Now that Mitt Romney has the same exact stance on Roe v. Wade as President Obama, why would single-issue Christians still vote for him?
Oh, you haven’t heard? Romney wouldn’t challenge the Supreme Court ruling.
On Fox News (of course) a few days ago, Wisconsin Sen. Ron Johnson dismissed abortion as a campaign issue:
“I’ve had one person talking about the abortion issue during this entire campaign. It’s just — it’s not even an issue here in Wisconsin, it doesn’t even move the radar at all.”
Maybe that’s not a super clear statement about Romney’s position on the issue. But yesterday, another Romney surrogate, Norm Coleman, clarified that, if elected, the “pro-life” candidate wouldn’t do anything to hurt Roe v. Wade:
“President Bush was president eight years, Roe v. Wade wasn’t reversed. He had two Supreme Court picks, Roe v. Wade wasn’t reversed. It’s not going to be reversed.”
And, for good measure, Romney’s sister Jane (described as a bit of a loose cannon) said last month that Mitt would NEVER ban abortion:
“Women would take to the streets. Women fought for our choice, we’re not going to go back.”
Translation: Romney is personally opposed to abortion, but would do little to overturn the ruling that makes it a constitutional right to have one.
In other words, Romney has the EXACT position as President Obama on the issue.
Those single-issue Christian voters could have a problem with that. Especially considering that the rest of the Republican platform goes against Christian doctrine. Caring for the poor isn’t exactly a top priority of Paul Ryan’s budget plan.
There’s a long-standing belief that leading Republicans know that if Roe v. Wade is ever overturned, it will probably destroy the party. The moderates will leave. Women will leave. And single-issue Christian voters could leave if they aim to follow Christ’s teachings.
Romney has three choices: 1. State clearly that he opposes Roe v. Wade and wants to see legal abortion outlawed (he says he wants states to decide the issue – clearly a cop-out); 2. He can admit that he is personally opposed to abortion, but will do nothing to help overturn Roe v. Wade; 3. He can say nothing except some lame platitudes about how he wants it legal only for the health of the mother and in cases of rape.
I praise candidate Richard Mourdock of Indiana for his comments that he opposes rape in all circumstances, even in the case of rape. His belief is consistent and principled. That is admirable.
Romney doesn’t have those kinds of principles. Anti-abortion Christians, he doesn’t deserve your vote.