Fact-Check: Did Romney Lie About Cardinal and Contraception During Wednesday Debate?

As readers know, if there is one thing that gets under our skin here at BCI, it is deception.  This one by former Gov. Romney about a situation here in Massachusetts affects how the country perceives values important to many Catholics, so BCI felt we could not let it sit without a response.

In the Republican Presidential debate Wednesday evening at about 8:50pm or so, former Gov. Mitt Romney said he never infringed on the rights of Catholics as governor of Massachusetts by requiring the Catholic Church to provide morning-after pills to rape victims–it was “entirely voluntary” on the part of the Catholic Church.

If providing morning-after pills was “voluntary” on the part of the Catholic Church, then that would mean that Cardinal O’Malley volunteered to have Catholic hospitals give out abortifacients.

That is simply not true.

Here is a link to a transcript of the debate. Some of the quick transcription is a little off, but the gist of it is accurate:

KING (Moderator): Governor Romney, both Senator Santorum and Speaker Gingrich have said during your tenure as governor, you required Catholic hospitals to provide emergency contraception to rape victims.

And Mr. Speaker, you compared the governor to President Obama, saying he infringed on Catholics’ rights.

Governor, did you do that?

ROMNEY: No, absolutely not. Of course not.

There was no requirement in Massachusetts for the Catholic Church to provide morning-after pills to rape victims. That was entirely voluntary on their part. There was no such requirement.”

Problem is, what Gov. Romney said in the debate is not correct. BCI reported all of the details in our post last month, “Pro-family advocates misrepresent Romney’s record on life.”

In 2005 Romney vetoed a bill to provide access to the so-called “morning-after-pill,” knowing his veto would be overridden, but months later, he decided Catholic hospitals did have to give the morning-after pill to rape victims. Key points to note:

  1. Romney had publicly claimed the bill did not apply to private religious hospitals
  2. On December 7, 2005, Romney’s Department of Public Health said that Catholic and other privately-run hospitals could opt out of giving the morning-after pill to rape victims because of religious or moral objections
  3. On December 8, 2005 Romney reversed the legal opinion of his own State Department of Public Health, instructing all Catholic hospitals and others to provide the chemical Plan B “morning after pill” to rape victims.  He was quoted as saying, ““I think, in my personal view, it’s the right thing for hospitals to provide  information and access to emergency contraception to anyone who is a  victim of rape.”

Does that align with what Romney said in the debate?  NoHere is an excellent chronology, and below we have re-published all of the details for those who want them.

1975.  Massachusetts statute passed which allowed private hospitals to opt out of abortion, sterilization, and contraception.

2002: When Mitt Romney was running for governor, he filled out a questionnaire for NARAL Pro-Choice Massachusetts, and in response to a question, “…Will you support efforts to increase access to emergency contraception?” Romney said: “Yes.”

2004: the Massachusetts legislature considered an “emergency contraception” mandate. It would have required all hospitals to inform rape victims of the availability of such “emergency contraceptives” and provide them to the rape victim if she wanted them even when they would cause an abortion. Maria Parker of the Massachusetts Catholic Conference, the public policy organization of the state’s Catholic bishops, explained in testimony to the state legislature why Catholic hospitals could not do this.

That bill passed in the State Senate, but not in the House.

2005: Emergency contraception bill passes Senate and House, with veto-proof majority in both chambers of the Democrat-controlled legislature. In July, the House and Senate reached a compromise on it that would protect Catholic hospitals from being forced to act against their faith. Here is more:

At that time, the Massachusetts Catholic Conference published a bulletin explaining what happened. (July 2005 Mass Catholic Conference Notes from the Hill)  The House had included language to “expressly apply” the 1975 conscience law protections to the new emergency contraception law. The Senate had included language saying the new law should apply “notwithstanding” any existing law.

“In the end, neither amendment was included in the bill,” said the Massachusetts Catholic Conference. “House Majority Leader John Rogers, who worked tirelessly behind the scenes to defend the hospitals’ right of conscience, made it clear during floor debate on July 21 that the House blocked the Senate amendment so that the 1975 conscience statute would continue to have full effect.”

The Catholic Church still opposed the bill because it would facilitate abortions. But at least the religious liberty of Catholic hospitals had been preserved — or so it seemed.

July 25, 2005: Romney vetoed the bill — even though it was clear his veto would be overridden.

He published an op-ed in the Boston Globe the next day explaining his decision. “The bill does not involve only the prevention of conception,” he wrote. “The drug it authorizes would also terminate life after conception.” Romney said the veto kept his pledge not to change the state’s abortion laws.

Romney made no mention of the religious liberty issue in his op-ed. But then, the bill, as the Massachusetts Catholic Conference and the House majority leader understood it, did not allow coercion of Catholic hospitals.

Dec. 7, 2005: a week before the law was to take effect, the Boston Globe ran an article headlined, “Private hospitals exempt on pill law“.  The article said the state Department of Public Health had determined that the emergency contraception law “does not nullify a statute passed years ago that says privately run hospitals cannot be forced to provide abortions or contraception.”

Public Health Commissioner Paul Cote Jr. told the Globe: “We felt very clearly that the two laws don’t cancel each other out and basically work in harmony with each other.”

Romney spokesman Fehrnstrom told the Globe that Romney agreed with the Department of Public Health on the issue. The governor, he said, “respects the views of health care facilities that are guided by moral principles on this issue.”

“The staff of DPH did their own objective and unbiased legal analysis,” Romney’s spokesman told the Globe. “The brought it to us, and we concur in it.”

December 8, 2005: The Globe itself ruefully bowed to this legal analysis. It ran an editorial headlined: “A Plan B Mistake.” “The legislators failed, however,” the Globe said, “to include wording in the bill explicitly repealing a clause in an older statute that gives hospitals the right, for reasons of conscience, not to offer birth control services.”

Liberals joined in attacking Romney’s defense of Catholic hospitals. But that defense did not last long.

The same day the Globe ran its editorial, Romney held a press conference. Now he said his legal counsel had advised him the new emergency contraception law did trump the 1975 conscience law.

“On that basis, I have instructed the Department of Public Health to follow the conclusion of my own legal counsel and to adopt that sounder view,” Romney said. “In my personal view, it’s the right thing for hospitals to provide information and access to emergency contraception to anyone who is a victim of rape.”

December 9, 2005: Boston Globe reports, “Romney says no hospitals are exempt from pill law“.“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.”

Lifesite News reported at the time, “Romney Does Flip-Flop and Forces Catholic Hospitals to Distribute Morning-After-Pill”:

In a shocking turn-around, Massachusetts’s governor Mitt Romney announced yesterday 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.

December 16, 2005: Archdiocesan newspaper, The Pilot, reports, “Romney: emergency contraception law applies to Catholic hospitals”

BOSTON—Gov. Mitt Romney last week instructed the state Department of Public Health that Catholic and other private hospitals are not exempt from a new law that would require them to dispense emergency contraception to all rape victims. In doing so, Romney overruled the department’s finding that privately run hospitals do not have to provide contraception or abortions.

Romney had previously taken the position that the requirements of the new law were superceded by a 1975 law that provided privately owned hospitals with conscience exemption for abortion and contraception services.

“They’ve taken the position now that the preexisting statute somehow does not shield Catholic and other private hospitals from this new mandate. I think there is a solid legal argument against that position,” said Daniel Avila, associate director of public policy for the Massachusetts Catholic Conference.

A constitutional law expert advising BCI says that the legislative intent was clearly to allow the 1975 statute to prevail.  The formulation of the regulations is supposed to follow the legislative intent.  Romney actually violated the law and his oath of office by NOT going with the legislative intent, and overruling the legislative intent (as well as the Constitution).

But t was not merely a legal interpretation by the legal counsel to Romney. Romney said he personally thought it was the “right thing” for hospitals to provide access to emergency contraception for any rape victims. See this Dec 9, 2005 AP report:

Romney: Catholic hospitals not exempt from offering emergency contraception
By GLEN JOHNSON, Associated Press writer

BOSTON –Facing opposition from women, the Democratic Party and even his own running mate, Gov. Mitt Romney abandoned plans yesterday to exempt religious and other private hospitals from a new law requiring them to dispense emergency contraception to rape victims.The governor had initially backed regulations proposed earlier this week by his Department of Public Health, which said the new law conflicts with an older law barring the state from forcing private hospitals to dispense contraceptive devices or information.

The interpretation would have allowed hospitals operated by the Roman Catholic Church, which opposes abortion, to forego compliance with the new regulation. Opponents accused Romney, a Republican considering running for president in 2008, of trying to assuage social conservatives.

Despite defending the Health Department regulations as  late as Wednesday, Romney opened a news conference yesterday by declaring that a fresh analysis by his legal counsel concluded the new law supersedes the old law, and that all hospitals must be required to offer the so-called morning-after pill.

“On that basis I have instructed the Department of Public Health to follow the conclusion of my own legal counsel and to adopt that sounder view,” Romney said. “I think, in my personal view, it’s the right thing for hospitals to provide  information and access to emergency contraception to anyone who is a  victim of rape,” he added.

The Bottom Line:

When Romney was asked in the debate if he had required Catholic hospitals to provide emergency contraception to rape victims and had infringed on Catholics’ rights, he responded, “No, absolutely not. Of course not.” That was untrue.

When Romney said “for the Catholic Church to provide morning-after pills to rape victims…was entirely voluntary on their part”, that was also untrue.

For him to suggest to the citizens of the United States on national television that Cardinal O’Malley and the Catholic Church would “voluntarily” provide morning-after pills is an egregious misrepresentation of Catholic Church teachings and an egregious misrepresentation of what actually happened in this situation.

BCI hopes that the media and other candidates call him out on this.

About these ads

113 Responses to Fact-Check: Did Romney Lie About Cardinal and Contraception During Wednesday Debate?

  1. BizzyBlog says:

    [...] on irrefutable evidence presented at Boston Catholic Insider (HT to Gregg Jackson in an email), the answer to its headlined question is “Yes”: Did [...]

    • FastFacts says:

      This is a blog and it is very apparent why, it takes what it likes and gets rid of the truth.

      Truth is Cardinal O’Malley called Romney the “better friend to the Catholic church than any other MA governor in decades, and he was about the only one that wasn’t Catholic.” Ask him, even to this day he supports Romney because of all he did.

      Truth is, the link that BCI posted from the Catholic Conference praised Romney for all he had done.

      Truth is Mass Citizens for Life still endorses him. Yes Romney did give money to them, but that is because he supported their cause.

      Truth is, BCI gives more credit to the liberal Boston Globe, instead of the, not Pilot News, but the Pilot Catholic News, funny how he removed that from the article. I trust the Catholic Newspaper that was there at the time working around the administration than a blog with no credibility.

      Truth is the Vatican Envoy back him, yes one is now on his team, good for them and him. The rest don’t have reason to back him yet they did over the two other Catholics running in the 2012 election.

      Truth is, this is a blog that is trying to smear Romney with liberal sources, while attacking Catholic and Conservative sources that defend Romney.

      Tell the truth…

      • mike says:

        You did not say anything specific to this case, you just listed Catholics that are supporting him.

      • Michael says:

        The cardinal is just embarrassed about Romney duping him over his gay marriage position. Romney is a wolf in sheeps clothing who tricked the gullible Catholic “leadership.”

        Romney is the father of gay marriage and no friend of the Catholic Church …
        http://robertpaine.blogspot.com/2006/06/governors-new-clothes-how-mitt-romney_17.html.

      • FastFacts,

        You guys at American Parchment are the ones who are selective about the truth or lack thereof in your criticism of us. At the same time, you might be pleased to hear that we agree on a few things!

        Yes, we are a blog. If that was not self-evident to everyone before, you truthfully conveyed that we are a blog. Thank you for offering that helpful insight to our readers that this is a blog.

        Our blog post was about whether Mitt Romney told the truth in the debate about emergency contraception being required of Catholic hospitals. Our post was NOT a statement about who is or is not a better Republican candidate for president. Nor was our post about who has endorsed Mitt Romney. It is unclear why you and others keep dwelling on who has endorsed Romney rather than the main topic of the post. If you continue trying to use this venue to merely promote your own agenda and list of Catholics who have endorsed Romney, your comments will be moderated.

        You said that Mass Citizens for Life endorses Romney. Yes. So what? Romney gave $15,000 to them, then, coincidentally, they endorsed him after that. See:
        In Romney’s Bid, His Wallet Opens to the Right
        http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/11/us/politics/11romney.html?pagewanted=all
        As we stated in a response to someone else from your same viewpoint, MCFL also endorsed Tim Cahill for Governor who was acknowledged as being pro-choice. Their endorsement needs to be considered in the context that a) they have accepted money from Romney and b) they have a pattern in recent years of endorsing candidates who may not be solidly “pro-life” but are merely the least pro-abortion of several alternatives.

        You said, “Truth is Cardinal O’Malley called Romney the “better friend to the Catholic church than any other MA governor in decades.” So what? The comparison is between Mitt Romney and other governors including Deval Patrick, Jane Swift, William Weld, Paul Celicci, and Michael Dukakis. BCI agrees, Gov. Romney was a better friend to the Catholic church than any other MA governor in decades.

        You said, “the Catholic Conference praised Romney for all he had done.” True. What does that have to do with whether Romney was truthful about what he said during the debate? Furthermore, the Catholic Conference acknowledged in December, months after the report BCI referenced that Romney had backtracked:

        http://www.thebostonpilot.com/article.asp?ID=1855.

        Romney: emergency contraception law applies to Catholic hospitals

        BOSTON—Gov. Mitt Romney last week instructed the state Department of Public Health that Catholic and other private hospitals are not exempt from a new law that would require them to dispense emergency contraception to all rape victims. In doing so, Romney overruled the department’s finding that privately run hospitals do not have to provide contraception or abortions.

        Romney had previously taken the position that the requirements of the new law were superceded by a 1975 law that provided privately owned hospitals with conscience exemption for abortion and contraception services.

        “They’ve taken the position now that the preexisting statute somehow does not shield Catholic and other private hospitals from this new mandate. I think there is a solid legal argument against that position,” said Daniel Avila, associate director of public policy for the Massachusetts Catholic Conference.

        Though BCI did not reference the archdiocesan newspaper, The Boston Pilot, in our post, we do give them credit. (We did not remove any links from our post, so you are incorrect on that point). In fact, later this evening when time permits, we will add The Pilot article to the post as it is a superior to the Globe article. Thank you for suggesting that!

        You said, “Truth is, this is a blog that is trying to smear Romney with liberal sources, while attacking Catholic and Conservative sources that defend Romney.” That is entirely false. We are after the truth. We are pleased to cite and quote The Pilot as you can see. If Romney was misquoted in the Boston Globe in 2005, then why did he not say he was misquoted and request a retraction and correction? But, The Pilot validates that Romney was quoted correctly. If Romney lied during the debate, then he has self-inflicted whatever criticism he is now receiving.

    • RosaMaria Hurst says:

      Absolutely NO! Mr. Romney was advocating for the woman who were rape, they were not forcing the Catholic Church to do anything. The Catholic church could use many ways to persuade the young girl, young woman or woman who was rape to keep her baby. After all that they do, the final choice is in the woman, she has the right to choose what to do. A woman who BELIEVES in God and believes that life begins at conception will choose life. Mr. Romney was defending the right of the rape victim to choose for herself, and giving her a second option.

  2. [...] its veracity. It shows overwhelmingly that Newt Gingrich and Rick Santorum have been correct in accusing Mitt Romney of personally forcing Catholic hospitals into the requirement to provide abortifacients (morning after pills, [...]

    • Inez says:

      The thought that Mitt Romney, can so easily lie, tell half truths, deceive, and even spend millions of dollars for ads which lie about the other candidates, is extremely frightening to me, because he could be replacing another deceitful, dishonest man sitting in the highest office of the land. To me it seems that to replace Obama with Romney, we will only be voting one out to be replaced by one of the same. The honest to God truth is, the Mormon Church deceives potential followers, by misleading them into thinking that they follow the teaching’s of the Christian Bible. Once it is known that they have their new follower, hook, line, and sinker, the truth is presented, which is that Mormons have their own book, “The Book Of Mormon,” which is strictly adhered to, and does not recognize Jesus as the Son Of God, but as a prophet. By the way, has anyone ever seen those golden placques, which were given to Smith, the founder of their religion?. If these placques actually exist, why have they never been opened up for scrutiny? I did a bit of research on the Mormon Church, enough for me to truly be convinced that it is a religion based on lies and deceit. Did anyone know that Smith was totaly illiterate? Fact is, Mormonism does fit the definition of a cult. Be careful, their main ultimate goal is conversion by any means that works, even misleading people into thinking they are strict followers of Jesus, the Son Of God, and savior of all humanity.

      • Kat Shrnk says:

        This is one of the silliest rants I’ve heard lately about the Mormon church. The Mormons do indeed believe the Bible is scripture. They also believe that the Book of Mormon is scripture as well and is a another testament of Jesus Christ, who is the Son of God. Mormons do not believe that Jesus Christ was only a prophet. It sounds as if Inez is confusing Mormonism with Islam. Apparently Inez is not aware that there were more people than Joseph Smith who saw the plates (not placques). Is Inez aware that archeologists have discovered that writing on metal plates was not uncommon? I’m not sure where Inez gets the information that Joseph Smith was “totally illiterate, but that is blatantly untrue. OK he wasn’t educated at Harvard, but he wasn’t totally illiterate. If he were totally illiterate then he surely couldn’t have written the Book of Mormon. Just can’t have it both ways now can you. Best check your facts before putting out information about which you obviously know nothing. How odd they supposedly trick people into thinking they are strict follower of Jesus Christ, but can’t possibly be Christian. It appears that Inez needs a tad more education on her Bible and her archeology as well as Mormonism. Her research appears to be sketchy at best and poorly done at worst.

      • Amber Mayo says:

        I read up until “the Mormon Church deceives potential followers.” Yes, the idea of Mitt Romney in office scares me to death, and I’m a Mormon. His dishonesty is not representative of the Church. He only represents himself, and the dishonest fat cats who support him.

      • Phyllis Poole says:

        This is exactly the same as the muslim faith. Mohammed had”visions” too and a flock of mostly, probably men, followed and forced women to be submissive to them. The only difference as I see it is: Mohammed’s visions were full of hate and violence BUT both are directly from the devil!!
        PRAYER is the only hope for conversion of these people. Their “faith” brings people way back before Moses who brought us the 10 commandments, one being THOU SHALT NOT COMMIT ADULTERY

  3. Joe Dentente says:

    Your constituional expert ought to re-check their facts. In Massachusetts there is no such thing as “legisaltive intent”, the law requires them to either write it or not.

    • Joe, Thank you for your comment. We are checking with our expert, but our understanding is that when the executive branch of government is creating a regulation based on a law passed by the legislative branch, they are to look to legislative intent, not their own opinion. The 1975 law exempted Catholic hospitals, and there is no evidence that anything about the 2005 law undid that. Gov Romney and his Department of Public Health apparently agreed until Dec. 7, 2005, when they got political backlash and Gov. Romney changed his mind. The point here is that Gov. Romney said one thing in the debate when the reality was different. A Boston Globe Factcheck published this afternoon concurs with BCI that the Romney comment on this topic was not true.

    • Michael says:

      Joe … aspiring paralegals should know better than to comment on things you know nothing about …

      Cote-Whiteacre v. Dept. of Pub. Health, SJC-09436 (2006) (“The plaintiffs have asked us to interpret a statute, G. L. c. 207, § 12, and we are obliged to do so in the way our Legislature intended.”);

      Devine v. Board of Health of Westport, No. 05-P-428 (April 14, 2006) (“We interpret a statute “according to the intent of the Legislature ascertained from all its words construed by the ordinary and approved usage of the language, considered in connection with the cause of its enactment, the mischief or imperfection to be remedied and the main object to be accomplished, to the end that the purpose of its framers may be effectuated … [and] the statutory language itself is the principal source of insight into the legislative purpose.” Commonwealth v. Smith, 431 Mass. 417, 421 (2000), quoting from Registrar of Motor Vehicles v. Board of Appeals on Motor Vehicle Liab. Policies & Bonds, 382 Mass. 580, 585 (1981).

    • Michael says:

      These cases the ones cited above and the following one) took me literally about two seconds to find … and they prove your paralegal degree was worthless …

      Biogen IDEC MA, Inc. v. Treasurer and Receiver General, 454 Mass. 174 (2009)

      Principles governing statutory construction and application also apply to regulations. See Hellman v. Board of Registration in Med., 404 Mass. 800, 803 (1989). Thus, a regulatory change affecting substantive rights generally only applies prospectively. See Hanscom v. Malden & Melrose Gas Light Co., 220 Mass. 1, 3 (1914); Figueroa v. Director of the Dep’t of Labor & Workforce Dev., 54 Mass.App.Ct. 64, 70-71 (2002). A new policy may not be retroactively applied where a prior agency policy existed, unless the existing policy was plainly contrary to the enabling statute. See Commissioner of Revenue v. BayBank Middlesex, 421 Mass. 736, 741-742 (1996). However, regulatory changes may operate retroactively “(1) where legislative intent expressly or impliedly indicates retroactive application is desirable; (2) where the statute is ameliorative or curative in nature; or (3) where fulfillment of the parties’ reasonable expectations may require the statute’s retroactive application.” 2 N.J. Singer, Sutherland Statutory Construction § 41:4, at 399 (6th ed. rev.2001). See Canton v. Bruno, 361 Mass. 598, 606- 607 (1972) (legislative changes to remedy past errors, omissions, and neglects, may be retroactive); Figueroa v. Director of the Dep’t of Labor & Workforce Dev., supra at 71 & n. 11. Cf. Goldberg v. Board of Health of Granby, supra at 639 (not irrational or arbitrary for Department of Environmental protection to conclude that regulation increasing setback distance for landfill site not applicable where landfill operator had reasonable expectation that prior regulation would apply).”

  4. Amy Contrada says:

    Romney also “misrepresented” the Catholic Charities/adoptions by homosexuals case. Excerpt from Mitt Romney’s Deception here:
    http://www.renewamerica.com/columns/abbott/120120

    Detail Catholic Hospitals & Catholic Charities also at: “Mitt Romney’s CPAC Speech: His Claims vs. the Truth,” http://www.amycontrada.com/Romney_s_CPAC_Speech.html

  5. Sam Osborne says:

    So is government standing in the way of a man marrying more than one woman a violation of Romney’s deeply held religious belief? And is it also odious invasion of religion if government to have mandates on fire safety and other matters for religious affiliated schools and hospitals?

    Apparently the first Republican president, Ade Lincoln, was really off base with his Emancipation Proclamation that freed slaves down there in the states that were in rebellion. After all, the Southern Baptists had split with their Northern brethren over their deeply held religious belief that they were scripturally entitle to own slaves.

    After all, the Epistles of Peter and Paul would not have told slaves to be obedient their masters or masters how to treat their slaves if God had not intended them to have them.

    Shame on Republican President Lincoln, he did not seem to know that you “Don’t force others to act against faith.”

    • Sam, Thank you for your comment. Just to clarify the post–the main point was that the comments by former Gov. Romney did not accurately reflect the truth of what happened in this situation and they also distorted Catholic Church teaching on contraception by saying that the Catholic Church would voluntarily provide emergency contraception.

      With regard to your question, “is it also odious invasion of religion if government to have mandates on fire safety and other matters for religious affiliated schools and hospitals?”, BCI would respond, we know of no concerns over government-mandated fire safety in a religious school or hospital. On a personal basis, BCI prefers that religious or secular schools and hospitals be equipped with fire safety systems, and knows of no Catholics who feel such a move violates our religious freedoms. As for government mandates on “other matters,” that depends on what “other matters” means.

      • Michael says:

        BCI … but you are forgetting the longstanding Catholic belief in encouraging the faithful to perish in fires … I think it is called the St. Joan of Arc doctrine … where fire safety equipment directly clashes with a devout Roman Catholic’s conscience.

        Really you ought to be more careful in your research which is generally thorough and almost always devastating.

      • Michael,
        Thank you for your comment on legislative intent as well as the blog. As far as Catholic beliefs and perishing in fires, BCI does not believe we have forgotten anything or erred in our response.

        It is true that martyr, St. Joan of Arc, was burned at the stake in 1431 at the age of 19. While Catholics are encouraged to stand up for our beliefs, BCI knows of no “St. Joan of Arc doctrine” or Catholic doctrine that specifically encourages the faithful to perish from their human life in fire. (If use of fire safety equipment clashes with your Roman Catholic conscience at this time, you may be able to cut yourself a little slack there).

        The ideas of fire in hell (i.e. associated with the concept of eternal punishment in hell) or fire in purgatory (ie. in order to cleanse the souls of those who die in a state of grace and make them ready for Heaven) would be a different topic which goes well beyond the scope of this particular post or this blog.

      • DBP says:

        BCI – if I might speak for Michael, I think his tongue was planted firmly in his cheek when he wrote that response…

  6. Ted Regeant says:

    Its impossible to link to this site, even with good information. No serious blogger would remain anonymous and thus completely unaccountable for incorrect information. Professionalize and become relevant — quickly — you are missing your calling.

    • Michael says:

      Ted
      These people are not serious bloggers … they are serious Catholics.

      Regarding relevance … what blog do you have that has over 100,000 (or whatever the real number is) hits worldwide?

      • Michael,
        Thank you for your defense of our blogging here at BCI. As for our hits and visitor traffic count, since BCI started there have been 503,949 pageloads from 338,819 unique visitors. For the record, here at BCI, we would regard ourselves as serious Catholics who are also serious about blogging!

    • Ted,
      Thank you for your comment. You must be new here and are perhaps missing some context and background.

      We blog without disclosing our identities because we are largely exposing deception, mismanagement, and corruption in the Boston Archdiocese and the archdiocese has a pattern of retaliation and/or publicly damaging the reputation of people who criticize the archdiocese. Perhaps it might be helpful to think of us as analogous to anonymous whistleblowers. FYI, the blogger, “Diogenes” at CatholicCulture.org has been writing under a pseudonym since around 2003, so Catholic blogging without disclosing the identity of the blogger is not without precedent.

      We believe most of our readers judge BCI on the content of the blog–and the extent to which we carefully research and document everything and give readers links to the information so they can independently verify what we have written. We are not looking for a label of being a “serious blogger” or “professional” bloggers, and would frankly prefer that the Boston Archdiocese solve their own problems of internal corruption and operate with integrity so we do not need to blog at all! So if you do not wish to think of us as “serious” bloggers, that is OK with us. As for our being relevant, BCI believes our visitor traffic, number of repeat visitors, and impact speak for themselves.

      As for accuracy and issues with incorrect information, we check and verify our information multiple times, and provide explicit references to the content so readers can independently verify it. When we learn that we have made a mistake, we publicly acknowledge it and apologize. But out of more than 300 posts since late June of 2010, we have been fortunate to have very few mistakes.

  7. Alpha says:

    I agree with Ted. Split into two blogs. This writing, which doesn’t match the rest of the site, is worthy of attention. Save the catholic whining for this personal local blog.

    • Lynne says:

      Many of us appreciate *all* the blog entries. If you don’t want to read a Catholic blog, well, there’s plenty others out there.

    • Phyllis Poole says:

      Those who debase this blogging that brings out the misrepresentations of our own Catholic “shepherds” because they are “dyed in the wool democrats” BEFORE their faith are also defending the same!
      Our church has undergone an intrusion of communists among our leaders and are definitely biased in the democrat way because the democrat party has also been intruded upon by communists.
      We need to target them and bring them to the attention of the flock in the pews so they are not misled. Many of the “flock” are also “dyed in the wool” democrats and cannot be persuaded they are being deceived. It will take much prayer for those of us who who can see this and get help from our creator through the Blessed Virgin who is desparately giving us pleas to pray. God will overcome the devil and his boast to bring to ruin the church and humanity as Pope Leo XIII heard in his locution in the 1880′s. Search Pope Leo VIII To comprehend this “giving of the world to the devil” look at the changes in the world in materialism alone from that time as had never happened before as we know. And we wonder why people like Hitle, Stalin –Romney are among us??? PLEASE GOD HELP US!!!!

  8. [...] on irrefutable evidence presented at Boston Catholic Insider (HT to Gregg Jackson in an email), the answer to its headlined question is “Yes”: Did [...]

  9. [...] on irrefutable evidence presented at Boston Catholic Insider (HT to Gregg Jackson in an email), the answer to its headlined question is “Yes”: [...]

  10. Rome is burning….why are they hitting this issue with all this? Contraception should be between a patient and their doctor, not the government and the church. This issue is out of hand…..we need to be rebating on the financial issues of this country. If we truly don’t want America to continue to be removed as the land of the free, stop giving more and more of our rights away by thinking that the government should decide for us. We are waking up every day to a new crisis…..ENOUGH! Get back to the task at hand, unite and fight the good fight to remove Obama from the office he should NEVER have had. The GOP shoving Romney down our throats will NOT automatically make us accept him. Don’t listen to the lame-stream media on issues, research….read several different sources, pray about it and THINK FOR YOURSELVES…..the future of America and our families rely on us taking our voting responsibilities very seriously this November. WE can change this……UNITE!

    God bless America.

    • Phyllis Poole says:

      The issue of contraceptives and rights to decide is definitely one that the catholic church gives to all. It’s not ony women who use them -vasectomies are done often.
      HOWEVER the church does not have a heavy hand on people to conform to God’s teaching. The church “shepherds” -Jesus calls us sheep. You may have the right to go to hell if you wish. No one is saying you don’t BUT the church is saying -you will” if you don’t do as God wishes. Contraception is leaving God out of the very act God has given us to reproduce. It is saying NO to God.
      Masturbation is in the same category and that’s why same sex sexual unions are wrong, for that’s all same sex unions and contraceptions are -masturbation with someone else.
      PLEASE GOD GIVE US WISDOM and fear of the devil!!!

  11. maria says:

    ! hope the catholic Church and all of our clergy see what voting ‘democrat, pro-choice” befalls them. you cant be both Catholic and pro-abortion, because that’s what the ‘choice’ is! Wish they would get back to preaching this on sundays

  12. A. H. Bull says:

    I love Romney. Quit picking on him and go for our real target, Barry Obama. You are hurting the party, Mark.

    • Thank you for your comment. BCI is not about any one political party or candidate–we are simply after the truth. What Gov. Romney said to the nation on this topic during the debate was not correct. Do you believe there is something factually inaccurate about our post? Assuming you agree the post is accurate, do you believe political candidates, regardless of party, should be held accountable for telling the truth?

      • Alan Sexton says:

        BCI, kudos on your exemplary journalistic integrity. This is a well sourced report. Kudos!

        I have reblogged this via my site and it’s social media sites as well. You should be proud of the effort you (obviously) put into this article.

  13. [...] values important to many Catholics, so BCI felt we could not let it sit without a response. Click Here To Continue Reading… Rate this: Share this:Share on TumblrDiggEmailPrintLike this:LikeBe the first to like this post. [...]

  14. Tom Maguire says:

    1. Great job. I second the emotion expressed by the American Spectator:

    “This report from the “Boston Catholic Insider” is so well documented, so well laid out chronologically, that I have no reason to doubt its veracity.”

    2. Regarding the critics of anonymous blogging, please – AllahPundit of HotAir is obviously a serious, yet anonymous, presence.

    3. Far be it from me to guess at the mysteries of the Boston Globe archives, but this link to the Dec 9 2005 article on Romney’s flip-flop takes me past their archival screen and is complete.

    http://www.boston.com/yourlife/health/women/articles/2005/12/09/romney_says_no_hospitals_are_exempt_from_pill_law/

  15. [...] intent of the law passed was to allow for conscience. Here is a summary of what happened, but you MUST go read the BCI article for a much more thorough analysis of the facts. In 2005 Romney vetoed a bill to provide access to [...]

  16. [...] article at Boston Catholic Insider asserts that Mitt Romney lied during the Arizona debate about forcing Catholic Hospitals to provide [...]

  17. Zack says:

    Sorry this is false information. Instead of going to a blog of a person who has no inside information, not being there at the time he wouldn’t know everything that went on. Why else would Cardinal O’Malley put his support behind Romney saying:

    “Cardinal O’Malley in Boston has said that Romney was a better friend to the Catholic church than any other MA governor in decades, and he was about the only one that wasn’t Catholic.”

    If this blog was true why would Mass Citizen’s for Life Endorse Romney or the Vatican Envoy, some of them were working with the administration at the time.

    Here is the truth about Romney’s stance on abortion, find it at TeaPartyForRomney.com.

    • Zack says:

      Sorry there is more, why would the Pilot Catholic News also defend Romney during this whole ordeal and in the end after all was said and done defend Romney against his critics. They were the one that described the battle Romney had with his own attorney general who said he would fight in court against Romney if he pushed the issue of contraception into the court system. Romney had no other option and that is when he went to talk to Cardinal O’Malley and converse about their options.

    • Zack, Sorry, you are incorrect. You are, by acknowledgment, a Romney supporter based on the URL you put in your comment. The facts are indisputable, and you have not disputed any of them–you have merely tried to obfuscate the facts by telling us about other people who support Romney.

      Look at the factual information and references in the blog post. What exactly do you dispute of the factual information in the post?

      In relative terms, Romney may have been a better friend to the Catholic Church than any others in decades. This is not about whether Romney was a “better friend” to the Catholic Church than Deval Patrick, William Weld, or Michael Dukakis. This is about whether Romney was truthful in the debate with his answer. The facts of the situation say that, no–he was not truthful.

      Mass Citizen’s for Life took financial contributions from Romney. That is well documented publicly by the mainstream media and in a previous blog post where you will find references. http://bostoncatholicinsider.wordpress.com/2012/01/09/pro-family-advocates-misrepresent-romneys-record-on-life-marriage-part-1/

      This is not about whether MCFL endorsed Romney–it is about whether Romney was truthful in the debate. The facts of the situation say that, no–he was not truthful.

      The Vatican Envoy, Harvard Prof. Mary Ann Glendon is working for the Romney campaign. Glendon is a chairperson of the Romney Justice Advisory Committee, announced by his campaign on August 2, 2011. As is the case with the two other endorsements above, this is not about who endorses Mitt Romney–it is simply a matter of whether he was truthful in the debate.

      This is not about whether former Gov. Romney would make the best opponent to Pres. Obama–it is simply about integrity and telling the truth. It is the opinion of BCI that former Gov. Romney–and those who support Romney–would do better to acknowledge the well-documented truth than to try to convince people familiar with the truth that they are incorrect.

      • Zack says:

        Sorry you are mistaken, your two sources are your site and the Boston Globe, who the Pilot Catholic News refuted because they falsely attacked Romney on this point. They attacked him for posting false information against him and then gave the facts. I would trust Cardinal O’Malley himself as well as the Pilot Catholic News of Boston over you anyday. They were there working with Romney at the time.

        Romney would not have been the best friend if he was a turn coat like you said. Mass Citizens for life wouldn’t be in support of him also if your claim was true.

        Its hard to believe a blogger who trusts the Boston Globe for all of their information. Sadly you are slandering Romney and that is what this post is about, not who is best for the President. Slander is wrong no matter who you do it to.

        He was truthful in the debate. Your sources need to be checked much like the Pilot Catholic News called for.

        And as for our site, before starting http://www.TeaPartyForRomney.com, we researched his full record, this is one of the issues we went through and that is how we came in contact with writers at the Pilot Catholic News that confirm all this information I have posted.

      • Zack, Sorry, YOU are mistaken. Provide a specific reference if you believe you are right. Here is the article from The Boston Pilot from December 15, 2005:

        http://www.thebostonpilot.com/article.asp?ID=1855.

        Romney: *emergency* *contraception* law applies to Catholic hospitals

        *BOSTON*Gov. Mitt Romney last week instructed the state Department of Public Health that Catholic and other private hospitals are not exempt from a new law that would require them to dispense *emergency* *contraception*to all rape victims. In doing so, Romney overruled the departments finding that privately run hospitals do not have to provide *contraception* or abortions.

        Romney had previously taken the position that the requirements of the new law were superceded by a 1975 law that provided privately owned hospitals with conscience exemption for abortion and *contraception* services.

        Theyve taken the position now that the preexisting statute somehow does not shield Catholic and other private hospitals from this new mandate. I think there is a solid legal argument against that position, said Daniel Avila, associate director of public policy for the Massachusetts Catholic Conference.

        I think ultimately its going to have to be resolved in the courts, he added. This is going to be, from a legal perspective, a very complicated question to resolve. From the moral perspective, its clear that hospitals cannot participate in an evil. The question is: What kind of protection does the law provide in Massachusetts for hospitals that want to refuse to participate in abortions and *contraception*?

        *You say that you trust the Pilot. There you have it. Case closed.*

        And please stop referencing MCFL as the basis for your comments. It is well documented through multiple sources that they accepted money from Romney. In addition, their history of publicly endorsing candidates who are not pro-life has become so well-documented that they are no longer credible. This is exemplified by their endorsement of Tim Cahill for governor, and subsequent need to clarify that he was merely “the best choice to advance the pro-life cause” and “most likely to help advance the cause of life” in a race against Deval Patrick, who they described as “the most pro-abortion Governor in Massachusetts history.” http://prolifemass.blogspot.com/2010/07/statement-by-mcfl-state-pac-concerning.html

        That was an interesting endorsement, since shortly afterwards, Cahill’s spokesman said he was pro-choice:

        http://timelines.boston.com/2010/7/19/key-antiabortion-group-endorses-cahill But Cahills spokeswoman Amy Birmingham maintained yesterday that he remains pro-choice. On Friday, she said, He would never do anything to overturn Roe v. Wade.… According to a web page saved May 25 and posted on Enos site, Cahills campaign website said in May: I believe in and support a womans right to choose. I also believe that abortion should be safe, legal, and rare.

        Unless you provide documented, verifiable information to disprove any of the factual information in our post and to verify your claims, we could consider this a closed matter. Thank you for taking the time to share your opinions.

  18. I need to point out a nuance here. Romney never said he made the Catholic CHURCH provide health care. Then he went on to say that in the health care bill, Romneycare, there was a religious exception, which there was.

    The worst you can accuse Romney of in his response is side stepping the question and using nuance. He never said he didn’t make the Catholic hospitals provide morning after pills. He said he never made the Catholic Church do it. It’s not the same thing at all.

    Don’t forget, Romney is a lawyer. You gotta keep up!

    • Michael says:

      nuance … deceptive … great job defending him …

    • José López says:

      Considering the point of view of nuance, then you clearly believe that Clinton did “never have sex with that woman, Ms. Lewinsky.”

      Clinton’s nuance of sex was that sex means the penetration of his penis in the vagina of “that woman” and not in her mouth.

      Don’t forget, that we are not stupid. You gotta keep up!

      • Carol says:

        I’d like to know why all of the Romney supporters keep circumventing Romney’s lies with a list of people who support him.

        Why won’t the Romney people just clarify his ludicrous statement that the he did not force Catholics to give out abortifacients, that we did it voluntarily.

        Respond with the facts.

        Romney is on the record saying no matter the law says, he held convictions in his heart that Catholics should be forced to give out abortifacients – and they must.

        It seems to me that Mitt Romney’s statement that the Catholic Church ‘volunteered’ could only mean two things.

        1. He is trying to claim that complying with the governor’s unlawful edict, this rises to the level of volunteering of the Catholic Church.

        2. Somebody met with the governor and and told him they were willing to give out abortifacients at Catholic Hospitals.

        Why don’t you just answer the question.

        Maybe what Catholics need to do is write a public letter and get Mary Ann Glendon to get the answer from Mitt Romney.

        Catholics have a right to have his statement clarified.

        I’ve just about had it with this nonsense.

  19. [...] A post by the Boston Catholic Insider makes the argument that he may have done just that.  Read link. [...]

  20. ksuwcat says:

    So disappointing to see we still have members who want to continue to support oBama and his radical pro-death infanticide policies. Rather sick.

    This anti-mitt strategy is pro-oBama strategy.

    • Ksuwcat, You totally misrepresent this blog and the purpose and topic of this post–namely getting at the truth.

      The post is simply asking the question of whether Mitt Romney lied about this topic in the debate. The evidence is rather substantial that he did. If you disagree with this conclusion, please share your evidence to the contrary. So far, no one has shown any verifiable evidence that shows Romney was truthful on this point. Are you merely displeased with us because we are trying to hold a politician accountable for being truthful?

      • José López says:

        The evidence of your article is not only substantial, but also irrefutable. That’s why they can’t dispute the facts.

  21. TJM says:

    left-wing Catholics are Democrats first and Catholics a distant second. Voting for Obama is to imperil yourimmortal soul. He is the most aggressively pro-abortion president in our nation’s history.

    • Your comment is duly noted. What specifically does that have to do with the topic of this blog post? Are you criticizing BCI, or just voicing your opinion? BCI largely agrees with you, so if you are criticizing BCI, you are barking up the wrong tree.

    • José López says:

      Are you saying that the GOP candidates and their policies are sinless? Or, are you saying that the GOP candidates are holier than Obama?

      Are you saying that the Catholic Church should preach that the salvation of our souls are at stake on Election Day?

      Are you saying that Jesus is a Republican and that he listens to Rush Limbaugh every day from 12 noon til 3pm?

      Also, are you saying that Mr. Mitt Romney is a Christian despite all the cult and heretic doctrines of his Mormon sect?

      • Cody Black says:

        No I’m saying democrats have no standards do they don’t get held accountable for anything. They lie, cheat and steal and no one cares. But if a republican doesn’t go to church 1 day out the year the media reports it. Democrats are scum.

      • Phonics says:

        If you knew anything about the history of the Catholic Church you’d know that it is no less a sect than the LDS church. The Catholic Church has centuries upon centuries of falling away from the principles that Christ taught while on earth and creating doctrines out of thin air with no Biblical or historical evidence to back it up, yet you accuse the LDS church of “heretic doctrines”.

        Good Lord, I could sit here and prove you wrong all day long but you wouldn’t listen regardless of how much proof I present. Either way it wouldn’t be related to this blog post.

  22. JLFuller says:

    One thing most pro-life advocates agree on is that rape, incest and life of the mother are acceptable reasons for an abortion. Many Catholics and absolutists disagree. So just because these few folks want to take the thing to the extremes does not mean Mitt Romney is among the pro-abortionists. To suggest otherwise is disingenuous.

    • JLFuller, To whom specifically are you directing your criticism, and what does your comment have to do with this post? This blog post is about whether Mitt Romney told the truth during the Wednesday debate about his actions around the regulation that Catholic hospitals provide emergency contraception. You have not addressed that topic at all.

  23. JLFuller says:

    One other thing. Mitt Romney is pro-life as are most Mormons. But because some Cathilics are absolutists doesn’t mean everyone in
    the pro-life stance is soft on abortion. It just isn’t so.

    • Michael says:

      Mitt Romney is pro-life … my a_ _… explain your evidence. He signed into law the most pro-abortion legislation in the history of the United States. Girls in Massachusetts can have $50 abortions because of Mitt Romney. He signed this into law AFTER he claimed to have change his mind and become pro-life. Just because he calls himself pro-life doesn’t make it so. Ask every baby who died in Massachusetts because of his law. He’s a handsome fraud.

      • Phonics says:

        Where is your proof? There were NO pro-choice provisions in the MA health care legislation. Democrats twisted the law to include it after Romney left office.

  24. Jill says:

    I have a question (and excuse me if it’s been asked and answered): Where do MA Catholic hospitals now stand in relation to providing the morning-after pill to rape victims?

  25. According to “Ethical and Religious Directives for Catholic Health Care Services” from the United States Council for Catholic Bishops #36. “Compassionate and understanding care should be given to a person who is the victim of sexual assault. Health care providers should cooperate with law enforcement officials and offer the person psychological and spiritual support as well as accurate medical information. A female who has been raped should be able to defend herself against a potential conception from the sexual assault. If, after appropriate testing, there is no evidence that conception has occurred already, she may be treated with medications that would prevent ovulation, sperm capacitation, or fertilization. It is not permissible, however, to initiate or to recommend treatments that have as their purpose or direct effect the removal, destruction, or interference with the implantation of a fertilized ovum.19″ http://nccbuscc.org/​bishops/directives.shtml. I’m not a Catholic expert but it seems to me that the Catholic Church supports the Morning after pill as an emergency contraceptive.

    • pete says:

      If a catholic hospital doesn’t want to abort in the case of rape, they aren’t going to do it just because the government told them they had to. They would close down before doing something against their beliefs.

      So either they don’t provide the morning after pill for rape victims or they choose to do it.

  26. Thanks for this! People need to know that Romney will say anything to get votes. Romney is a phony, and fraud and now, a liar.

  27. jimmy the one says:

    It is acceptable for BCI to expose mitt romney for breaking one of the ten commandments ‘thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor’ (thou shalt not LIE).
    .. It is also incumbent upon the church to adhere to the very same commandment on this issue.

  28. As a Prot. pastor, I like the fact that this blog acts as a Truth stater. I also know that your endorsement for a pol would count. All I know is this: not one Dem running in the House or Senate and surely not Obama would protect our 1st Amendment right of religious conscience. This Admin. and every leftist Dem I know and have taught about for the last 48 yrs. in college is pro-abortion with no stops. I expect your blog to endorse the pro-life Republican Party.

    • Kenneth,
      Thank you for your comment. This blog is very much proudly pro-life! We have posted that a number of times.

      In 2007, Cardinal O’Malley said the following:

      http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2007/11/15/omalley_draws_line_with_democrats/?page=full

      “I think the Democratic Party, which has been in many parts of the country traditionally the party which Catholics have supported, has been extremely insensitive to the church’s position, on the gospel of life in particular, and on other moral issues,” O’Malley said.

      Acknowledging that Catholic voters in Massachusetts generally support Democratic candidates who are in favor of abortion rights, O’Malley said, “I think that, at times, it borders on scandal as far as I’m concerned.

      BCI concurs. In Massachusetts, many politicians in the Republican party are pro-choice, so in this state, it is not possible to make a blanket statement that one party is pro-life and another is pro-choice.

      As far as political endorsements, to date we have not made any, Rather than BCI making a specific endorsement of a party on a blanket basis, we would prefer to advise that citizens vote for the pro-life candidate over the pro-abortion candidate. When both candidates for a particular race have objectionable positions on key moral issues, it is permissible to vote for the lesser of the two evils.

  29. [...] Romney Did Require Catholic Hospitals to Provide Morning-After Pills – Boston Cthlc Insdr [...]

  30. Uomo Del Ghiaccio says:

    Two Questions:

    Is this blog officially supported by the Catholic Church?

    Is the blog article an official statement and position of the Catholic Church?

    • Michael says:

      Are you joking? Where have you been? … The Catholic Church for over a year has been trying to shut this blog down because it is unceasingly revealing the truth about fraud and corruption in the Catholic Church here in Boston. Cardinal O’Malley would probably stand right next to Mitt Romney in an effort to shut this blog down.

  31. Edward L. bettendorf says:

    Even assuming you are correct that the law made Catholic institutions provide contraception (including morning after abortion pills), it was not Romney who “forced” them to do so; it was, rather, the law that he vetoed and that the D-controlled legislature passed over his veto. That Romney read or interpreted the statute to require the Catholic institutions to undertake the provisioning–even if it was opposite another elected official (the Mass AG)–can hardly be said to make Romney responsible for the statute’s (likely) interpretation and thrust. If it had gone to the Mass Supreme Court ( and I don’t know whether or not it did), that’s doubtless how those gay-marriage juists would have come out on the lae. The problem here is that you don’t like Romney and you are looking (and finding) reasons to try to persuade others to join you in your opposition: That’s why you respond to the Catholic church’s Cardinal and affiliates’ support of Romney with disdain (to the effect that they are mere individuals and, therefore, unworthy of credence). But their support of Romney is real and should be understood and credited as worthy of respect. The truth is that Romney governed just as he has said: As a pro-life conservative. That you don’t like it is obvious–and unfortunate. I for one will follow the Cardinal’s lead here.

  32. CJ says:

    First time on this blog. It is interesting.

    My question would be, what if the Church made a stand on the morning after pill for rape victims like they have on adoption to gay couples? Would Romney have forced them? Would the state have forced them? I don’t think so. So in the end, it seems Romney’s statement is at least partially true unless the Church was forced to hand out pills. Does anyone have any data on how many morning after pills the Church had to hand out because of the legislation? This would be the key fact that would really tell us how true or false Romney’s comment was. That he made the comments above do show at least an intent to compel and a misrepresentation of a comment vs an intention at best or a complete flip flop at worst. So we have one candidate who voted for planned parenthood, another who is an adulterer at least twice over or a one who believes that a rape victim has a right to a morning after pill and lies about it. Which is the lesser of three evils?

  33. [...] Boston Catholic Insider says yes, closing their detailed argument with this: The Bottom [...]

  34. newsitem says:

    If my 16 year old daughter, God forbid, gets raped by some thug and she says to me, “Dad, I don’t want this baby and everyday for the next nine months I will wake up and be reminded of this terrible CRIME. Please Dad let me ask the doctor for the morning after drug.” I hope to God I am in a hospital that will give her the pill.

    If not, we will have what Santorum doesn’t want, children raising children. How does he think that is ok, especially because it was rape. I would really like to see how he responds if it actually happens.

    Santorum was pro choice until he ran for office. See Philadelphis magazine article where he said, “I was always pro-choice until I ran for congress.” Maybe that is why he backed Arlen Spector, on of the biggest pro choice republican senators ever. Oops, almost forgot, after Santorum got Spector elected he changed parties and supported Obamacare as the 60th and final vote needed.

    These self rightious zealots need to wake up.

    • mike knight says:

      it’s would be a tough situation no doubt – but if you’re honest about life beginning at conception, why is the baby punished for the crime too?

      that’s not the point of this blog post – Romney flat out lied and regardless of the other candidates’ past baggage, Romney is currently being dishonest ans he needs to own it.

      • José López says:

        Romney will be punished by God on Election Day.

      • Cody Black says:

        Actually if you don’t vote for Romney you will be punished, along with the rest of us. Obama has lied over 100 times. Why doesn’t anyone post a stupid article about him on this stupid blog. “Did Obama lie about the unployment when he said it would not go above 8% if we passed his spending bill?” Come on people. 10 year olds get it. It’s not a game. Just because your a democrat you think anything a republican does is wrong. Just be fair. Ask all your questions to both parties. We could start a game and line up the players. 10 on each side and they all get the same questions. I bet the democrats would forfeit and not show up. Including Obama.

      • Cody, It sounds like you are new here. One of the problems when someone first visits a blog and comments right away is that they often read one post, misconstrue things, and then sound off with their guns fully loaded saying things that are flat out inaccurate.

        Nothing about this post could or should be construed to suggest that we are Democrats at BCI. That is a fabrication on your part. Nor should about the post be construed as being supportive of Obama.

        One month ago, we posted a a post specifically critical of Obama and his measure that would force Catholic institutions to provide employees with free birth control as part of their insurance packages here: http://bostoncatholicinsider.wordpress.com/2012/01/25/obamas-unconscionable-birth-control-mandate-on-catholic-hospitals-and-colleges/

        If you think this is a “stupid blog,” then kindly take your comments elsewhere. We will make that even easier for you by moderating any future comments from you.

  35. Cody Black says:

    The author of this article has no proof. Post the bill signed by Romney and quit being a fake. You try a look like you know a lot, but you can’t back anything up. That’s why the media won’t call him out. All you have is a newspaper article how low can you get? Find a new job please.

    • Cody Black,
      You are mistaken. The author of this article has plenty of proof. You also fail to understand that there is a law (passed by the legislature) and then there are regulations (drawn-up by the executive branch) about how the law is implemented.

      Here is a link to the law passed by the legislature in September 2005:

      CHAPTER 91 AN ACT PROVIDING TIMELY ACCESS TO EMERGENCY CONTRACEPTION.

      http://www.malegislature.gov/Laws/SessionLaws/Acts/2005/Chapter91

      Here is a link to the 1975 law granting a conscience exemption to private hospitals;

      http://www.state.ma.us/legis/

      Chapter 112: Section 12I. Abortion or sterilization procedures; refusal of hospital or health facility staff members or employees to participate.

      Section 12I. A physician or any other person who is a member of or associated with the medical staff of a hospital or other health facility or any employee of a hospital or other health facility in which an abortion or any sterilization procedure is scheduled and who shall state in writing an objection to such abortion or sterilization procedure on moral or religious grounds, shall not be required to participate in the medical procedures which result in such abortion or sterilization, and the refusal of any such person to participate therein shall not form the basis for any claim of damages on account of such refusal or for any disciplinary or recriminatory action against such person. The refusal of any person who has made application to a medical, premedical, nursing, social work, or psychology program in the commonwealth to agree to counsel, suggest, recommend, assist, or in any way participate in the performance of an abortion or sterilization contrary to his religious beliefs or moral convictions shall not form the basis for any discriminatory action against such person. Conscientious objection to abortion shall not be grounds for dismissal, suspension, demotion, failure to promote, discrimination in hiring, withholding of pay or refusal to grant financial assistance under any state aided project, or used in any way to the detriment of the individual in any hospital, clinic, medical, premedical, nursing, social work, or psychology school or state aided program or institution which is supported in whole or in part by the commonwealth.
      Chapter 272: Section 21B. Privately controlled hospital or health facility not required to perform abortion or sterilization procedures, or to furnish contraceptive devices or information or family planning services.
      Section 21B. No privately controlled hospital or other health facility shall be required to admit any patient for the purpose of performing an abortion, performing any sterilization procedure, or receiving contraceptive devices or information.

      No privately controlled hospital or other privately controlled health facility shall be required to permit any patient to have an abortion, or any sterilization procedure performed in said hospital or other health facility, or to furnish contraceptive devices or information to such patient, nor shall such a hospital or other health facility be required to furnish any family planning services within or through said hospital or other health facility or to make referrals to any other hospital or health facility for such services when said services or referrals are contrary to the religious or moral principles of said hospital or said health facility as expressed in its charter, by-laws or code of ethics, or vote of its governing body.

      Any such hospital or other health facility exercising the rights granted in this section shall not on account of the exercise thereof, be disciplined or discriminated against in any manner or suffer any adverse determination by any person, firm, corporation, or other entity, including but in no way limited to any political subdivision, board, commission, department, authority, or agency of the commonwealth.

      Both laws are sitting on the books today. Nothing about the 2005 law as passed rescinded provisions of the 1975 law. It was Romney’s INTERPRETATION of the 2005 law which said it superceded the 1975 law. But as documented elsewhere, that was not legislative intent in the 2005 law, and Romney’s own Department of Public Health–and Romney himself through December 7, 2005, interpreted the 1975 law as still protecting the consciences of Catholic hospitals.

      You are wrong. Your other comments are all repetitive and are being moderated.

      • Cody Black says:

        I don’t see Romneys signature sorry. Have you ever heard of a typo? Who typed the law and put it on the web? A democrat in that state? Provide the actuall bill with Romneys signature. Install then shut up about it. Fake fake fake.

      • Cody, You are completely wrong. This is about a regulation created and promulgated by Romney’s Department of Public Health. Here is a link to what the DPH promulgated December 20, 2005:

        http://www.mass.gov/eohhs/docs/dph/quality/hcq-circular-letters/hospital-ec-0512456.pdf

        It says, in part: 130.1042: Emergency Contraception Information and Services for Rape Victims Each hospital that is licensed to provide emergency services shall promptly provide the following to each female rape victim of childbearing age who presents at the emergency department: (A) Medically and factually accurate written information provided by the Department about emergency contraception; (B) An offer of emergency contraception at the hospital if medically indicated; and (C) Dispensing of emergency contraception at her request unless medically contraindicated.

        The regulation says nothing about the exemption for private hospitals passed in 1975 that is in the Mass General Law which we have cited previously.

        But it gets worse than that. In April of 2007, the DPH issued this memo to hospitals regarding emergency contraception where they specifically said there was NO CONSCIENCE EXEMPTION:

        http://www.mass.gov/eohhs/docs/dph/quality/hcq-circular-letters/hospital-ec-0704475.pdf

        “To ensure that particular hospital staffs values or beliefs do not interfere with compliance with the law, the hospital must institute systems to ensure that all female rape victims of childbearing age are promptly provided medically and factually accurate information about emergency contraception, are promptly offered emergency contraception, and emergency contraception is initiated upon her request.”

        Cody, you are not only wrong, but your tone and approach are offensive and insulting to this blog and to other readers. Any future comments from you will be moderated. We suggest you post your comments elsewhere.

  36. [...] (typeof(addthis_share) == "undefined"){ addthis_share = [];} Boston Catholic Insider: In the Republican Presidential debate Wednesday evening at about 8:50pm or so, former Gov. Mitt [...]

  37. Linda Albers says:

    Not going to into my personal opinions on this subject or Gov Romney but I do feel compelled to say as a lifelong citizen of Massachusetts with 40+ years living in Boston that ANY article regarding anything even remotely political which uses the Boston Globe as it’s source should not be taken TOO seriously. Not faulting the writer of this piece but most of us (Boston residents) know that what happened and what the Globe says happened are usually two very different things. Now to be fair the investigative reporting at the Globe is very good, perhaps at times exceptional, but again when politics are involved the reporting is abysmal. Even some of the most liberal among us sort of chuckle over some of the Globs (not a typo many in the area refer to the paper as the Glob) “reporting”. If you want a few laughs watch some film of press conference and then read the Globe the next day. And you just might see for example a completely accurate quote from a politician (usually a republican—but even a democrat sometimes) but to a very different question than what the Globe implies.

    GlobeReporter: “Senator, how do you feel about cockroaches?”

    Senator: “filthy disgusting creatures,they should all be exterminated”

    Reporter 2: “Senator, did you enjoy reading to the kindergartener’s at the Gardner School this morning?”

    Senator: ” you know really did enjoy it, I doubt my week will get better than that”

    Globe headline the next day—” Asked about City ‘s Kindergarteners at Press Conference Senator says Filthy and Disgusting–Calls for Extermination”

    Ok , forgive me I exaggerated here, but sadly not by much

  38. Carol says:

    Duplicating my response at the bottom of the thread.

    I’d like to know why all of the Romney supporters keep circumventing Romney’s lies with a list of people who support him. This is not a discussion about which Catholics support Mitt Romney.

    This is a discussion about getting a clarification from Mitt Romney on what he said in the debate the other night.

    Specifically, the differences between Mitt Romneys executive orders and Obama’s executive orders and what constitutes as a ‘volunteer’ of Catholic conscience protections under an executive edict.

    Why won’t the Romney people just clarify his ludicrous statement that he did not force Catholics to give out abortifacients, that we did it voluntarily?

    We’d like some facts please.

    Romney is on the record saying no matter the law says, he held convictions in his heart that Catholics should be forced to give out abortifacients – and they must.

    After all the Constitution wasn’t written after 2005. It existed at the time of his edict that Catholics did not have recourse to it, or to state laws protecting their religious freedom.

    It seems to me that Mitt Romney’s statement that the Catholic Church ‘volunteered’ could only mean two things:

    1. He perceives his own executive edict that Catholics do not have any lawful protections as rising to the level of the volunteering of the Catholic Church.

    2. Cardinal O’Malley himself, or someone he delegated as his representative, met with the governor and and told him the Cardinal was willing to give out abortifacients at Catholic Hospitals.

    Which is it?

    These are the only two options near as I can see.

    If there are other options, articulate them.

    It is critical for Catholics to get Mitt Romney’s statement clarified. If Mitt’s ideas of volunteerism is number 1, Catholics throughout the nation will be subject to the exact same edicts he carried out here in Massachusetts. These are, in fact, the exact same edicts Obama we face from Obama.

    Maybe what Catholics need to do is write an open public letter to Mary Ann Glendon, asking her to get the answer from Mitt Romney for us. There are many Catholics who would be willing to sign their name to such an open letter to Mary Anne. Perhaps thousands of us would do so. Surely Mary Ann would want Catholics in the United States to have accurate information about Mitt Romney’s idea of how to get the Catholic Church to…’volunteer’.

  39. LP morton says:

    Anyone who will buss in people to stack the deck is cheating and anyone who will cheat will lie and now we see that he lied to the American public. What will he do while in office? This guy is just like Newt says he is, a Massachusetts moderate….he is not a conservative with conservative principals. He will compromise this country to suit whomever he has made a promise too…..

    • Cody Black says:

      No that would be the democrat in office now. What did Romney do as a governor besides work for no pay? He wasn’t in it for himself. Wake up. Obama is a bottom feeder. Everyone in the world thinks we’re pathetic because of Obama. They are just laughing it up. All the dentists don’t even get it. You could laugh right to their face and they would give you a dear in the headlights look. Common sence should be a requirement for president.

  40. Smith says:

    What I don’t understand is why the Catholic Church did not close the hospitals in Massachusetts rather than comply….if they really believe in their pro-life principles. That probably would have put a screeching halt to this whole movement, but they didn’t have the guts to stand by their convictions. I suspect they will do nothing to stop Obama either. What would Jesus do???

    • Michael says:

      Smith you are correct in fighting back, but you are wrong in your approach … closing Catholic hospitals is their goal. Where are the courageous leaders of the church who will stop this? DO NOT CLOSE CATHOLIC HOSPITALS. Stand up, grow a pair, and tell these fascists to screw. We will continue to run Catholic hospitals and we WILL NOT violate our conscience. An unjust law is no law at all. Do not follow or give credence to unjust laws. And don’t say stop “forcing us.” No one can force you to violate your conscience. You are the only one who can violate your conscience. It is a test. Do you (every single Catholic given the opportunity to violate his/her conscience) have the moral character to pass?

  41. Jill says:

    So they did in fact comply? And is it still going on? How about in other states?

  42. harleydavidson says:

    While you guys are talking about the morning after pills for rape victims, the radical muslims are slowly infiltrating this country. Christians are being persecuted by muslims, some CINO (Catholics in name only) will re-vote for obama who opposed the “Born Alive Infant Protection Act…

    Get your priorities together, people.

  43. Jan says:

    Romney lies to make himself look good, and he lies to make others look bad. Plain and simple, he is a liar. Heaven help us if he gets the nomination, as he will be not better than Obama.

  44. Jonathan says:

    Romney is a liar. Santorum is insane. Newt is an idiot. Ron P is off the chart. The Republicans don’t stand a chance. You can fight all you want. It’s a different world folks, and no one is listening to you.

  45. Brandon says:

    The catholic church clerical hierarchy is identical to the crazed Shiite clerics in Iran, except the catholic clerics are celibate, the Shiite clerics don’t molest children and allow comfort hotels for the needs of Shiite men away from their wives. Pull the tax exemption for this republican lobbyist group, the catholic church.

  46. frankie Lee says:

    Let’s come with a basic answer.So,Romney did say yes to contraceptive pill.What’s so difficult to understand such a simple matter?

  47. [...] covered last time, during the Wednesday debate (transcript here), Gov. Romney said he did not require Catholic [...]

  48. [...] Mitt Romney’s told another lie in the debate about his position of requiring Catholic hospital… [...]

  49. Frankie Lee says:

    I am sure people are seeing how bad Romney is.A stadium that could fill 80 000 people,Romney only got an audience of 200.

    Wow!Romney is surely toast.

  50. [...] your keys, enjoy the ride. Mitt Romney can look at a subject like abortion or religious freedom (he forced Catholic hospitals to dispense abortifacients in Massachusetts, let’s remember) with the same professional indifference as the details of [...]

  51. David J. Fontaine says:

    Mitt Romney must NOT be allowed to become the Republican nominee to the Presidency in 2012. Romney is a ‘fraud, liar and hypocrit’ who would deceive voters into believing that he a ‘conservative’ Republican who would repeal Obama’s failed left wing radical laws, policies and programs. When, in fact, Mitt Romney is not only the ‘mirror image of Obama’ but also, a ‘DEMOCRAT in Republican clothing AND a ‘far right wing radical liberal/professie Republican’ …more dangerous than Obama and any far left wing radical liberal Democrat that we have come to know thus far.

    You need not look any further for evidence of this than to Mitt Romney’s ‘anti-caltholic’ position on contraceptives (sterilization and abortion inducing drugs) that ultimately became law under Romneycare in MA.

    That said, I for one will not be counted amongst the useful iditos who will not only allow themselves to be deceived and lied to by Mitt Romney, but also blindly vote for him to both become the Republican nominee and President in 2012. Mitt Romeny has made up my mind for me; namely, I will not vote for Mitt Romey if he is the Republican nominee for the Presidency. Likewise, I will not vote to reelect Obama. Republican…Democrat…Whatever!! Politicians from either political party are ‘frauds, liars and hypocrits’ who will say and do anything to elected. Likewise, the majority of voters both Republican and Democrat’ are being used as ‘useful idiots’ who will vote along party lines for either Mitt Romney or Obama only to suffer from voters’ remorse for having done so.

  52. [...] from being corrected by nominating a guy that shilled for the mandate at a federal level and forced Catholic hospitals to use Plan B. Four more years of President Obama and exactly what rights and freedoms will we have [...]

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 559 other followers

%d bloggers like this: