subject in great depth. I have high hopes for stem cell research. But for me, a bright moral line is crossed when we create new life for the sole purpose of experimentation and destruction.

"That's why I fought to keep cloning and embryo farming illegal.

"It was during this battle that I began to focus a good deal more of my thinking on abortion.

"When I first ran for office, while I was always personally opposed to abortion, I considered whether this should be a private decision or whether it should be a societal and government decision. I concluded that I would support the law as it was in place – effectively, the pro-choice position.

"And I was wrong.

"What became clear during the cloning debate is how the harsh logic of an absolute right to abortion had cheapened the value of human life to the point that rational people saw a human embryo as nothing more than mere research material to be used, and then destroyed.

"The slippery slope was taking us to racks and racks of living human embryos, Brave New World-like, awaiting termination.

"What some see as just a clump of cells is actually a human life. Human life has identity. Human life has the capacity to love and be loved. Human life has a profound dignity, undiminished by age or infirmity.

"My experience as Governor taught me firsthand that the threat to our culture is real and those in a position to do so must take action to defend it.

"Times of decision are moments of great clarity. Before I was Governor, the life issue was just that, an issue. But when responsibility for life or ending life was placed in my hands, I made the right decision. I chose life.

"Just like some others in the pro-life movement, a moment of decision became a defining moment.

"And so, every time I faced a decision as Governor that related to life, I came down on the side of life.

"I fought to ban cloning.

"I fought to ban embryo farming.

"I fought to define life as beginning at conception rather than at the time of implantation.

"I fought for abstinence education in our schools.

"And I vetoed a so-called emergency contraception bill that gave young girls abortive drugs without prescription or parental consent.

"That is my record as Governor of Massachusetts.

"Recently, I was attacked by one of my opponents because when I ran for Governor I promised to maintain the status quo with regards to laws relating to abortion in Massachusetts. Of course, I kept that promise. But in Massachusetts, that meant vetoing pro-choice legislation – as I consistently did as Governor. That's why last month I was honored with an award from Massachusetts Citizens for Life in recognition of the actions I took as Governor to protect life.

"The next president, especially if faced with a hostile Congress, will be confronted with many legislative tests, such as challenging the Hyde amendment and advancing cloning. You can be sure that I will be bringing my gubernatorial experience – and my veto pen – with me to Washington.

"The larger problem is there are some people who believe that their pro-choice views must be imposed on everyone. More and more, the vehicle for this imposition is the courts.

"Some say that it is 'OK' for the courts to impose their personal public policy preferences on society. I am not among them.

"Make no mistake: the claimed rights of abortion-on-demand and same-sex marriage are not in the Constitution.

"But the problem of an activist bench goes beyond the issue of abortion and gay marriage that.

"Slowly but surely, the courts have taken it upon themselves to be the final arbiters of our lives. They have forgotten that the essence of democracy is the right to govern ourselves.

"Chief Justice John Roberts put it best at his confirmation hearing, when he described the role of a judge. 'Judges and Justices are servants of the law,' he said, 'not the other way around. Judges are like umpires. Umpires don't make the rules, they apply them … and I will remember that it's my job to call balls and strikes and not to pitch or bat.'

"Now that's the type of Justice that I would appoint to the Court.

"On the tenth anniversary of Roe v. Wade, Ronald Reagan observed that the Court's decision had not yet settled the abortion debate. It had become 'a continuing prod to the conscience of the nation.'

"More than thirty years later, that is still the case. Numerous court decisions have not settled this question, but have further divided the nation. And Roe v. Wade continues to work its destructive logic throughout our society.

"This cannot continue.

"At the heart of American democracy is the principle that the most fundamental decisions should ultimately be decided by the people themselves.

"I certainly believe in treating all people with respect and dignity. You can't be a pro-life Governor in the bluest of blue states without understanding that there are heartfelt and thoughtful arguments on both sides of the question.

"It is our great task to persuade our fellow citizens of the truth of our convictions.

"Strengthening our country and our families, protecting marriage and human life and preserving for our children the true blessings of liberty; these are noble purposes. I am confident we are worthy of them.

"After all, we are a decent people who have a commitment to the worth and dignity of every person. This is ingrained in our hearts and etched in our national purpose.

"Thank you."

Labels: abortion, event, pro-life, speech

Today’s Supreme Court decision today, Gonzales v. Carhart, emphasizes two things of political importance. First, and this was echoed in John McCain’s statement about the decision, is the importance of having the right judges on the Court. There is little doubt that the federal law in question would have been decided differently had Justice O’Connor still been on the Court. The additions of Justices Roberts and Alito were pivotal in, as Mitt stated today, “upholding a ban on a practice that offends basic human decency.” For GOP contenders, the easy conclusion is the need to appoint “strict constructionist” judges.

Is that the only conclusion? No. This case stemmed from Congress’ and the President’s pro-active decision to test previous abortion decisions through passing legislation, specifically the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2003. Conservative legislators partnered with a conservative Executive to challenge the prevailing legal atmosphere through reasonable restrictions on abortion. Thus, the change brought about today was not purely a judicial phenomenon. The President had an important role in signing legislation that furthered his view on abortion. Had the President not been willing to sign such a bill, the current case would not have been brought, and thus the successful change in abortion law would not have occurred. Therefore, appointing “strict constructionist” judges is hardly sufficient for a Presidential candidate. A President who simply deferred to the judiciary would abdicate a pivotal role in bringing about appropriate changes in the law.

This is one reason why Romney’s statement below is so important.

Update: Here's a good follow-up in the American Spectator.

Labels: abortion, judges, pro-life

David Brody: McCain Supporters, Why don't your sit down before I tell your...

Yesterday, we noted that David Brody, CBN News Capitol Hill Correspondant, was asking Pro-lifers to email him feedback on this question:

"As a pro-life voter, who would you vote for? John McCain or Mitt Romney? Who do you view as the candidate that will best represent the pro-life movement.?

The response? "It wasn't even close. More than 90% of people who emailed me said Romney was the guy, hands down." Brody gave some sample emails:

"Romney’s personal life and religion, a religion I do not share, demonstrate to me a profound love and respect for family and children. I believe he is sincerely and deeply committed to protecting the rights of the unborn."

But how about McCain. (here's the "why don't you sit down first" part):

"McCain has risked little politically with his "life" record (being from a Red State but still never being on the forefront or frontlines of the pro-life fight.) Sure he's got a "neat and tidy" voting record to refer to, but, even though he's "the king" of sponsoring new legilsation, I'm not aware of him taking a leadership role for "pro-life" causes. Plus, he's constantly shown that he's willing to "show-up" the conservative base if it suits him at the time."

Brody cites a few more emails then summarizes:

A couple of interesting themes emerge here. Clearly, there is a distrust with McCain on the life issue. I'm sure his handlers are beside themselves wondering why a solid 20 year pro-life record may not resonate as much as it should....

Part of the distrust with McCain clearly centers on how McCain hasn't made the lfie issue paramount in his career. He's more a campaign finance, anti-pork spending type guy. Yes, he's a reliable Senate vote on life issues (except on embryonic stem cell research) but he typically stays away from the issue. For that matter, Romney tried to do that as well in liberal Massachusetts. That makes sense. But now he's running for President. Will he move that issue up on his agenda?

Here's the big difference between McCain, Romney and Rudy. The one guy who will actually stand up to lead and defend the pro-life movement is the former pro-choice-leaning governor from a blue state.

Go figure!

Labels: abortion, cbn news, david brody, david brody mitt romney, McCain, pro-life, rudy

MMM: Do you think pro-life issues will affect the Republican Primary?




Many thanks to James Bopp Jr. for taking the time to talk with us.

Labels: Bopp, Endorsements, pro-life, Romney

Here's a short snippet from an interview with Mike Gallagher, the man with the ultimate conservative conversion story.

Labels: abortion, pro-life, radio, video

Today the Romney Campaign announced that James Bopp, Jr. Esq., has endorsed Mitt Romney for President and that he will serve as a special adviser on Life issues.



This is a major pickup for Romney. Let's take a look at it:

WHO IS JAMES BOPP, JR. ESQ. (View full Bio here)

• General Counsel to National Right to Life Committee (1978-present)


• General Counsel to James Madison Center for Free Speech(1994-present


• Special Counsel to Focus on the Family(2004 - present)


• President of National Legal Center for the Medically Dependent and Disabled, Inc(1984-present)


• Practice area: Constitutional Law; Civil Litigation; Non-Profit Corporations Law; Election and Campaign Finance Law; Civil Appeals; Administrative Agency Practice


• RNC member

WHY IS THIS IMPORTANT

This is important on two levels. First, James Bopp is a trusted figure in the Pro-life movement. Hundreds, if not thousands of local pro-life leaders have used James Bopps legal memos in their activism. He has spoken at many pro-life events and conventions, including three that I've been at. This will go a long way in gaining the trust of the pro-life movement.

It is also important on another level. James Bopp is one of the leading opponents of Campaign Finance Reform Laws, or put another way: McCain-Feingold.

Consider the following:

Bopp's actions at the RNC Winter Meeting:

Members of the Republican Nat'l Committee passed on Thursday a
strongly-worded resolution rebuking a signature accomplishment of their party's
frontrunner, Sen. John McCain -- his Bipartisan Campaign Finance Act, known as
McCain-Feingold.

The 13-paragraph resolution, sponsored by RNC member and campaign finance
litigator James Bopp Jr, urges Congress to "adopt common sensereforms of BCRA"

Bopp's latest legal actions:

The U.S. Supreme Court has agreed to take another look at the federal ban on
naming specific candidates in "issue ads" immediately before elections.

The ban, which applies 30 days before primaries and 60 days before general
elections, is a key provision in the 2002 McCain-Feingold Act. The court
upheld the act three years ago, when Sandra Day O'Connor was still an
associate justice.

She has since retired and has been replaced by Samuel Alito.

FINAL ANALYSIS:

Giuliani is completely unacceptable to Pro-Life issue voters. McCain, though, isn't as obvious in his threat to the Pro-Life movement. Romney's latest endorsement gives him a forceful, pro-life voice to remind the movement why McCain has been a threat to the movement.

It's a two-for-one deal for the Romney Campaign: burnishing Romney's pro-life credentials and tarnishing McCain's.

Labels: Endorsements, Giuliani, McCain, pro-life, Romney

First, I ask you to sign the pledge! Hosted by NZ Bear at TTLB, the pledge indicates that you will ban your contributions to any Republican who signs a resolution against the President's decision. You can click here to sign the pledge.
Second, there's been a lot of talk today about Brownback's attack on Mitt. Matt Lewis at Townhall makes some cogent remarks about Brownback's own "lifelong" dedication to the Pro-life movement. To their credit, CBN news interviewed Brownback with some poignant questions.

Third, if you haven't had a chance yet... be sure to make your vote known on the Pajamas Media poll. (see below)

Fourth, Erik at RedState is not enthused with the current slate of candidates. In my mind, Look, no one can come away from this address by Mitt Romney on Iran and not be a little enthused about he guy.

Finally. the charge of flipping. Listen, if we can offer support and redemption to those who actually had abortions, why can't we offer support and redemption to those who now agree with us?

For your convenience, here's the poll:

Labels: flipping, mitt, poll, pro-life

Justin reports from the March for Life and the FRC bloggers forum. Interviews with Mike Pence and other news excerpts



SUBSCRIBE TO THE PODCAST CLICK BELOW:




OR use our feed:

XML Podcast Feed

Labels: mittcast, podcast, pro-life

Governor Mitt Romney on Today's "March for Life"
Monday, Jan 22, 2007

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
CONTACT: Kevin Madden (857) 288-6390

Boston, MA - Today, on the 34th anniversary of the Roe v. Wade decision, Governor Mitt Romney released the following statement commemorating the annual March For Life:

"Across this nation, thousands of Americans are gathering in their local communities and in our nation's capital to reaffirm their dedication to protecting the sanctity of life. We must create a culture of life where the weakest and most innocent among us are protected.

"While there are well-meaning people on both sides of this debate, no one can deny that when hundreds of thousands of abortions are performed every year, it should be a major concern for a nation as great as ours. If we commit ourselves to promoting a culture of life, I believe that one day our nation's laws may reflect what is in our hearts."

The above was copied from MittRomney.com.

Technorati Tags: Mitt Romney, 2008, Presidential Election, Election 2008.

Labels: abortion, campaign, communications, family, mitt, press release, pro-life, Romney

Rapid response mentality. Take advantage of the network that we have.

Great keynote by Ramesh today. FRC will have the video up later. Couple of great lines:

"The media, in its efforts to be balanced, has contributed to the mythology [of abortion law] than debunking it."

Referring to a glowing review of a NARAL leader Ramesh indicated that we'll probably have to wait until the "apocoplypse" before we see one about a pro-lifer.

Students at Hogwarts speak the name of Voldermort more frequently than the press mentions partial birth abortion."

I asked about his perception about the media and forcing a admission of bias. I'll write some more about this later.

Right now we're listening to a panel of bloggers:

Jonathan and Deborah Flora, A Distant Thunder
David All, media strategist/President of The David All Group
Rob Bluey, Heritage Foundation
Mary Katherine Ham, blogger at TownHall.com
LaShawn Barber, blogger at LaShawnBarber.com
Timothy Ruchti, blogger at Pro-Life Blogs




Peter Shinn, Founder, ProLifeUnity.com

Labels: event, pro-life