Mitt Romney Was Against the Blunt-Rubio Amendment Before He Was For It

| February 29, 2012

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.

Related articles
Enhanced by Zemanta
Share on Tumblr

Tags: , , , , , , , ,

Category: Mitt Romney, Religious Liberty

About the Author ()

Shane Vander Hart is the founder and editor-in-chief of Caffeinated Thoughts.  He is also the President of 4:15 Communications, LLC, a social media & communications consulting/management firm.  He is a communications director for American Principles Project’s Preserve Innocence Initiative.  Prior to this Shane spent 20 years in youth ministry serving in church, parachurch, and school settings.  He has also served as an interim pastor and is a sought after speaker and pulpit fill-in.  Shane has been married to his wife Cheryl since 1993 and they have three kids.  Shane and his family reside near Des Moines, IA.  You can connect with Shane on Facebook or follow him on Twitter and Google +.
  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_LB3LDHWZXK7GXIW6DYVOYSVPHE SJ

    Speaking of Romney, did you hear the latest?  By ABC News’s projections, it seems he didn’t actually win MI.  You determine a “winner” by the number of delegates received, and ABC News is now projecting that each of the top two will receive 15 delegates.  It’s sort of like when Al Gore won the popular vote but didn’t win the presidency.  I don’t know if that tally is “official,” but you can hardly call Romney the winner if both candidates won 7 districts and both take away 15 delegates.  Gotta love it.  :)

    Oh, and one more thing.  I just heard that 100,000 votes in MI were cast before Santorum’s big three-state victory on February 7, and that he lost badly among those votes.  However, it seems that he won among all the votes that were cast yesterday.  Assuming that information is accurate, that’s definitely more good news.  It also explains how Romney tallied up the most overall votes, which had me scratching my head a bit yesterday.  

    Anyway, the way I see it, this week may have brought some frustrating battles, but it doesn’t mean we’re losing the war!  :)  

    As for the Blunt amendment, I actually think Romney may have just been plain ignorant about it. But as you said, neither option is terribly sexy. ;)

    • http://shanevanderhart.com/ Shane Vander Hart

      Interesting.  I knew about the delegates, but I didn’t hear about the 100,000 votes.

«
»