Radio shows

“When you lie down with dogs, you get up with fleas.” – Old English Proverb

By Jen Green

A friend passed along this article and said it “demanded” my attention. Well, it got it, but probably not for the reason they thought it would.

The more I read this article, the more I come to the conclusion that the nomination of Willard “Mitt” Romney for the GOP 2012 presidential candidate would the be downfall of the American conservative movement. In fact, just his candidacy might have already done it. The narrative in this article alone guarantees that.

Let’s look at it together.

The article is about a Massachusetts group Citizens for Life, who is billed as “the state’s leading anti-abortion group” and is also a state affiliate of National Right to Life.  Their newest project is to launch a ballot campaign to repeal RommeyCare.

Sounds good, doesn’t it? And it sounds like it could potentially be a real headache for Romney. But I repeat myself.

But as you read the article, the first glaring inconsistency is when Anne Fox, president of Massachusetts Citizens for Life, explains WHY they are initiating the ballot campaign. In her words, this is a pro-life issue because RomneyCare would “ration prenatal care and other medical services.” In my words, the state may turn away pregnant women, children, or even old people who need treatment. So, they may die . . . which is definitely a “life” issue.

I’m not saying I disagree with her, but does anyone else notice a glaring omission? If you have even a passing acquaintance with the life issue and RomneyCare you should be able to pick out the BIG WHITE ELEPHANT in this room.

$50 taxpayer-funded co-pay elective abortions.

State-subsidized baby killing. Ringing a bell? It should. They are both hallmarks of RomneyCare—the signature legislation of one former Governor Mitt Romney who is currently running as a “pro-life, pro-marriage social conservative” [circa 2007].  The same Romney who continues to say “he shares Citizens for Life commitment to life” stands by RomneyCare and its $50 co-pay abortions because it was “right for Massachusetts.”

So, I guess Romney thinks it’s completely compatible to be “committed to life” but be strongly supportive of Massachusetts babies being killed on the state’s dime. Of course you and I and Massachusetts Citizens for Life see this horrible inconsistency and publicly decry their former governor for his egregious hypocrisy!!

Wrong.

In fact, Anne Fox says, “I have no problem with Romney. In fact, if he’s the nominee, we will support him to the hilt.”

Wha . . . ?

But wait, there’s more! Seems that somewhere inside the Massachusetts Citizens for Life organization there actually is someone with a moral compass. They posted on the organization’s website this statement:

“RomneyCare covers abortions, and the mandate forces citizens to participate in a system which strives to make the murder of unborn children as cheap as $50,’’ the statement said. “There are, however, many more ways which this requirement offends against both the sanctity of human life, principles of ethical medicine and simple common sense.”

Now that’s a statement I can get behind. Unfortunately, Anne Fox, the president of Citizens for Life, could not. Citizens removed that statement after being contacted by Romney’s “liason to social conservatives” (ask yourself why he needs one of those! Can you imagine that being your job title?), and blamed it on a staffer. Fox said she was extremely upset about the statement.

Why should she be upset about a statement that is 100% true? Why “blame” putting a tough pro-life statement condemning a pro-baby killing law on your “pro-life” organization’s website on an errant staffer and take it down? Could it be that the “truth” would endanger your seat a the table? Could it be that your donors might read that statement and wonder why your group endorsed Romney the last go-round, and is saying they’d do it again even though he thinks its “right for Massachusetts” to kill babies on the state’s dime?

For his/her sake, I hope that staffer quit the very day Fox demanded that statement come down. If they didn’t, they are just as complicit in this debauchery as she is.

Back to the story. Fox is going to solicit her 200,000 donors to pay for this initiative. That is a pretty impressive donor list. She needs a total of 80, 396 signatures—with that list I’m sure she’ll get them. Then, this will be on the ballot.

But, there’s a problem. According to a recent state poll, 63% of Massachusetts residents support the law and only 21% oppose it. (It is Massachusetts, remember?). Since it became law, 400,000 more folks have healthcare—and I’ll bet every single one of them will find a way to vote, even if they shouldn’t be (if you catch what I’m sayin’).

Chances are, this ballot initiative—worded the way that it will be—will be soundly defeated. My prediction—in a landslide. And just who will end up looking good when that happens? Not Massachusetts Citizens for Life. Not every GOP candidate who demands the repeal of ObamaCare. Not you. Not me.

Romney.

Of course, if they worded the ballot initiative to mirror their supposed mission: to defend the right to life of all human beings both born and preborn, if they fought to repeal the $50 co-pay state subsidized abortions that Mitt Romney (whom Anne Fox says she will endorse to the hilt) signed into law, maybe they’d gain more traction, considering a larger percentage of Americans consider themselves to be “anti-abortion” than in the last 38 years. Maybe they’d get pro-life organizations from across the country to aid them in their righteous battle. Maybe I’d be writing a completely different story. Maybe. We’ll never know.

So, I gotta ask you. What’s going on here? I see a couple of possibilities.

Number one: Anne Fox and Massachusetts Citizens for Life are so impossibly compromised by their obsequious devotion to partisan politics that they’ve lost any semblance of a moral compass. This would be a horrible shame.

Number two: This whole escapade is just that—a farce—intended to help Romney when the ballot initiative fails and he can say, “See! It was the right thing for my state!” Then it’s a total sham.

What do you think?

The fact that we have to question this situation is excruciatingly sad. But we do. We’ve seen similar situations play out over and over again on this, the most seminal issue of our culture: life. I ask myself on a daily basis—how can we ask God to bless a nation that continues to kill the most innocent of all its citizens? How can we call ourselves “conservative Republicans” nay Christians, if  we endorse, support, and vote for a man who still, despite his “pro-life conversion” maintains this is “right” for his state? And yet, those who say they are “on our side” do it on a daily basis.

It’s because of situations like this that I agreed to volunteer my time for Iowa Pro-Life Action. It’s not like I don’t have plenty of other things to do (you should meet my boss, he’s a task master). But, as I said, life is the most important issue of our culture today—which is why its the most difficult fight. IPLA is a no-compromise group committed to passing life-at-conception (personhood) legislation here in Iowa and to supporting the legislators who do it with us. We are a grassroots organization with no ties to any group outside our state. The website is www.iowapla.org.

I know it may sound like a plug, and it is. We have to stop fighting for a better seat at the metaphorical table and start fighting this fight to win.