Redstate

Given the byzantine nature of Massachusetts law, I wouldn't be surprised if his counsel's advice was correct -- at least as far as existing Massachusetts law was concerned, his personal views on the matter notwithstanding. Have you ever read the statutes here?

It would have been a *much worse* thing for a man who is contemplating a Presidential run to issue an edict as Governor that would be overturned by the Massachusetts Supreme Court.

The clear and undisputed state of the law prior to the 2005 act was that religious and other private hospitals were allowed a conscience exemption from distributing "emergency contraception." The only question presented was whether the new statute superseded that law.

The head of the DHS took a look at it, and independently concluded that it did not. Romney (again, a Harvard Law grad) took a look at it and agreed. Therefore, it's clear that this interpretation was at least colorable, and one upon which a person who was going to make a point of taking a stand on the side of life every single time would have put up a fight.

If, in the end, he got overruled by the Mass. Supreme Court, I fail to see how that hurts him at all, since that sort of thing happens all the time.

------------
Fnord.

a plus on this side of the aisle. Almost like losing at the Ninth Circuit.
_______________________________
If "pro" is the opposite of "con", what is the opposite of "progress"?

First, I don't think that you have a proper understanding of what stare decisis means - or, in any case, that you are deliberately forgetting it for the purposes of seeking to lampoon me. A judge can quite honestly state that he has respect for the principle of stare decisis and yet flatly overrule an old precedent which has become invalid due to changed facts, changed law, or just plain erroneous interpretation the first time around. Happens all the time.

Second (although I can't fathom what this has to do with the OP), I've read the TNR article, and I don't agree that no Mormon can ever be President. But in the coming year, those kinds of articles are going to be in publications that are read a lot more widely than TNR, and if you read the whole thing, it goes into some pretty painstaking detail. It's something that will have to be dealt with in a sincere fashion.

Third, I am still waiting for one of the legion of Romney supporters who have criticized me for quoting Romney accurately to just be honest and accuse me of "Swift Boating" him. Honestly. It'd make my day.

------------
Fnord.

Is why you think Romney's statement here is wrong:

Asked yesterday to elaborate on that position, Romney said simply that the law was the law and that the state had to follow it. The governor characterized his own beliefs about emergency contraception this way: ''My personal view, in my heart of hearts, is that people who are subject to rape should have the option of having emergency contraception or emergency contraception information."

You're talking about providing Plan B or information about Plan B to rape victims here. If you're going to castigate Romney over that decision, I frankly don't understand why. I'm pro-life also, but if a woman comes into a hospital having been beaten and raped and impregnated, you bet I'd want her to be able to have access to Plan B.

The issue is whether conscientious Catholics (and those of other religions - but since we're talking Massachusetts, it's mostly Catholics) are required by law to dispense medication which could get them basically cut off from their church.

------------
Fnord.

I think that the Church is wrong on this issue. I think that if a woman comes into an emergency room beaten and bloodied and impregnated after having been raped by a stranger, and doctors can ascertain that she was beaten and bloodied and raped by a stranger (or someone closer to her) that she should have access to Plan B. If I had a daughter, I would *demand* that she know about it, especially because the first 24 hours after the rape are the most important. You wait beyond that, and you're going to have a pregnancy. And then you're going to have a conventional abortion.

So you tell me which is worse? This is not Heaven, Leon. This is Earth. And here on Earth, women get raped by strange men and have to go to emergency rooms. Given that unpleasant fact, you bet I want to have the emergency contraceptive available to them. And if the Catholic church doesn't like that, then my advice would be to pressure the Massachusetts legislature to write an explicit provision into the law that such patients be transferred to other facilities, immediately.

But I fail to see how that helps Catholic hospitals except that they can say they're washing their hands of this entire sordid business.

Suddenly you've gone from debating Romney's interpretation of the law, to debating religion?

I'm suing for whiplash, the way you just jerked my neck back.
--
Run like Reagan!

The way the article Leon links to describes the situation, the DHS believes that the Catholic objectors to providing Plan B are OK even with this "flip-flop" by the governor, who initially vetored it.

Still an open question for me is why he changed his mind. In other words, the DHS believes that they're still on firm legal ground when they tell Catholic hospitals they don't have to provide Plan B, the governor's most recent position notwithstanding.

So why did he do it?

I think that the Church is wrong on this issue. I think that if a woman comes into an emergency room beaten and bloodied and impregnated after having been raped by a stranger, and doctors can ascertain that she was beaten and bloodied and raped by a stranger (or someone closer to her) that she should have access to Plan B. If I had a daughter, I would *demand* that she know about it, especially because the first 24 hours after the rape are the most important. You wait beyond that, and you're going to have a pregnancy. And then you're going to have a conventional abortion.

Good for you, her, and everyone else. She can go elsewhere. There's no need to force what few practicing Catholics there are in that Godforsaken State (excuse me, Commonwealth) to materially cooperate in evil just to make you feel better.

So you tell me which is worse? This is not Heaven, Leon. This is Earth. And here on Earth, women get raped by strange men and have to go to emergency rooms. Given that unpleasant fact, you bet I want to have the emergency contraceptive available to them. And if the Catholic church doesn't like that, then my advice would be to pressure the Massachusetts legislature to write an explicit provision into the law that such patients be transferred to other facilities, immediately.

My advice would be to remove all Catholic hospitals from Massachusetts immediately, and let the wastes of skin in the Legislature make up the gap on their own.

But I fail to see how that helps Catholic hospitals except that they can say they're washing their hands of this entire sordid business.

Gee, I don't know. I guess we could have Jewish hospitals gas mental patients while we're at it.

-----------
Even those who learn from history are surrounded by those doomed to repeat it.

My advice would be to remove all Catholic hospitals from Massachusetts immediately, and let the wastes of skin in the Legislature make up the gap on their own.

Strangely enough, I think that's a ludicrous idea in practice but it's a fantastic one in principle. The problem in this "Godforsaken State" as you describe it is that while most of the population is Catholic, none of them want to stand up for it. None. Of. Them. And it is not the Governor who makes the laws. Like so many other places around the country, they have been succesfully led to believe that their religion is the problem. They continue to elect the skin jobs to the Legislature and they continue to apologize in a pitiful, withering fashion for their Catholic beliefs. Frankly, I think Romney was telling them something very simple: "Once I leave here, you guys are on your own with this crew. Good luck."

Who knows what the real reason for his reversal was? I'd like to know why his counsel advised him the way he did. Maybe Romney found that the so-called "Catholics" in this state weren't willing to part with Dollar One to help him in his Presidential bid? A lot of New Englanders can be very stingy.

Good for you, her, and everyone else. She can go elsewhere. There's no need to force what few practicing Catholics there are in that Godforsaken State (excuse me, Commonwealth) to materially cooperate in evil just to make you feel better.

If she was transported by ambulance, the ambulance would go to the nearest hospital, private or not. Somehow I don't think a rape victim would be of the right mind to remember to ask if it is a Catholic hospital or not in transit.

So you'd coerce a Catholic into performing what she believes is murder for the convenience of another.

Gotcha.

Next up, Quaker front-line infantry. After all, we need more troops.

-----------
Even those who learn from history are surrounded by those doomed to repeat it.

I think every day about the ideal world: where no woman ever aborts a child, especially for "convenience", where no embryo is destroyed in the name of "medical progress" and where no woman is ever raped. And most especially one where no woman feels free to lie about an abortion she never had for reasons of relationship realpolitik.

One in which people everywhere understand children for what they are: God's blessing to us all. We're doing better than most cultures ever have at reaching that goal, but we're not there absolutely, and my suspicion is that we never will be. In that eventuality, I'd like to see us do the least harm.

You'll notice that my previous wishes could be characterized as inherently sexist. And it is true: because in a lot of these instances (yourself notwithstanding) the problem is really men. Generally speaking, women don't rape men. They also don't impregnate men. And furthermore they don't usually have much efficacy at telling men what to do with their penises.

Generally, we tell each other what to do all the time. The kindergarten-level libertarian argument about people telling other people what to do with the latter's bodies is relevant only in a world in which we don't already do precisely that.

-----------
Even those who learn from history are surrounded by those doomed to repeat it.

And a woman gets trundled out of an ambulance after having been dragged into an alley near Beacon Hill and raped. She's sitting there bleeding and she asks you: "Do you know anything about Plan B? Can you please give me some of it?"

What do you do, Leon? Do you tell her: "Well, let's get all these cuts healed up and see whether or not your face will ever heal first, before we worry about whether we're going to make you carry that rapist's child to term, because my religion forbids me from talking about this pill? Let's call the chaplain and see what he has to say."

"Because in some mystical sense God meant for this to happen to you and all life is precious, even the baby the rapist has now conceived in your womb when he pulled you into the alley, bashed you up against a wall, put his hands over your mouth, ripped down your panties and raped you."

If you don't like it, go somewhere else. Nobody should be forced by the government to provide services they don't want to provide, especially when those services might contradict their religious beliefs.
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman

Intended for that to happen, they would have written it into the law. And if they intended that to happen, the people in Massachusetts would have forced them to write it into the law. To blame Governor Romney for what the people of this state decided to do through their elected and overwhelmingly Democratic legislature is the cheapest of cheap shots. Romney has taken a principled stand in Massachusetts about the Supreme Court legislating same-sex marriage. But to me it is only consistent that if this is what the People of Massachusetts have decided through their OVERWHELMINGLY Democrat legislature, that's what they have to deal with.

In Massachusetts, as I've said before:

34 - 6 Democrat in the Senate
135 - 21 Democrat in the House

This is what the people of this state VOTED FOR, in overwhelming numbers.

Like he had a good argument for keeping the policy as it was in the case of private institutions. He choose not to (a couple days after he choose to do so). John Kerry would be proud. I'm not anti-Romney, simply because there's nobody better on the scene, yet, but he's certainly got some problems.
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman

I think he has left this issue up to the voters in Massachusetts. I think what he did in one of his final acts as Governor was to say that the Legislature made this law and if the People of Massachusetts want to change it, that's their job. The Massachusetts legislature could change this law as their first act of business if the people in this state wanted them to, but apparently the trend is for them not to.

That does not mean that Romney is pro-abortion. It means that as an outgoing governor he has decided not to fight this particular fight and concentrate instead on his Presidential bid, which it looks like he's not going to be able to do anyway, if the venom here on RedState is any indication.

.

Ambulances take a patient to the closest hospital unless the patient specifically tells them otherwise. I think it is safe to assume a fresh rape victim is not of the right mind to ask what the hospital's policies on emergency contraceptives are.

The abortifacent cocktail in question is effective for many hours.

Just a thought.

-----------
Even those who learn from history are surrounded by those doomed to repeat it.

I'd like to try and sum up my understanding of your understanding of this issue and your objection to Catholic hospitals providing Plan B in the event that a rape victim requests it, or providing information about it (with an offer of transportation to another facility) even if she doesn't:

1) Life begins at the instant of conception, and even if implantation has not occurred and the embryo is not viable as such, it is tantamount to murder for a woman to terminate that pregnancy.

2) In asserting that you make no distinction between a pregnancy that is the result of a consensual, church-sanctioned act of reproductive sex between man and wife and a pregnancy that occurs as the result of a violent, criminal act perpetrated on an innocent victim.

and as a corollary of #2 you believe that

2a) Regardless of the cause of conception, a woman with a fertilized ovum in her body is morally bound to carry that child to term under your interpretation of Catholic belief and

2b) Hospitals that treat such patients have not just the right but the duty to refuse to offer them abortafacients and/or information about abortafacients such as Plan B.

Is that a fair summary of what you are saying?

[1]Life begins at the instant of conception, and [2]even if implantation has not occurred and [3]the embryo is not viable as such, [4]it is tantamount to murder for a woman to terminate that pregnancy.

You packed too much into this. [1] is correct. [2] is correct, because it is irrelevant to [1]. [3] is awfully difficult to discern without one heck of a lot of intrusive testing, and is therefore outside the scope of this discussion. [4] It is not "tantamount to." It is

In asserting that you make no distinction between a pregnancy that is the result of a consensual, [1]church-sanctioned act of reproductive sex between man and wife and [2]a pregnancy that occurs as the result of a violent, criminal act perpetrated on an innocent victim.

[1] Is the strangest thing I've seen you write since you started here as BlueGene, and that says a lot. I don't care how the conception came to be; a human exists as a result.

[2] Thus, that part is correct, except you omitted the part about the innocent life created as a result.

[1]Regardless of the cause of conception, [2]a woman with a fertilized ovum in her body [3]is morally bound to carry that child to term under [4]your interpretation of Catholic belief

[1] Correct.

[2] You mean, "a human life," not "a fertilized ovum." You are a fertilized ovum.

[3] Yes, although I'm open to early Caesarians when possible.

[4] Well, it's only "my interpretation" in the sense that "my" means "the historic and unchanging." Consult your Bishop if you doubt this; Weakland is retired, so yours will be honest.

Hospitals that treat such patients have not just the right but the duty to refuse to offer them abortafacients and/or information about abortafacients such as Plan B.

This is true, but as I can't, despite my wishes, stop humans from murdering other humans, in the context of this discussion, the word "Catholic" should precede that sentence.

-----------
Even those who learn from history are surrounded by those doomed to repeat it.

the state of the law is that if you open your doors as a public accommodation, you cannot resort to "freedom of association" or "free exercise" defenses to exclude a citizen from service. I suspect that a resort to "Catholics Only" or "Pro-life Only" would suffer the same fate as "Whites Only" for something so clearly a public accommodation as a hospital. A doctor may have an individual right to follow his faith in his own practice, likewise a pharmacist, but when he practices in a public accommodation, those individual beliefs are subordinated since the collective enterprise, the hospital or pharmacy, does not have those same rights wrt association and exercise. The doctor or pharmacist's only choice is to practice elsewhere.

In Vino Veritas

Unless I'm off here, nobody's claiming a right to refuse service to patients based on religion. Everyone is being offered the SAME treatments, but the hospital refuses to engage in human zygote destruction.
--
Run like Reagan!

We aren't talking about discrimination here, we're talking about refusal to provide a service (regardless of who is asking for it).

If I go to Wal-Mart or Target, they will certainly refuse to perform open heart surgery on me. It's not a service they provide.

If I go to a orthodontist, he will certainly refuse to wash my car, check my eyesight, give me an HIV test, or write me a prescription for morphine. Those are not services he provides.

That isn't discrimination. That is a vendor making a business decision... one they should be free to make, whether they are hospitals, clinics, pharmacies, or anything else.

In any case, whether or not doctors should be free to follow their conscience is not the point of the story.
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman

What a profoundly stupid question, kowalski. And your follow-up is even slower. What if she came to me and said, I have this child three months along, and she's the product of a rape, and I can't take it any more? Can you abort her?

Why in the name of Hell would this be different?

-----------
Even those who learn from history are surrounded by those doomed to repeat it.

Duh, because ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny. Everyone who started pushing abortion way back when knew that!
--
Run like Reagan!

------------
Fnord.

Leon in his crusade for pro-life purity does not seem to realize a good portion of the pro-life population supports the morning after pill including myself because we realize scientific evidence shows that conception does not happen right after sex, but takes time. If the morning after pill is used within 24 hours, the odds of it destroying an embryo which is implanted in the uterus are nil.

Leon if you oppose the morning after pill, do you oppose regular contraception? You can call me a liberal as much as you want, but I would flat out oppose any candidate who opposed contraception.

You can support emergency contraception and not buy his cheesy explanation that he was against forcing private hospitals to dispense it before he was for it. Add that to the very long list of cheesy explanations we've seen come out of Mass.
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman

Well if you do not consider emergency contraception as aborting a fetus, this is consistent. Seeing it takes at least 24 hours from intercourse to fertilization and implantation to occur, supporting the morning after pill is not flip flopping.

I think this debate shows why many people are scared away from the party by the militant anti-abortion faction who even opposes abortion in cases involving life or death of the mother. You can be against abortion, but you do not have to be such zealots about it.

The morning after pill simply does not cause an abortion if administered within 24 to 48 hours of sexual intercourse. The science has spoken and now accept it.

You completely missed the point. He originally was going to use the interpretation of the law that allowed that old provision to remain in effect. Then a couple days later he changed his mind and decided to use the interpretation of the law that didn't allow the old provision to remain in effect. No dramatic conversion story there though, he just talked to somebody who changed his mind.
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman

For taking the time to actually comprehend the OP. Which wasn't really about Plan B at all.

Note to self: any post in the future which includes the words "Plan B" will henceforth be about Plan B, even if they are not.

The other major point, which absolutely no one seems to be zeroing in on, is that Romney's explanation - "Look at my record," means effectively nothing since he compiled this record while basically auditioning for the Republican nomination. It still doesn't explain anything.

------------
Fnord.

As I explained with a reasonable level of clarity above (and in the OP, I thought) the issue is not the availability of Plan B, the issue is the conscientious objection exception to Massachusetts' "emergency contraception" laws.

Second, the main point here is not the issue of perfection or imperfection, the issue is Romney, and his need to explain why we should believe that he is pro-life in any way whatsoever, except insofar as it is beneficial to his electoral chances.

And since Romney is running as the guy who is "to the right of McCain on social issues," these are questions he needs to deal with if he wants to be taken seriously.

------------
Fnord.

It really doesn't matter whether or not Romney is pro-life in his heart of hearts. Trying to find out is ridiculous, only God can know a man's heart, it's foolish to try and devine it otherwise. Personally, I don't think that Romney is truely convinced of the pro-life argument, but that doesn't matter! What matters is that he is convinced that he has to govern that way to be reelected. The conservative base was able to prevent Bush from putting his choice on the SC because she wasn't conservative enough, what makes you think the same thing couldn't be done to Romney's choices? Honestly, all that matters is who he appoints to the SC.

International Affairs is just Political Science with an accent.

will go a long way toward determining how he governs. Seven of nine SCOTUS Justices were appointed by Republicans, and look where that leaves us. What frustrates many of us is that in instance after instance, we have to read tealeaves to find out from where the President`s nominees are coming. I, for one, want to stop having to doubt Republican nominees and their appointees so that we can start fighting the Democrats out of the gate. Oh by the way, with Democrats controling the Senate, as they may well still be when the next administration starts, it will be absolutely crucial to have a Republican President willing to go to war with the Democrats to get the right nominee on the Court, not someone who thinks that such a fight would simply be a distraction from the rest of his presidency.

That is all that matters as far as this issue is concerned.

Of course, you do have to understand the gunshy nature of social conservatives on these matters. After all, they were instrumental to putting such justices as O'Connor, Kennedy, Souter, and Stevens on the SCOTUS. And, understandably, they'd rather avoid seeing that happen again.

Personally, I don't think anybody has anything to worry about -- at least so far as abortion's concerned. Roe v. Wade was going to have a limited shelf-life from the day it was decided, anyway. The only question was how long.

There are a lot of other issues that are important for the court and I personally don't have any concerns that Gov. Romney would be just fine.

I never said anything about Plan B. What bothers me is the need to purge any who are not to one's right on the issue of abortion. And basing such actions on how long someone held those positions.

Point I'm trying to make is that many are approaching rabidness and taking amazing logical leaps to paint a whole picture from one minor (to me) incident where the only thing we can be sure of is none of us have all the information and facts, i.e. the law, the precedent, and politics in Massachusetts.

Bottom line: Romney is the executive. His personal feelings and beliefs can only have so much sway upon how the laws are enforced. When the deck is stacked against you in the legislature and the courts, sometimes prudence may require taking an action not 100% fully consistent with what you would like to do. But to make the argument that one must fight losing battles or lose their bona fides is a purge, not an examination of their character.

I'm more interested--to the extent abortion has any political currency among the general populace (and I don't think it does)--in knowing what actions he took when he could win, when his choice would become the policy despite the factions against him.

How can we cast out Romney for an alleged latter-day conversion to pro-life when we require and need millions of Americans to undergo a similar change of position; supporting the overturning of abortion laws?

Most voters don`t care enough about abortion for it to make a serious impact on how they vote.

there are DRASTIC changes proposed. Or even perceived ones. That's the tactic of NARAL, Planned Parenthood and the like.

That is why a 'savvy' politician does not advocate a radical change. It's a cultural 'thing' and will take a long time to change the hearts and minds of people.

It seems everyone gets their panties all knotted up with these cultural issues. The government needs to stay away, including the courts. However, the actions of the courts often necessitate a response in the form of legislation. Hence, the marriage definitions, etc.

I really wish government would stick with the appropriate (non-social) issues: the national defense, immigration, interstate transportation, etc. There is plenty there to keep them all busy for some time.

The real battle is the government direction toward expansionism ie. socialism or reigning it in as the Founding Fathers envisioned the Federal responsibilities.

I'm not willing to draw a battle line at the point of the 'morning after' pill, for example, however, I can support a battle line on government spending and taxation and the encroachment on state's rights.

Yes I feel some on the right including some on RedState are really big government conservatives who see government as their means of obtaining a virtuous society.

The problem I have with social conservatives in general is that they have shifted from supporting limited government to achieve their ends, but now focus on using government to recreate society in their image. Social engineering from the right and left is wrong.

All the abortion issue does is hurt us who care about reforming it and limiting it.
This pure of the pure apporach is counter productive.
We must continue to make aboriton culturally unpopular - and have made good progress in that. We must continue to elect people who are willing to vote for at least modest aboriotn reform. We are making good progress in that as well.
Recovering from the judicial disaster that is Roe v. wade is incremental, not revolutionary.
Turning the long knives on ourselves over abortion only assures that the way back will be longer, slower and less certain.
So far since W's historical re-election in 2004 we conservatives have succeeded in helping htedhimmies at nearly every opportunity. We have missed nearly no chances to back bite, second guess, make pointless stands, and to otherwise dissipate our strengths. the dhimmies and our enemies in this war appreciate our actions greatly.

Your exactly right Hunter.

We have not won the cultural battle on this issue as support for abortion has not changed since 1973. Personally, we have failed to win the debate and we are not going to see a significant reduction in abortions or the cultural disdain for it unless we fight the cultural battle.

We are asking for someone who doesn't say different things to different people. We don't want an opportunist. That's different.

you don't want a politician. If you take a narrow detailed view, you limit who will support you.

The fact is that NO ONE will meet our total agreement. That person does not exist. If they did, they would not get elected. The appeal has to be more broad. Voters must pick those MOST ALIGNED with their positions and ideology. The primaries are the time to get the 'best' of 'our guys/gals' on the ballot. After that, you need to vote for the closest to your positions.

Voting third party (or fourth or fifth...) and not voting is foolishness. That gave us Bill Clinton. Thank you Ross.

n/t

[i]Mitt Romney ran as somebody who would be non-threatening to Massachusetts voters because he was interested in winning. And now, he's trying to run as somebody who would be non-threatening to Republican primary voters nationwide.[/i]

And if he receives the Republican nomination, this same someone who constantly shifts his position depending upon the electorate he's currently facing, will run as someone who's non-threatening to the general electorate. And if elected, will govern and appoint judges who are non-threatening to the general electorate.

Sorry, but the attitude that it's OK for Romney to flip-flop on abortion because it's necessary to get him elected, brings me little comfort that he'll be strong when it matters. I understand that politicians sometimes must make compromises, but there are other times that they must plant their flag on an issue. Pro-life is one of those issues.

Not to call you out mbecker908, but you should at least provide some commentary and post this under a new topic.

The only reason I posted it is specifically because Romney may have problems on the very issue of this blog, namely the consistency of his pro-life position.

Bottom line, people other than Leon have the same concerns as Leon about Mitt's positions.
_______________________________
If "pro" is the opposite of "con", what is the opposite of "progress"?

Ya think CBN News has a dog in this hunt? Sure sounds to me like they do. And I can appreciate that -- they want somebody who is unquestionable on their issues.

But, sheesh, Sam Brownback? I've got nothing against the guy and I'm sure he and I would find plenty of common ground. But the reality of the matter is this: the Republican nominee will be one of McCain, Giuliani, or Romney (and, most likely, one of the first two). I think interest groups and ideologues need to assess those three and choose the one who fits best.

And of course CBN has a dog in the hunt. They are every bit as passionate as Leon about life issues.

The comment about Brownback is speculation on the part of the author, the point of the article, that Mitt may lose people becuase of his perceived flips or whatever is relevant to this topic.
_______________________________
If "pro" is the opposite of "con", what is the opposite of "progress"?

The entire article is "speculation on the part of the author."

Given how long the abortifacent cocktail in question is effective, does it matter?

-----------
Even those who learn from history are surrounded by those doomed to repeat it.

Unless someone is unconscious, or under arrest, they aren't forced to go anywhere. We don't have people being rounded up and sent to a hospital against their will, and we don't post guards at the door so they can't leave and go somewhere else.
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman

Leon, I find your zeal for Brownback and detest for Romney quite ridiculous.

I find 30 Rock to be a surprisingly entertaining television show.

On the two major domestic issues of the Bush administration

It is important to remember that the world as you have defined it is often not the way that things are, especially when you go throwing around things like "most important" or "major." For instance, in the estimation of some people, the two most important issues of the Bush administration were Harriet Miers and Sam Alito, since they are life-tenured judges who will ultimately pass on dozens or even hundreds of questions of policy.

He voted for the expansion of Medicare that will make it much harder for the U.S. to avoid financial oblivion

Nobody's perfect.

and he voted for the "amnesty" bill that will contribute to the destruction of the American culture.

This is the part where you expose yourself as someone I can't take seriously. You only forgot to call Bush "Jorge Arbusto."

So Brownback is strictly pro-life? Big deal.

I'd make a similarly disparaging remark about one of Mitt Romney's stances, but no one has the foggiest what any of them are.

He'd scare off women voters and never get elected President.

This ignorant remark ignores at least two facts:

1. Women are consistently more pro-life than men.
2. Anyone who is willing to change sincerely held positions because it will "scare off" a certain sect of voters is a person who has no business being in politics. That's sort of the point of the OP. Personally, I haven't the foggiest idea why anyone would ardently support such a person, but we seem to have them in droves here.

On Romney, you criticize him for debatable comments he made 14 years before 2008

Are we ignoring the comments he made four years ago, now?

And, there's nothing remotely debatable about these comments. Let me clue you in: even Mitt Romney isn't debating the significance of them.

What was George W. Bush doing in 1988, 12 years before he became President? Probably drowning in his own alcohol-induced vomit, living off his daddy's money and power.

It's weird how you can go from Buchananite to Kossite in less than three paragraphs. No, wait, it's not weird at all. Not anymore.

Nonetheless, I am struggling mightily (and failing) to understand what anything in these two moonbat sentences has to do with Sam Brownback or Mitt Romney at all.

And for the record, Romney's current position on abortion equals that of President Bush, who favors allowing it in cases of rape and incest.

You know, I felt certain that I read somewhere that Bush couldn't run again in 2008. But your conviction to the contrary is leading me to double-check that.

It's fine to be for Brownback, but don't falsely tear down others to help your guy.

For the love of God, what do I have to do to make someone accuse me of "Swift Boating" Romney?
------------
Fnord.