In a recent interview with Human Events Mitt has the following to say.
As governor, I’ve had several pieces of legislation reach my desk, which would have expanded abortion rights in Massachusetts. Each of those I vetoed. Every action I’ve taken as the governor that relates to the sanctity of human life, I have stood on the side of life.
So talk is cheap, but action is real. And people can now look at my record.
Mitt’s campaign once again is trying to stop the bleeding with a quick response posted on his web site. To be fair, his team came back with some reasonable responses, first, the the Connector is an independent authority and second, abortion funding is a state mandate and that the Connector plans could not exclude funding. Basically, his response was that he had nothing to do with it and couldn’t do anything about it anyway. Right? Well some people didn’t think so, including Mitt himself.
In an interview with NPR Mitt discusses the possibility of stripping state mandates, such as in vitro fertilization. No mention of abortion.
Q: The new policies being offered may be affordable, but will they be so basic they won’t meet real medical needs?
These are not stripped-down, bare-bones policies. They include preventative care, primary care, tertiary care. They include mental health care. So it’s the health care that our citizens need and deserve. They do not necessarily have to include mandated benefits such as in vitro fertilization, which can be very, very expensive.
The National Review takes it a step further and reviews Mitt Romney’s options of a line item veto to eliminate mandates. Even though the legislature could override his veto, he could have “stood on the side of life” as he put it.
Romney proposed eliminating laws that made it hard to sell cheap, no-frills, high-deductible catastrophic insurance policies. (Make insurance more attractive to healthy young people, and you might not need to force them to buy it.) But the legislature refused to eliminate mandates on coverage, and required zero deductibles for the new plans for low-income people.
The governor has the ability to make modifications to this legislation through a line-item veto. He should use it to eliminate the mandates on coverage, strike the business taxes, and get rid of the individual mandate to buy insurance. (Or at least soften that mandate: His original proposal gave individuals more options in insuring themselves – some of them pretty creative – and did not rely on fines for enforcement.) Even if the overwhelmingly Democratic legislature rejects his changes, conservatives will appreciate his having made the effort.
Mitt’s choice was to do nothing. Eyeon08 asks the question: Did Romney mandate taxpayer-funded abortion? It’s a question conservatives are asking. We here in Massachusetts have already had enough of the Mitt Romney double talk to get elected, it’s now something that the folks on the other side of the aisle are experiencing. Enjoy.