I’m getting whip lash, Romney changes positions all in one day… via Greg Sargent.
Mitt Romney was asked about the Blunt-Rubio amendment which would empower employers and insurers to deny health coverage they deem morally objectionable (abortions, contraceptives, etc.)
First he was against it:
I’m not for the bill. But, look, the idea of presidential candidates getting into questions about contraception within a relationship between a man and a woman, husband and wife, I’m not going there.
So he’s ok with religious conscience being violated? Then apparently confused, realizing he stepped in it changed course…
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
Yeah sure, the question was “confusing.” Either he’s being disingenuous or he’s ignorant on the issue. Neither option is good.
- Romney sends mixed signals on conscience protections (online.worldmag.com)
- Did Romney Really Just Say He Does Not Support the Blunt Amendment? (theblaze.com)
- Romney and the Conscience Protection Amendment (spectator.org)
- Romney Camp Blames Blunt Amendment Answer On ‘Confusing’ Question *UPDATED: Statement Released (bigjournalism.com)
- Romney Flip-Flops on Blunt Birth-Control Amendment (newsmax.com)
Latest posts by Shane Vander Hart (see all)
- The 2018 Iowa Gubernatorial Race – Three Questions - December 6, 2016
- Calvinism and the Southern Baptist Convention - December 5, 2016
- A Defense of Christians From an Unlikely Source - December 1, 2016