AND to admit her error now (while it would be a courageous act of Christian charity) would be to require her to get off the ladder of the father of same-sex marriage in America. But MaryAnn is too close to the top to look down at this stage. Just think of how God will use her brilliant mind … when the right issue arises.

Until then it is tea and crumpets with the man who looks like he might go to the white house. It is such a lovely and historic place … it almost completely blurs out the wake of the destruction of our society that MaryAnn is partly responsible for.

http://www.realcatholictv.com/daily/?today=2012-03-01

http://www.boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/articles/2009/03/04/caritas_draws_fire_on_abortion/

“Caritas and Centene Corp. released a one-sentence statement that said the venture ‘will contract with providers, both in and out of the Caritas network, to ensure access to all services required by the authority, including confidential family planning services.’”

“In December, NARAL, an abortion rights group, said a survey it conducted of 70 hospital emergency rooms statewide revealed that all but two provided emergency contraception to rape victims, as required by a 2005 state law. The two that said they did not were Caritas hospitals, Caritas St. Elizabeth’s Medical Center in Brighton and Caritas Holy Family Hospital in Methuen, according to NARAL.”

“Caritas responded to NARAL’s concern with a December statement that said it trains staff to abide by the Massachusetts law …”

So, it wasn’t just de la Torre, but the Cardinal who was willing to contract baby killing. Additionally, we see that only 2 of the 6 Caritas hospitals didn’t provide “Plan B,” but even worse, Caritas trained its staff to abide by the “2005 state law.”

Cardinal O’Malley is now head of the USCCB’s pro-life committee. Romney is now pro-life. George Orwell is somewhere, laughing.

Here’s a quote:

“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.” -Mitt Romney, 2012

Was there or wasn’t there?

“Hospital leadership, however, insists that their staff is well trained and follows the law ‘in all cases,’” the NARAL report said of the Catholic hospitals.

That may be because, as Avila told the Globe in 2005, the law passed by the legislature did not explicitly repeal the religious exemption that Romney’s counsel said was superceded by the 2005 law.

”As long as that statute was left standing, I think those who want to rely on that statute for protection for what they’re doing have legal grounds,” Avila said at the time. ”

((http://www.todanoticia.com/36396/mitt-romney-attacked-for-massachusetts/))

Before Romney made his reversal, Democrats were threatening to explicitly repeal the 1975 law, because of Romney’s claims and other claims that they worked in harmony allowing for an exemption. By reversing, an explicit repeal was avoided, leaving Catholic Hospitals a legal basis to stand on.

Would you have had Romney bill to ultimately have even broader, more explicit scope by fighting a losing battle with a 85% democratic legislature?

In my view, Romney took the political bullet in 2005 so that the Catholic Church did not have to do so. This makes sense, considering the time when his reversal was met with surprise, since a run for president as a conservative was expected. There must have been an important reason for a reversal on the official interpretation of the bill: it certainly was not for his own political gain, and it effectively benefited the side of religious freedoms.

By not reversing, Romney would have risked removal of the 1975 law; but, by reversing, there was no requirement, ultimately and Catholic hospitals followed their standards.

However, the salient arguments still apply.

Romney found he could not interpret the explicit meaning of the law as working with the 1975 law, as that was against legislative intent.

Romney helped work in wording in the Mass Department of Health to provide the workaround.

Romney expressed what he personally believed, and? He also expressed what he believed to legally be the case about the explicit meaning of the law.

Look at the Beckett Fund for Religious Liberty, who awarded Romney with the Canterbury Medal in 2008 for standing on the side of religious freedoms during his governorship. They are currently challenging Obama’s contraception mandate. They are and have been in the legal trenches, watching the effects and dynamics of law and governance…

Take a moment to read this statement:

Boston, MA
United States

Ambassador Mary Ann Glendon, Founder of Women Affirming Life and Chair of the Board of the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty as well as the Canterbury Medal recipient in 2003, made the following statement on Mitt Romney’s defense of religious liberty:

“The charge that Mitt Romney has not stood tall to defend freedom of religion is preposterous. The truth is that Mitt Romney has been fighting assaults on religious freedom for a long time, and at moments and in places where it was not popular, to say the least. When Catholic Charities in Massachusetts was being forced out of the adoption business because they were trying to provide adoption services for needy children while staying true to their beliefs, it was Governor Mitt Romney who stood shoulder to shoulder with the Catholic Church and filed a bill to protect religious liberty. It was precisely for his courageous efforts in defense of religious freedom that the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty awarded him its prestigious Canterbury Medal in 2008. At this moment when religious liberty is under attack from many quarters, people of all faiths won’t find a more ardent or effective advocate than Mitt Romney. He has shown backbone on every critical issue at every juncture when it counted.”

((http://www.mittromney.com/news/press/2012/02/mary-ann-glendon-people-all-faith-wont-find-more-ardent-or-effective-advocate-mit))

Remember in your fact-check follow-up you used DPH statements from 2007 to somehow implicate Romney, when he was no longer governor? There are reasons your evaluation of what actually happened should, in all candor, be doubted.

If you are going to comment here further on this issue, please do so ONLY WITH QUOTES from Romney that explain his comments and actions in 2005.

Here is what Romney said in his July 26, 2005 Op-Ed piece, “why I vetoed contraception bill”:
http://www.boston.com/news/globe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2005/07/26/why_i_vetoed_contraception_bill/
“I believe that abortion is the wrong choice except in cases of incest, rape, and to save the life of the mother.”

He was consistent with what he said at a press conference on December 8, 2005: “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.”

http://www.boston.com/yourlife/health/women/articles/2005/12/09/romney_says_no_hospitals_are_exempt_from_pill_law/?page=full

The decision overturns a ruling made public this week by the state Department of Public Health that privately run hospitals could opt out of the requirement if they objected on moral or religious grounds.

Romney had initially supported that interpretation, but he said yesterday that he had changed direction after his legal counsel, Mark D. Nielsen, concluded Wednesday that the new law supersedes a preexisting statute that says private hospitals cannot be forced to provide abortions or contraception.

”And 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 at the State House.

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.”
In other words, Romney repeatedly said he personally feels it is OK for Catholic hospitals to have to violate their consciences and give emergency contraception to ANY rape victim, even if she has conceived a child.

Those are the facts. You seem unable to accept those as facts. Romney said at the time that he felt “the law was the law” and the state had to follow it (despite the fact that the MA Constitution banned any such law that would force Catholics to violate their consciences), and that same view was reinforced by Eric Fehrnstrom in his interview last week.

If you have no quotes from Romney with references that refute these views, which we strongly doubt because we have researched this thoroughly already, then please refrain from further comments.

A few days ago, you said, “it is incumbent upon you to check the major parties involved in your research. Have you read Romney�s accounting of the story? It�s there on his website…” — turn out that the website you pointed us to was not the Romney website at all, but some random Romney supporter whose About Us said, “Well really this is about me– this is the story of one man’s journey from having a negative impression of Mitt Romney to a positive impression of him.” That damages your credibility.

The Catholic hospitals and spokespeople said they were upset with the Romney decision to interpret the law as mandating they give out emergency contraception against their consciences, but they thought there was still a loophole that would exempt them because of the 1975 law that remained on the books. The reality that you are choosing to ignore is that Romney INTERPRETED the new law–in violation of the Massachusetts Constitution–as meaning there was no exemption, and he said he PERSONALLY BELIEVED there should be no exemption. You are the one who keeps ignoring that fact. When will you acknowledge what he said and his decision to overrule the DPH?

Shameful.

I have tried repeatedly to point out the fact of what Catholic spokesmen and Catholic Hospitals have said, and BCI just keeps blinking. No response to the actual fact.

Shameful.