re: #158 Charles

Here’s the problem, though — the Mitt Romney of 2012 is all over the map on this issue. In the article he posted at National Review in June, he takes several stances that are inconsistent with each other:

[Link: www.nationalreview.com…]

For example, he says he wants to repeal Roe v. Wade, but at the same time allow exceptions for rape/incest. But if Roe v. Wade is repealed, abortion becomes illegal again — so what does it matter whether he says he supports exceptions?

And if he supports exceptions, but won’t allow any federal funds to pay for poor women, it might as well be illegal, for the poor women. By approving of the Hyde Amendment he’s being inconsistent and selective.

I wouldn’t trust anything he said anyway.