This is a transcript regarding Romney’s actions as governor discussed by Rush:

Before reading, in fairness to Mr. Romney, he did oppose this provision originally and his veto was overridden. However, he overturned a ruling by the Department of Health that would have protected the Catholic institutions from being forced to violate their personal convictions. I believe you will agree that what is described below is very troubling. Read the account and commentary below.

Are you ready? Remember, now, this is seven years ago. December 9th, 2005. Sitting down, Snerdley? “In a shocking turn-around, Massachusetts’s Governor Mitt Romney announced yesterday,” which would have been December 8th, 2005, “that Roman Catholic and other private hospitals in the state will be forced to offer emergency contraception to sexual assault victims under new state legislation, regardless of the hospitals’ moral position on the issue. The Republican governor had earlier defended the right of hospitals to avoid dispensing the ‘morning-after pill’ on the grounds of moral dissent. The Boston Globe reported that Romney’s flip on the issue came after his legal counsel, Mark D. Nielsen, concluded Wednesday,” again, we’re talking 2005 here, “that the new law supersedes a preexisting statute related to the abortifacient pill.” The morning-after pill.

What we have here is another telling sign of just how similar, if you will, Romneycare is to Obamacare.

This last sentence is damning against Romney and one many of us here on Redstate have been asking again and again: How can we nominate a man who supported the government take-over of health care even if it was “just at the state level”?

Rush continues with the following Boston Globe story on the matter:

The Boston Globe story on this December 9th, 2005: “Governor Mitt Romney reversed course on the state’s new emergency contraception law yesterday, saying that all hospitals in the state will be obligated to provide the morning-after pill to rape victims. The decision overturns a ruling made public this week by the state Department of Public Health that privately run hospitals could opt out of the requirement if they objected on moral or religious grounds. Romney had initially supported that interpretation, but he said yesterday that he had changed direction after his legal counsel, Mark D. Nielsen, concluded Wednesday that the new law supersedes a preexisting statute…”

So to be clear: the state Department of Public Health that privately run hospitals could opt out of the requirement if they objected on moral or religious grounds. But Romney OVERTURNED THIS DECISION.

Romney needs to answer:

1) Did governor Romney reject protecting the Church’s freedoms based only one man, his legal council?

6) Did he consider that the U.S. Constitution might prohibit a state from taking such actions and contact the US Attorney General?

This is very troubling…