Wednesday, August 3, 2011

MCFL Gets Caught Between Whoring for the Republicans and Their Mission

More peculiar news(for a change) from MCFL.

First, they announce they're going after Romneycare. Then, with the same breath, they announce they'll support the fooline who authored it.

The cynic in me wonders whether Romney is withholding his ten thousand dollar donation.

Romney was for mandated socialized medicine with low co-pay abortions before he was against it. As we all know by now, Obama modeled Obamacare on Romneycare.

Romney has walked a fine line on the health care issue, as well, defending his law as a state solution to a state problem, while calling for a repeal of the national law, which he has denounced as a power grab.

It is highly unusual for a group that opposes abortion rights to challenge a Republican presidential candidate who embraces its cause. But some abortion opponents have questioned the sincerity of Romney’s beliefs.

During the 2008 Republican primary, for example, antiabortion activists protested outside several of his campaign appearances, while another candidate, Senator Sam Brownback of Kansas attacked Romney’s shift on abortion.

Fox said her group is not trying to undercut Romney’s presidential campaign, merely one of the laws he signed.

“I have no problem with Mitt Romney,’’ she said. “If he is the nominee, we will back him to the hilt.’’

This is typical of the problems with MCFL. They support, lobby and help elect proabortion politicians and then when the laws they enact kill children, everyone, including them, is forced into running around the Commonwealth trying to save the few we can. And then, when a legitimate pro-life group mentions the obvious, they throw them under the bus and cover up the truth.

Even so, Citizens for Life, which is the state affiliate of the National Right to Life Committee, had a statement on its website yesterday, blasting the state law in much starker terms.

“RomneyCare covers abortions, and the mandate forces citizens to participate in a system which strives to make the murder of unborn children as cheap as $50,’’ the statement said. “There are, however, many more ways which this requirement offends against both the sanctity of human life, principles of ethical medicine and simple common sense.’’

Yesterday, Citizens for Life removed the statement from its website and immediately began distancing itself from that line of attack, after being contacted by Peter Flaherty, Romney’s liaison to social conservatives.

Fox blamed the statement on a staff member at Citizens for Life, and said it did not reflect the group’s views

It doesn't reflect their views?

It has nothing to do with "views". These are facts. Abortions are covered with a 50 dollar co-pay under Romneycare.

“I was extremely upset,’’ she said. “He has removed it. I thought, ‘Where did this come from, because it had my name on it, and I never wrote it.’ ’’

Here's what's happened in the past - she either has fired them for disclosing the truth, or if they're a volunteer, they'll get a boot in the backside.

The woman is a menace.


Tom said...

Comments for and against Romney on a number of issues by interested and interesting people:

Presidential Hopefuls: Mitt Romney
Is the former Massachusetts governor too much of a flip-flopper for pro-lifers to trust?

National Catholic Register

Anonymous said...

Am I reading this right?

Fox has disavowed her opposition to the abortions in Romneycare? She gets a phone call from the Romney campaign and she pulls the information off of the MCFL website that Romneycare pays for cheap abortions. She is upset that leaked out. Her view supports tax payer supported abortions in Romneycare.

Has she lost her marbles?

"He was governor of Massachusetts, and being pro-life wasn’t going to do him any good.”

Romney will do whatever is politically expedient. He always has and he always will. So will Anne Fox and MCFL.

What do we give a bleep whether or not being prolife was doing HIM any good. It's about the babies Anne. The point of a prolife organization is to express concern about how being proabortion during his tenure didn't do the babies any good.

Anonymous said...

Commonwealth Care (i Romneycare) has abortions from $0 to $100 (based on income, there are 3 plans - I, II, III with abortion copays of $0, $ 50, $100 repectively -- checked 2 Commonwealth Care insurance plans BMC HealthNet and Celticare).

BTW, Boston Medical Center (BMC) did over 1,560 abortions in 2009.

Joseph D'Hippolito said...

Carol, this is the fundamental problem with those who oppose legaized abortion by relying primarily, if not exclusively, on political, legislative or judicial means to end the practice. Elected officials and judges usually have other priorites, such as retaining office.

The only way -- the only way -- that abortion will be reduced (if not ended) is by teaching young people of both sexes how to act morally and ethically when facing situations in which their hormones rage. This goes far, far beyond sex education and abstinence. This involves teaching young people that a member of the opposite sex is a person with God-given dignity, not a recepticle for hormones. This involves teaching young people to stand -- alone, if necessary -- against a culture that constantly sexualizes them at an earlier and earlier age.

It also means that priests and bishops must put their money where their big mouths are (an open question, obviously, but I digress). Here's an example of what I'm talking about from America Magazine:

Year after year I've listened to the local bishop and priests tell Catholics that abortion is the most important moral issue facing the country and that it must be the primary factor in deciding how to cast our votes in elections. Yet in the 13 years I attended Mass at the local Cathedral, there was not a single special collection devoted to crisis pregnancy centers - not a diaper or jar of baby food was collected. This supposed "priority" also merited no mention in the yearly pleas for contributions to the bishop's Lenten appeal. Moreover, when our bishop decided to undertake a special fundraising effort, it was not to support crisis pregnancy services, but to build himself a fancy mansion to live in next to the Cathedral. What was that moral priority again? These bishops will throw women out of the church for saving a mother's life (Bishop Olmstead), threaten to withhold communion from pro-choice politicians, and make a show of praying the rosary outside of abortion clinics, they will not lift a finger to help women and babies in need, even urging legislators to deny them access to health care. The hypocrisy is nauseating.

Anonymous said...

Joe, I've been telling people that for years, but the pro-lifers aren't interested in fixing the cause of the problem. If they did, then what would they do?

If the truth be known, the pro-life people have turned me so off to them that I can no longer stand being around one.

Jerry said...

I don't understand the problem with pro-lifers taken in the general context. Many "professional" pro-lifers deserve our ire, such as MCFL, NRTL, and others. But the rank-and-file are the salt of the earth, from my perspective. They're the ones talking to girls going into the death mills. They're praying the Rosary at the mills. They're running pregnancy help centers with no help or gratitude from the Church. They're raising families, even adopting, and teaching their children modesty. They become catechists at their parishes and suffer the scorn of the feminists and get squelched by their pastors. They also work on legislation. And for all that, their reward is ridicule. In the meantime, those with authority, those with money, those with media access either do nothing or worse, as with MCFL.

Anonymous said...

carol, are you going to st. cecilia's tomorrow? They are having baptisms at 9:30 and 11:00 and we hear that fr. unni doesn't use the rite and therefore may invalidate the sacrament. Someone told me that he has a woman doing it with him.