The Real Mitt Romney
Bill Fortenberry
In my previous articles on the topic of voting, I
have established that Christians should not vote for the lesser of two evils but
rather for the candidate that is most pleasing to God. In this article, I would like to be much more
direct and demonstrate why I believe that Christians should not vote for Mitt
Romney in particular. To do this, I
would like to present six statements made by Mr. Romney within the past few years
that should cause every Christian to seriously reconsider any decision to
support him for the Presidency.
Statement 1:
“I’m not going to reduce the taxes on the wealthy at all.”[1]
Mr. Romney made this statement on September 23, 2012 in response to a question from an ABC News reporter, and he has repeated it on several other occasions. Each time that Mr. Romney has provided this answer, he has done so to refute claims that he wants to return to a trickle-down economic policy. He has been adamant that he will not end the practice of redistribution of wealth through higher taxes on wealthy Americans. In fact, Mr. Romney actually stated in an interview with Fox31 of Denver that he would do even more than is currently being done to make sure that the wealthy pay what President Obama refers to as “their fair share.”[2] In that interview, Mr. Romney said:
“What we’re going to do is bring down the rates for everybody, and at the same time we’re going to limit deductions and credits and so forth for people at the high end. Very high income people are going to have the deductions and credits come down so we can pay for bringing down the rates.”
And when he was asked to explain how that would work, he said:
“As an option you could say everybody’s going to get up to a $17,000 deduction; and you could use your charitable deduction, your home mortgage deduction, or others — your healthcare deduction, and you can fill that bucket, if you will, that $17,000 bucket that way. And higher income people might have a lower number.”
According to this statement, Mr. Romney’s plan is to lower the amount of taxes paid by poor and middle class Americans and place a heavier tax burden on the wealthy in order to pay for all of the services that the poor and middle class receive. The last time that I checked, this kind of wealth redistribution is exactly what so many Christians have condemned President Obama for implementing. Those who have puffed up Mr. Romney as their savior from President Obama’s evil socialism are in for a sore disappointment if he is elected as our next President.
In addition to being a plan for blatant redistribution, Mr. Romney’s plan also represents a threat to Christian organizations through his proposed cap on charitable deductions. Currently, individuals can deduct as much as fifty percent of their adjusted gross income if that amount is given to a church or charitable organization. This means that a businessman with an adjusted gross income of $300,000 can claim as much as $150,000 in deductions on his taxes as long as he gives an equivalent amount to a church or a charity. This system encourages wealthy individuals to donate money to charities which are much better equipped to take care of the poor than the government is, and thereby everyone benefits. The wealthy benefit from receiving a generous tax break; the charities benefit from having their bills paid; the poor benefit from having their needs met, and society benefits from the lifting of the burdens of the poor. Mr. Romney’s plan would end all of this. Our businessman could still give $150,000 to churches and charities if he so desired, but he would only be able to claim $17,000 of that as a deduction on his tax return. Thus, his tax burden would be increased by the fact that he would have to pay taxes on an additional $133,000 of income. The most likely outcome of this plan would be an end to the majority of large charitable donations.
Statement 2:
“There are a number of things that I like in health care reform.”
One of the cornerstones of Mr. Romney’s bid for the Presidency has been his promise to eliminate Obamacare, but in a September 9, 2012, interview for NBC’s “Meet the Press,” Mr. Romney publicly admitted that he wanted to keep parts of Obamacare in place. He went on to list three specific examples, but he gave no indication that his preference is limited to just those three. Here is the exact statement from Mr. Romney:
“I say we're gonna replace Obamacare, and I'm replacing it with my own plan ... I'm not getting rid of all of health care reform, of course. There are a number of things that I like in health care reform that I'm gonna put in place. One is to make sure that those with pre-existing conditions can get coverage. Two is to assure that the marketplace allows for individuals to have policies that cover their family up to whatever age they might like. I also want individuals to be able to buy insurance, health insurance on their own as opposed to only being able to get it on a tax advantage basis through their company.” [3]
When I listened to this interview, the first thing that stood out to me was Mr. Romney’s statement that he would replace Obamacare with his own plan. Now, there are many Christians who have supported Mr. Romney in spite of his implementation of socialized healthcare in Massachusetts solely because of a belief that he will allow each state to come up with their own healthcare solutions. But is that really what Mr. Romney has in mind? In the first Presidential debate, Mr. Romney did say that “the best course for health care is to … craft a plan at the state level that fits the needs of the state,”[4] and many people have latched onto this and similar statements without realizing that Mr. Romney immediately followed that statement with, “And then let's focus on getting the costs down for people, rather than raising it with the $2,500 additional premium.” The only way that a President Romney could abide by both of these statements would be to allow the states to present their plans but then reserve the final determination of healthcare decisions to the federal government. This would allow him to keep everything that he likes from Obamacare while still giving the illusion of freedom and states’ rights.
Statement 3:
“It's by no means a branch of Islam.”
Mr. Romney provided this statement in response to a question that he received on June 2, 2009. He had recently given a speech on national security before the Heritage Foundation, and he was asked why he mentioned jihad but never once mentioned Islam. Here is the full text of his answer:
“I didn't refer to Islam at all, or to any other religion for that matter. I spoke about three major threats America faces on a long term basis. Jihadism is one of them, and that is not Islam. If you want my views on Islam, it's quite straightforward. Islam is one of the world's great religions and the great majority of people in Islam want peace for themselves and peace with their maker. They want to raise families and have a bright future.
“There is, however, a movement in the world known as jihadism. They call themselves jihadists and I use the same term. And this jihadist movement is intent on causing the collapse of moderate Muslim states and the assassination of moderate Muslim leaders. It is also intent on causing collapse of other nations in the world. It's by no means a branch of Islam. It is instead an entirely different entity. In no way do I suggest it is a part of Islam.” [5]
If this is what Mr. Romney really believes about Islam and jihad, then he is even more naïve than President Obama, for even our most Muslim friendly President was not so ignorant of the teachings of Islam as to deny that jihad was one of that religion’s core doctrines. Here is President Obama’s answer to a similar question about jihad:
“Well, the phrase jihad has a lot of meanings within Islam and is subject to a lot of different interpretations. But I will say that, first, Islam is one of the world’s great religions. And more than a billion people who practice Islam, the overwhelming majority view their obligations to their religion as ones that reaffirm peace and justice and fairness and tolerance. I think all of us recognize that this great religion in the hands of a few extremists has been distorted to justify violence towards innocent people that is never justified.
“And so I think one of the challenges that we face is how do we isolate those who have these distorted notions of religious war and reaffirm those who see faiths of all sorts -- whether you are a Hindu or a Muslim or a Christian or a Jew or any other religion, or you don't practice a religion -- that we can all treat each other with respect and mutual dignity, and that some of the universal principles that Gandhi referred to -- that those are what we’re living up to, as we live in a nation or nations that have very diverse religious beliefs.”[6]
Obviously, President Obama’s answer was still somewhat of a denial of the true nature of jihad within the Muslim religion, and many Christians were quick to point that out at the time. But now, many of those same Christians are throwing their full support behind a man who views our enemies with an even more radical denial of the true motivation behind their hatred. This is an extremely dangerous view that will likely cause Mr. Romney to continue the same policy of appeasement that has been implemented over the past four years.
Mr. Romney’s view of jihad is such a unique departure from the truth that I immediately suspected the teachings of the Mormon Church as the real source of his opinion, and when I pursued this suspicion, I discovered that the eleventh annual Mormon Studies Conference at Utah Valley University was entitled: “Mormonism and Islam: Commonality and Cooperation Between Abrahamic Faiths.”[7] The website for this event includes a page of selected readings which contain a great deal of information about the Mormon view of Islam. I discovered, for example, that George Q. Cannon, a member of the Quorum of Twelve Apostles, a member of the Mormon Church’s First Presidency and a counselor to Brigham Young and three successive Mormon Presidents, wrote the following statement about Islam:
“I believe myself that Mahomet, whom the Christians deride and call a false prophet and stigmatize with a great many epithets, was a man raised up by the Almighty and inspired to a certain extent by Him to effect the reforms which he did in his land and in the nations surrounding. He attacked idolatry and restored the great and crowning idea that there is but one God. He taught that idea to his people and reclaimed them from polytheism and from the heathenish practices into which they had fallen.”[8]
Another Mormon leader, Elder B. H. Roberts wrote:
“We look upon the teachings of Mahomet, a mixture of good and of evil, but with more good in them, perhaps, than men are generally inclined to admit. The faith of Mahomet has done much toward redeeming a portion of our Father's children from darkness.”[9]
Elder Roberts also voiced his agreement with Edward Gibbon’s statement that:
“The Koran is a glorious testimony to the unity of God ... the liberality of Mahomet allowed to his predecessors the same credit which he claimed for himself; and the chain of inspiration was prolonged from the fall of Adam to the promulgation of the Koran.”[10]
This appears to be the view of Islam that Mr. Romney has accepted. Under this view, the claim that jihad is a part of Islam would be identical to the claim that jihad was instituted by God. Mr. Romney cannot accept this second claim as true, and therefore, in order to abide by the teachings of his church in regards to Islam, he has no choice but to deny any correlation between the Muslim religion and jihad.
Thus Mr. Romney’s statement on jihad gives us two reasons to be concerned. First, we should be concerned about his unrealistic view of those who are attacking our nation and her allies. Even more concerning than this, however, is Mr. Romney’s willingness to deny an obvious truth in order to adhere to the teachings of the Mormon church.
Statement 4:
“Kick the ball down the field and hope that ultimately, somehow, something will happen and resolve it.”
This comment from Mr. Romney was made during a private fundraiser in which he presented his foreign policy ideas concerning Israel. I have heard many Christians claim that Mr. Romney is a good choice for President because he supports Israel and will guarantee that we continue to receive God’s blessings as a result. However, that idea is not consistent with the statement that Mr. Romney made at his fundraiser. When he was asked about a resolution to the conflict between Israel and the Palestinians, he said:
“I look at the Palestinians not wanting to see peace anyway, for political purposes, committed to the destruction and elimination of Israel, and these thorny issues, and I say, "There's just no way." And so what you do is you say, "You move things along the best way you can." You hope for some degree of stability, but you recognize that this is going to remain an unsolved problem. We live with that in China and Taiwan. All right, we have a potentially volatile situation but we sort of live with it, and we kick the ball down the field and hope that ultimately, somehow, something will happen and resolve it.” [11]
This lackadaisical attitude toward Israel probably stems directly from Mr. Romney's Mormon theology which rejects the idea that the current nation of Israel is the recipient of the promises of God. Mormon theology teaches that the true regathering of Israel prophesied in the Old Testament will not take place until after the descendants of Israel are grafted into the Mormon church. The current nation of Israel is thus seen as an imposter seeking to claim promises to which it has no legitimate right.
According to the article “The Gathering of Israel in the Book of Mormon: A Consistent Pattern” by Robert Millet of Brigham Young University,
“The people of Israel will be gathered again to the degree that they return to Christ and become formally associated with the Saints of God. That is, people are gathered first spiritually and second temporally, first to the Lord and his church and then to the lands of their inheritance or to the congregations of the Saints.”[12]
According to Mormon President Spencer Kimball,
"Now, the gathering of Israel consists of joining the true church and their coming to a knowledge of the true God. . . . Any person, therefore, who has accepted the restored gospel, and who now seeks to worship the Lord in his own tongue and with the Saints in the nations where he lives, has complied with the law of the gathering of Israel and is heir to all of the blessings promised the saints in these last days."[13]
President Ezra Benson wrote,
“The Book of Mormon is the instrument that God has designed to 'sweep the earth as with a flood, to gather out His elect unto the New Jerusalem.'”[14]
And Elder McConkie said,
“The process of gathering is one in which the scattered remnants of Jacob—those of all tribes—believe the Book of Mormon, accept the restored gospel, and come to the latter-day Zion.”[15]
From these statements of Mormon doctrine, we can see that Mr. Romney’s view of Israel is likely to be similar to that of President Obama. It is doubtful that he sees Israel as being different from any other nation, and consequently, he likely views our relationship with her as being on the same level as our relationships with all of our other allies. This explains why he suggested that we should adopt the same policy toward the Israeli Palestinian conflict that we currently have towards the contention between China and Taiwan. Mr. Romney’s Mormon view of Israel should give the Christian voter serious grounds for concern.
Statement 5:
“Moving in that direction at this stage no longer presents that problem.”
This was Mr. Romney’s answer to the question of whether he approved of the repeal of Don’t Ask Don’t Tell. In a December 9, 2011, interview with the Des Moines Register, Mr. Romney was asked "How do you feel about gays serving openly in the military?" Here is his response:
“That’s already occurred. I’m not planning on reversing that at this stage. I was not comfortable making the change during a period of conflict, due to the complicating features of a new program in the middle of two wars going on, but those wars are winding down, and moving in that direction at this stage no longer presents that problem.”[16]
In giving this answer, Mr. Romney relied on a very interesting choice of words. He did not just admit that he approved of the repeal of Don’t Ask Don’t Tell. He also admitted his understanding that this repeal is just a step in a particular direction, towards a particular goal, and he admitted to his approval of a move in that direction. The goal that he referred to in this answer is that of permitting homosexual couples to have rights that are equal to those of heterosexual couples.
Mr. Romney voiced direct approval of that goal in a May 10, 2012, interview with Neil Cavuto. Mr. Cavuto asked Mr. Romney about his thoughts on homosexual marriage, and this is what he said in response:
“From the beginning of my political career, I've made it clear that I think that marriage should be a relationship between a man and a woman, and I know other people have differing views, but that's my view ... My preference would be to have a national standard that would define marriage as a relationship between a man and a woman. That would then allow states to determine what rights would be provided for people of the same gender that wanted to have a relationship. There could be domestic partnership benefits, for instance, where one state might decide to provide hospital visitation rights. Another state might decide to provide that as well as benefits of other kinds. States could have their own decisions with regards to domestic partnership rights, but my preference would be to have a national standard for marriage and then marriage being redefined as being between a man and a woman.”[17]
Once again, Mr. Romney was very particular in his choice of words. He started out with a statement that most Christians would approve of: “Marriage should be a relationship between a man and a woman.” Immediately after making this statement, however, Mr. Romney proceeded to present a policy of allowing each state to grant homosexual couples whatever rights they wanted. His only caveat is that he doesn’t want homosexual unions to be called marriages. They can have all of the rights and recognition of marriages; he just doesn’t want them to be called marriages.
Mr. Cavuto pressed Mr. Romney for more information, and he obliged him with this response:
“We, as a society take action which we believe strengthens the nation. I happen to believe that the best setting for raising a child is where there's the opportunity for a mom and a dad to be in the home. I know there are many circumstances where that's not possible through death or divorce. I also know many gay couples are able to adopt children. That's fine. But my preference is that we encourage the marriage of a man and a woman, and that we continue to define marriage as a relationship between a man and a woman ... If two people of the same gender want to live together, want to have a loving relationship and even want to adopt a child, in my state individuals of the same sex were able to adopt children. In my view that's something which people have the right to do, but to call that marriage is, in my view, a departure from the real meaning of that word.”[18]
There are several statements in this response that should be troubling to Christians. The first, of course, is Mr. Romney’s admission that he does not believe homosexuality to be wrong. He simply thinks that defining the term “marriage” as a relationship between a man and a woman is a path which society believes will “strengthen the nation.” Most Christians, however, oppose homosexual marriage because they believe that homosexuality is inherently wrong. Christian voters should also note that Mr. Romney contradicted himself twice in this response. His stated reason for opposing homosexual marriage was that, “The best setting for raising a child is where there's the opportunity for a mom and a dad to be in the home.” Then, just two sentences later, he says that he is just fine with allowing homosexual couples to adopt children; and at the end of his statement, he went even further by saying that these couples have a right to adopt children. Not only does Mr. Romney’s claim that homosexual couples have a right to adopt contradict his own reason for opposing homosexual marriage, but it also contradicts the Republican Party Platform which condemns “the State blacklisting of religious groups which decline to arrange adoptions by same-sex couples.”[19] Mr. Romney’s position on homosexuality is out of alignment with Christian values, with the Republican platform and even with itself, but that was not the most disturbing revelation of his interview with Mr. Cavuto.
Not only did Mr. Romney say that he is fine with allowing homosexual couples to have all the rights of heterosexual couples, deny that homosexuality is morally wrong and approve of adoption by homosexual couples; but he concluded his comments on this topic with this gem of a statement:
“This is an issue which you can't really convince someone about. It's something which you either believe one way or the other. It's very much like the issue of life, and we come down on different sides of this issue after giving it careful thought and consideration. I respect the right of the President to reach the conclusion he has, and I presume he respects my right to hold to the position that I've had from the beginning of this topic being raised.”[20]
To claim, as Mr. Romney does, that “you can’t really convince someone about” the issue of homosexuality is the same thing as saying that neither side is ultimately right or wrong on this issue. They just have different beliefs about it, and they should be willing to acknowledge and respect each other’s beliefs. This places both positions in regards to homosexual marriage on an equal plane and denies the moral superiority of either of them. Such a statement is troubling enough in its own right, but it is made even more troubling by Mr. Romney’s casual admission that he applies this same philosophy of moral ambivalence to the issue of life.
Statement 6:
“That’s not something that I would precipitate.”
This was the answer that Mr. Romney gave when he was asked on September 5, 2011, if he would encourage Congress to take action pursuant to the Fourteenth Amendment in order to protect unborn children. The specific portion of the Fourteenth Amendment that Mr. Romney was asked about states, “nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws,”[21] and this particular question was prefaced with a brief history lesson explaining to him that the Constitution specifically granted Congress the authority to enact legislation to enforce the provisions of this amendment. Here is Mr. Romney’s complete response:
“Let me tell you what my orientation would be, which is: I would like to appoint to the Supreme Court Justices who believe in following the Constitution as opposed to legislating from the bench. I would like to see that Supreme Court return to the states the responsibility for determining laws relating to abortion as opposed to having the federal Supreme Court, from the bench, tell America and all the states how they have to do it. I think that's the appropriate course. Now, is there a Constitutional path to have the Congress say we're going to push aside the decision of the Supreme Court, and we instead are going to step forward and return to the states this power or put in place our own views on abortion? That would create, obviously, a Constitutional crisis. Could that happen in this country? Could there be circumstances where that might occur? I think it's reasonable that something of that nature might happen someday. That's not something I would precipitate.”[22]
There are several very important factors to Mr. Romney’s answer that I would like to bring to your attention. First and foremost, it is important for every Christian to notice that his answer to the question was a definite, No. Mr. Romney was asked specifically if he would encourage Congress to pass legislation that would end abortion in a Constitutional manner; he acknowledged that such legislation is possible, and then he said that he would not do anything to encourage Congress in that direction. This answer stands in direct and intentional opposition to the Republican Party Platform that Mr. Romney is supposed to be advancing as the Republican nominee. The platform states that the members of the Republican Party “endorse legislation to make clear that the Fourteenth Amendment's protections apply to unborn children.”[23] This is exactly what Mr. Romney has said that he will not do.
In addition to considering what Mr. Romney has said that he will not do, let’s consider what he said that he would do if elected President. Mr. Romney’s proposal for ending abortion is a two-pronged approach. First, he claims that he will nominate justices who will not tell the states how to handle this issue, and second, he claims that the responsibility for crafting abortion laws should be returned to the states. Unfortunately, this two pronged approach is self defeating. Mr. Romney claims that he will accomplish the first prong of this plan by nominating justices who follow the Constitution rather than legislating from the bench, but then he claims that he wants those justices to give the states a power which is denied to them by the Constitution. He cannot do both. Either he can appoint justices who will follow the Constitution, or he can appoint justices who will give the states powers that have been denied to them by the Constitution. Mr. Romney’s plan sounds like a winning strategy, but he knows full well that his suggestion will never work.
Now, this is a somewhat complicated point of legality that probably has many of you scratching your heads, so let me take a moment to explain it in more detail. The Tenth Amendment of the Constitution states that, “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”[24] Many people have interpreted this to mean that since the Constitution never mentions the word “abortion,” the federal government has no authority to rule on this issue and should relinquish all decisions on abortion laws to the states. However, this interpretation ignores the phrase “nor prohibited by it to the States.” This phrase may seem insignificant to the issue of abortion until we notice that the Fourteenth Amendment includes the denial of a certain power to the states. Section 1 of that amendment declares that “No State shall … deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”[25] The states are therefore denied the power to deprive any person of the right to life without due process. This means that there is a Constitutional injunction against Mr. Romney’s plan of allowing states to decide for themselves whether or not unborn children should be deprived of the right to life. The Fourteenth Amendment declares the right to life to be a federal issue, and responsibility for that right cannot be returned to the states without a new Constitutional amendment that repeals the Fourteenth Amendment.
Having looked at what Mr. Romney will not do to end abortion and having seen that he cannot do what he claims that he will do, let’s consider the justification that he provided for his decision. In the midst of rejecting the plan put forth by the Republican Party platform, Mr. Romney made a very interesting statement. He said, “That would create, obviously, a Constitutional crisis.” Now, it is important to notice that he did not say that the plan suggested by the platform would violate the Constitution but rather that it would create a crisis in regards to the Constitution. It is Mr. Romney’s plan that violates the Constitution, but what is this crisis that he is referring to? There is only one possible crisis having to do with guaranteeing Fourteenth Amendment rights to unborn children and that is the question over whether or not these children are actually persons in the meaning of the amendment. This, however, is not really a crisis at all, and Mr. Romney admits as much in another interview on the topic of abortion.
In a CBS interview that aired on August 27, 2012, Mr. Romney was asked directly if he agreed with the Republican platform on the issue of abortion. He provided the following statement as his response:
“No, my position has been clear throughout this campaign. I'm in favor of abortion being legal in the case of rape and incest and the health and life of the mother. But recognize, this is a decision that will be made by the Supreme Court. The Democrats try and make this a political issue every four years, but this is a matter in the courts. It's been settled for some time in the courts.”[26]
Setting aside for the moment the fact that this statement from Mr. Romney completely contradicts his previous claim that the issue of abortion should not be settled by the Supreme Court, let’s consider what Mr. Romney has said here. He claimed that the issue of abortion has already been settled by the courts. This is correct. The Supreme Court has already issued several rulings which explain exactly how to legitimately end abortion in America.
In the majority opinion in Roe v. Wade, Justice Blackmun wrote, “If this suggestion of personhood is established … the fetus’ right to life would then be guaranteed by the 14th Amendment.”[27] This statement from Roe itself is the foundation for the plan to end abortion by passing legislation to guarantee Fourteenth Amendment protection for unborn children. The Supreme Court has already stated that this would be sufficient for ending all abortion throughout America. Additionally, the Court has also already defined the term “person” in a manner that includes unborn children. In the case United States v. Palmer, Justice Marshall wrote that, “The words 'any person or persons' are broad enough to comprehend every human being.”[28] Since the unborn child is just as much a human being as anyone else, he must be included in the phrase “any person” as mentioned in the Fourteenth Amendment. Thus, it is clear that the courts have already ruled that the unborn child is a person within the meaning of the Constitution and that his right to life is thereby guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment. The only thing missing is the passage of legislation by Congress which establishes these court decisions as law and empowers the executive branch to enforce them. The passage of such legislation is exactly what is called for in the Republican platform, and it is exactly what Mr. Romney has said that he would not precipitate.
In addition to his rejection of the Republican platform’s plan for ending abortion, Mr. Romney has also expressed his opinion that abortion should be permitted in cases of rape and incest and if necessary to preserve the life and health of the mother. I have written in other articles about the moral problems with these exceptions, and for sake of time, I will not repeat those arguments here. Instead, I would like to point out that Mr. Romney’s insistence on exceptions to abortion laws is in fact a denial of the right to life for every unborn child. Justice Blackmun gave consideration to these exceptions in the opinion of the Court in Roe v. Wade. He wrote:
“When Texas urges that a fetus is entitled to Fourteenth Amendment protection as a person, it faces a dilemma. Neither in Texas nor in any other State are all abortions prohibited. Despite broad proscription, an exception always exists. The exception contained in Art. 1196, for an abortion procured or attempted by medical advice for the purpose of saving the life of the mother, is typical. But if the fetus is a person who is not to be deprived of life without due process of law, and if the mother's condition is the sole determinant, does not the Texas exception appear to be out of line with the Amendment's command?” [29]
What Justice Blackmun said was that it is illogical to claim that the unborn child has a right to life if that life can legally be extinguished without convicting the child of any crime. In other words, if a child can legally be killed just because his father was a rapist, then that child does not have a right to life. If a child can legally be killed just because his existence causes his mother to have poor health or to have an increased chance of dying, then that child does not have a right to life. Mr. Romney’s insistence that abortion be legal for these reasons demonstrates that he does not believe that unborn children have a right to life. He may have a personal preference for those children to live, but he does not recognize them as having an unalienable, God given right to life.
We have now seen that if Mr. Romney is elected, he plans to use the tax code to enact a wealth redistribution program that will effectively eliminate all large charitable donations, that he plans to retain major portions of the socialized medicine plan that was implemented under President Obama, that he has a dangerously flawed view of Islam, that he does not recognize the nation of Israel as the chosen people of God, that he approves of granting broad rights to homosexuals including the right to adopt children, and that he opposes ending abortion in America. We have heard each of these positions voiced by Mr. Romney himself in statements made within the past few years, and we have analyzed the logical implications of those statements. All that remains is for us to decide what to do with the information that we have thus gained. I, for one, have decided that, because of these statements as well as many others which we do not have time to cover, I cannot support Mr. Romney in his bid for the Presidency. This decision led me to delve into the Scriptures in an attempt to discover how God would have me to vote in the upcoming election. I have written about my discoveries in the articles listed below, and I trust that you will take the time to read through them as you also search for God's will during this election season.
Other articles in this series:
The Lesser of Two Evils
A Biblical Strategy for Voting
A Duty to Principle
Pragmatism or Principles?
Voting Perspectives
__________________________________________________________
[1] http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2012/09/romney-says-obama-is-trying-to-fool-voters-with-inaccurate-attacks/
[2] http://kdvr.com/2012/10/01/in-fox31-interview-romney-again-avoids-specifics-on-tax-plan/
[3] http://youtu.be/Aw39MTZcz7M
[4] http://www.cnn.com/2012/10/03/politics/debate-transcript/index.html
[5] http://www.usnews.com/news/blogs/god-and-country/2009/06/03/mitt-romney-jihadism-is-not-part-of-islam
[6] http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2010/11/07/remarks-president-and-first-lady-town-hall-with-students-mumbai-india
[7] http://www.uvu.edu/religiousstudies/mormonismandislam/
[8] Green, Arnold H., “Mormonism and Islam: From Polemics to Mutual Respect and Cooperation,” BYU Studies, vol 40:4 (2001), pg 199-220 (https://byustudies.byu.edu/showTitle.aspx?title=6759)
[9] ibid
[10] ibid
[11] http://youtu.be/ukhFBJgrZxM
[12] http://maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/publications/books/?bookid=72&chapid=871
[13] Ibid
[14] Ibid
[15] Ibid
[16] http://www.c-spanvideo.org/clip/4045144
[17] http://video.foxnews.com/v/1632705999001/gov-romney-marriage-issue-isnt-about-fundraising/
[18] Ibid
[19] http://www.gop.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/08/2012GOPPlatform.pdf
[20] http://video.foxnews.com/v/1632705999001/gov-romney-marriage-issue-isnt-about-fundraising/
[21] Constitution of the United States of America, Amendment 14, Section 1, (http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/constitution_amendments_11-27.html)
[22] http://vimeo.com/42493526
[23] http://www.gop.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/08/2012GOPPlatform.pdf
[24] Constitution of the United States of America, Amendment 10, (http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/bill_of_rights_transcript.html)
[25] Constitution of the United States of America, Amendment 14, Section 1, (http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/constitution_amendments_11-27.html)
[26] http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=7419486n
[27] Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113 (1973) (http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0410_0113_ZS.html)
[28] United States v. Palmer 16 U.S. 610 (1818) (http://bulk.resource.org/courts.gov/c/US/16/16.US.610.html)
[29] Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113 (1973) (http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0410_0113_ZS.html)
Statement 1:
“I’m not going to reduce the taxes on the wealthy at all.”[1]
Mr. Romney made this statement on September 23, 2012 in response to a question from an ABC News reporter, and he has repeated it on several other occasions. Each time that Mr. Romney has provided this answer, he has done so to refute claims that he wants to return to a trickle-down economic policy. He has been adamant that he will not end the practice of redistribution of wealth through higher taxes on wealthy Americans. In fact, Mr. Romney actually stated in an interview with Fox31 of Denver that he would do even more than is currently being done to make sure that the wealthy pay what President Obama refers to as “their fair share.”[2] In that interview, Mr. Romney said:
“What we’re going to do is bring down the rates for everybody, and at the same time we’re going to limit deductions and credits and so forth for people at the high end. Very high income people are going to have the deductions and credits come down so we can pay for bringing down the rates.”
And when he was asked to explain how that would work, he said:
“As an option you could say everybody’s going to get up to a $17,000 deduction; and you could use your charitable deduction, your home mortgage deduction, or others — your healthcare deduction, and you can fill that bucket, if you will, that $17,000 bucket that way. And higher income people might have a lower number.”
According to this statement, Mr. Romney’s plan is to lower the amount of taxes paid by poor and middle class Americans and place a heavier tax burden on the wealthy in order to pay for all of the services that the poor and middle class receive. The last time that I checked, this kind of wealth redistribution is exactly what so many Christians have condemned President Obama for implementing. Those who have puffed up Mr. Romney as their savior from President Obama’s evil socialism are in for a sore disappointment if he is elected as our next President.
In addition to being a plan for blatant redistribution, Mr. Romney’s plan also represents a threat to Christian organizations through his proposed cap on charitable deductions. Currently, individuals can deduct as much as fifty percent of their adjusted gross income if that amount is given to a church or charitable organization. This means that a businessman with an adjusted gross income of $300,000 can claim as much as $150,000 in deductions on his taxes as long as he gives an equivalent amount to a church or a charity. This system encourages wealthy individuals to donate money to charities which are much better equipped to take care of the poor than the government is, and thereby everyone benefits. The wealthy benefit from receiving a generous tax break; the charities benefit from having their bills paid; the poor benefit from having their needs met, and society benefits from the lifting of the burdens of the poor. Mr. Romney’s plan would end all of this. Our businessman could still give $150,000 to churches and charities if he so desired, but he would only be able to claim $17,000 of that as a deduction on his tax return. Thus, his tax burden would be increased by the fact that he would have to pay taxes on an additional $133,000 of income. The most likely outcome of this plan would be an end to the majority of large charitable donations.
Statement 2:
“There are a number of things that I like in health care reform.”
One of the cornerstones of Mr. Romney’s bid for the Presidency has been his promise to eliminate Obamacare, but in a September 9, 2012, interview for NBC’s “Meet the Press,” Mr. Romney publicly admitted that he wanted to keep parts of Obamacare in place. He went on to list three specific examples, but he gave no indication that his preference is limited to just those three. Here is the exact statement from Mr. Romney:
“I say we're gonna replace Obamacare, and I'm replacing it with my own plan ... I'm not getting rid of all of health care reform, of course. There are a number of things that I like in health care reform that I'm gonna put in place. One is to make sure that those with pre-existing conditions can get coverage. Two is to assure that the marketplace allows for individuals to have policies that cover their family up to whatever age they might like. I also want individuals to be able to buy insurance, health insurance on their own as opposed to only being able to get it on a tax advantage basis through their company.” [3]
When I listened to this interview, the first thing that stood out to me was Mr. Romney’s statement that he would replace Obamacare with his own plan. Now, there are many Christians who have supported Mr. Romney in spite of his implementation of socialized healthcare in Massachusetts solely because of a belief that he will allow each state to come up with their own healthcare solutions. But is that really what Mr. Romney has in mind? In the first Presidential debate, Mr. Romney did say that “the best course for health care is to … craft a plan at the state level that fits the needs of the state,”[4] and many people have latched onto this and similar statements without realizing that Mr. Romney immediately followed that statement with, “And then let's focus on getting the costs down for people, rather than raising it with the $2,500 additional premium.” The only way that a President Romney could abide by both of these statements would be to allow the states to present their plans but then reserve the final determination of healthcare decisions to the federal government. This would allow him to keep everything that he likes from Obamacare while still giving the illusion of freedom and states’ rights.
Statement 3:
“It's by no means a branch of Islam.”
Mr. Romney provided this statement in response to a question that he received on June 2, 2009. He had recently given a speech on national security before the Heritage Foundation, and he was asked why he mentioned jihad but never once mentioned Islam. Here is the full text of his answer:
“I didn't refer to Islam at all, or to any other religion for that matter. I spoke about three major threats America faces on a long term basis. Jihadism is one of them, and that is not Islam. If you want my views on Islam, it's quite straightforward. Islam is one of the world's great religions and the great majority of people in Islam want peace for themselves and peace with their maker. They want to raise families and have a bright future.
“There is, however, a movement in the world known as jihadism. They call themselves jihadists and I use the same term. And this jihadist movement is intent on causing the collapse of moderate Muslim states and the assassination of moderate Muslim leaders. It is also intent on causing collapse of other nations in the world. It's by no means a branch of Islam. It is instead an entirely different entity. In no way do I suggest it is a part of Islam.” [5]
If this is what Mr. Romney really believes about Islam and jihad, then he is even more naïve than President Obama, for even our most Muslim friendly President was not so ignorant of the teachings of Islam as to deny that jihad was one of that religion’s core doctrines. Here is President Obama’s answer to a similar question about jihad:
“Well, the phrase jihad has a lot of meanings within Islam and is subject to a lot of different interpretations. But I will say that, first, Islam is one of the world’s great religions. And more than a billion people who practice Islam, the overwhelming majority view their obligations to their religion as ones that reaffirm peace and justice and fairness and tolerance. I think all of us recognize that this great religion in the hands of a few extremists has been distorted to justify violence towards innocent people that is never justified.
“And so I think one of the challenges that we face is how do we isolate those who have these distorted notions of religious war and reaffirm those who see faiths of all sorts -- whether you are a Hindu or a Muslim or a Christian or a Jew or any other religion, or you don't practice a religion -- that we can all treat each other with respect and mutual dignity, and that some of the universal principles that Gandhi referred to -- that those are what we’re living up to, as we live in a nation or nations that have very diverse religious beliefs.”[6]
Obviously, President Obama’s answer was still somewhat of a denial of the true nature of jihad within the Muslim religion, and many Christians were quick to point that out at the time. But now, many of those same Christians are throwing their full support behind a man who views our enemies with an even more radical denial of the true motivation behind their hatred. This is an extremely dangerous view that will likely cause Mr. Romney to continue the same policy of appeasement that has been implemented over the past four years.
Mr. Romney’s view of jihad is such a unique departure from the truth that I immediately suspected the teachings of the Mormon Church as the real source of his opinion, and when I pursued this suspicion, I discovered that the eleventh annual Mormon Studies Conference at Utah Valley University was entitled: “Mormonism and Islam: Commonality and Cooperation Between Abrahamic Faiths.”[7] The website for this event includes a page of selected readings which contain a great deal of information about the Mormon view of Islam. I discovered, for example, that George Q. Cannon, a member of the Quorum of Twelve Apostles, a member of the Mormon Church’s First Presidency and a counselor to Brigham Young and three successive Mormon Presidents, wrote the following statement about Islam:
“I believe myself that Mahomet, whom the Christians deride and call a false prophet and stigmatize with a great many epithets, was a man raised up by the Almighty and inspired to a certain extent by Him to effect the reforms which he did in his land and in the nations surrounding. He attacked idolatry and restored the great and crowning idea that there is but one God. He taught that idea to his people and reclaimed them from polytheism and from the heathenish practices into which they had fallen.”[8]
Another Mormon leader, Elder B. H. Roberts wrote:
“We look upon the teachings of Mahomet, a mixture of good and of evil, but with more good in them, perhaps, than men are generally inclined to admit. The faith of Mahomet has done much toward redeeming a portion of our Father's children from darkness.”[9]
Elder Roberts also voiced his agreement with Edward Gibbon’s statement that:
“The Koran is a glorious testimony to the unity of God ... the liberality of Mahomet allowed to his predecessors the same credit which he claimed for himself; and the chain of inspiration was prolonged from the fall of Adam to the promulgation of the Koran.”[10]
This appears to be the view of Islam that Mr. Romney has accepted. Under this view, the claim that jihad is a part of Islam would be identical to the claim that jihad was instituted by God. Mr. Romney cannot accept this second claim as true, and therefore, in order to abide by the teachings of his church in regards to Islam, he has no choice but to deny any correlation between the Muslim religion and jihad.
Thus Mr. Romney’s statement on jihad gives us two reasons to be concerned. First, we should be concerned about his unrealistic view of those who are attacking our nation and her allies. Even more concerning than this, however, is Mr. Romney’s willingness to deny an obvious truth in order to adhere to the teachings of the Mormon church.
Statement 4:
“Kick the ball down the field and hope that ultimately, somehow, something will happen and resolve it.”
This comment from Mr. Romney was made during a private fundraiser in which he presented his foreign policy ideas concerning Israel. I have heard many Christians claim that Mr. Romney is a good choice for President because he supports Israel and will guarantee that we continue to receive God’s blessings as a result. However, that idea is not consistent with the statement that Mr. Romney made at his fundraiser. When he was asked about a resolution to the conflict between Israel and the Palestinians, he said:
“I look at the Palestinians not wanting to see peace anyway, for political purposes, committed to the destruction and elimination of Israel, and these thorny issues, and I say, "There's just no way." And so what you do is you say, "You move things along the best way you can." You hope for some degree of stability, but you recognize that this is going to remain an unsolved problem. We live with that in China and Taiwan. All right, we have a potentially volatile situation but we sort of live with it, and we kick the ball down the field and hope that ultimately, somehow, something will happen and resolve it.” [11]
This lackadaisical attitude toward Israel probably stems directly from Mr. Romney's Mormon theology which rejects the idea that the current nation of Israel is the recipient of the promises of God. Mormon theology teaches that the true regathering of Israel prophesied in the Old Testament will not take place until after the descendants of Israel are grafted into the Mormon church. The current nation of Israel is thus seen as an imposter seeking to claim promises to which it has no legitimate right.
According to the article “The Gathering of Israel in the Book of Mormon: A Consistent Pattern” by Robert Millet of Brigham Young University,
“The people of Israel will be gathered again to the degree that they return to Christ and become formally associated with the Saints of God. That is, people are gathered first spiritually and second temporally, first to the Lord and his church and then to the lands of their inheritance or to the congregations of the Saints.”[12]
According to Mormon President Spencer Kimball,
"Now, the gathering of Israel consists of joining the true church and their coming to a knowledge of the true God. . . . Any person, therefore, who has accepted the restored gospel, and who now seeks to worship the Lord in his own tongue and with the Saints in the nations where he lives, has complied with the law of the gathering of Israel and is heir to all of the blessings promised the saints in these last days."[13]
President Ezra Benson wrote,
“The Book of Mormon is the instrument that God has designed to 'sweep the earth as with a flood, to gather out His elect unto the New Jerusalem.'”[14]
And Elder McConkie said,
“The process of gathering is one in which the scattered remnants of Jacob—those of all tribes—believe the Book of Mormon, accept the restored gospel, and come to the latter-day Zion.”[15]
From these statements of Mormon doctrine, we can see that Mr. Romney’s view of Israel is likely to be similar to that of President Obama. It is doubtful that he sees Israel as being different from any other nation, and consequently, he likely views our relationship with her as being on the same level as our relationships with all of our other allies. This explains why he suggested that we should adopt the same policy toward the Israeli Palestinian conflict that we currently have towards the contention between China and Taiwan. Mr. Romney’s Mormon view of Israel should give the Christian voter serious grounds for concern.
Statement 5:
“Moving in that direction at this stage no longer presents that problem.”
This was Mr. Romney’s answer to the question of whether he approved of the repeal of Don’t Ask Don’t Tell. In a December 9, 2011, interview with the Des Moines Register, Mr. Romney was asked "How do you feel about gays serving openly in the military?" Here is his response:
“That’s already occurred. I’m not planning on reversing that at this stage. I was not comfortable making the change during a period of conflict, due to the complicating features of a new program in the middle of two wars going on, but those wars are winding down, and moving in that direction at this stage no longer presents that problem.”[16]
In giving this answer, Mr. Romney relied on a very interesting choice of words. He did not just admit that he approved of the repeal of Don’t Ask Don’t Tell. He also admitted his understanding that this repeal is just a step in a particular direction, towards a particular goal, and he admitted to his approval of a move in that direction. The goal that he referred to in this answer is that of permitting homosexual couples to have rights that are equal to those of heterosexual couples.
Mr. Romney voiced direct approval of that goal in a May 10, 2012, interview with Neil Cavuto. Mr. Cavuto asked Mr. Romney about his thoughts on homosexual marriage, and this is what he said in response:
“From the beginning of my political career, I've made it clear that I think that marriage should be a relationship between a man and a woman, and I know other people have differing views, but that's my view ... My preference would be to have a national standard that would define marriage as a relationship between a man and a woman. That would then allow states to determine what rights would be provided for people of the same gender that wanted to have a relationship. There could be domestic partnership benefits, for instance, where one state might decide to provide hospital visitation rights. Another state might decide to provide that as well as benefits of other kinds. States could have their own decisions with regards to domestic partnership rights, but my preference would be to have a national standard for marriage and then marriage being redefined as being between a man and a woman.”[17]
Once again, Mr. Romney was very particular in his choice of words. He started out with a statement that most Christians would approve of: “Marriage should be a relationship between a man and a woman.” Immediately after making this statement, however, Mr. Romney proceeded to present a policy of allowing each state to grant homosexual couples whatever rights they wanted. His only caveat is that he doesn’t want homosexual unions to be called marriages. They can have all of the rights and recognition of marriages; he just doesn’t want them to be called marriages.
Mr. Cavuto pressed Mr. Romney for more information, and he obliged him with this response:
“We, as a society take action which we believe strengthens the nation. I happen to believe that the best setting for raising a child is where there's the opportunity for a mom and a dad to be in the home. I know there are many circumstances where that's not possible through death or divorce. I also know many gay couples are able to adopt children. That's fine. But my preference is that we encourage the marriage of a man and a woman, and that we continue to define marriage as a relationship between a man and a woman ... If two people of the same gender want to live together, want to have a loving relationship and even want to adopt a child, in my state individuals of the same sex were able to adopt children. In my view that's something which people have the right to do, but to call that marriage is, in my view, a departure from the real meaning of that word.”[18]
There are several statements in this response that should be troubling to Christians. The first, of course, is Mr. Romney’s admission that he does not believe homosexuality to be wrong. He simply thinks that defining the term “marriage” as a relationship between a man and a woman is a path which society believes will “strengthen the nation.” Most Christians, however, oppose homosexual marriage because they believe that homosexuality is inherently wrong. Christian voters should also note that Mr. Romney contradicted himself twice in this response. His stated reason for opposing homosexual marriage was that, “The best setting for raising a child is where there's the opportunity for a mom and a dad to be in the home.” Then, just two sentences later, he says that he is just fine with allowing homosexual couples to adopt children; and at the end of his statement, he went even further by saying that these couples have a right to adopt children. Not only does Mr. Romney’s claim that homosexual couples have a right to adopt contradict his own reason for opposing homosexual marriage, but it also contradicts the Republican Party Platform which condemns “the State blacklisting of religious groups which decline to arrange adoptions by same-sex couples.”[19] Mr. Romney’s position on homosexuality is out of alignment with Christian values, with the Republican platform and even with itself, but that was not the most disturbing revelation of his interview with Mr. Cavuto.
Not only did Mr. Romney say that he is fine with allowing homosexual couples to have all the rights of heterosexual couples, deny that homosexuality is morally wrong and approve of adoption by homosexual couples; but he concluded his comments on this topic with this gem of a statement:
“This is an issue which you can't really convince someone about. It's something which you either believe one way or the other. It's very much like the issue of life, and we come down on different sides of this issue after giving it careful thought and consideration. I respect the right of the President to reach the conclusion he has, and I presume he respects my right to hold to the position that I've had from the beginning of this topic being raised.”[20]
To claim, as Mr. Romney does, that “you can’t really convince someone about” the issue of homosexuality is the same thing as saying that neither side is ultimately right or wrong on this issue. They just have different beliefs about it, and they should be willing to acknowledge and respect each other’s beliefs. This places both positions in regards to homosexual marriage on an equal plane and denies the moral superiority of either of them. Such a statement is troubling enough in its own right, but it is made even more troubling by Mr. Romney’s casual admission that he applies this same philosophy of moral ambivalence to the issue of life.
Statement 6:
“That’s not something that I would precipitate.”
This was the answer that Mr. Romney gave when he was asked on September 5, 2011, if he would encourage Congress to take action pursuant to the Fourteenth Amendment in order to protect unborn children. The specific portion of the Fourteenth Amendment that Mr. Romney was asked about states, “nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws,”[21] and this particular question was prefaced with a brief history lesson explaining to him that the Constitution specifically granted Congress the authority to enact legislation to enforce the provisions of this amendment. Here is Mr. Romney’s complete response:
“Let me tell you what my orientation would be, which is: I would like to appoint to the Supreme Court Justices who believe in following the Constitution as opposed to legislating from the bench. I would like to see that Supreme Court return to the states the responsibility for determining laws relating to abortion as opposed to having the federal Supreme Court, from the bench, tell America and all the states how they have to do it. I think that's the appropriate course. Now, is there a Constitutional path to have the Congress say we're going to push aside the decision of the Supreme Court, and we instead are going to step forward and return to the states this power or put in place our own views on abortion? That would create, obviously, a Constitutional crisis. Could that happen in this country? Could there be circumstances where that might occur? I think it's reasonable that something of that nature might happen someday. That's not something I would precipitate.”[22]
There are several very important factors to Mr. Romney’s answer that I would like to bring to your attention. First and foremost, it is important for every Christian to notice that his answer to the question was a definite, No. Mr. Romney was asked specifically if he would encourage Congress to pass legislation that would end abortion in a Constitutional manner; he acknowledged that such legislation is possible, and then he said that he would not do anything to encourage Congress in that direction. This answer stands in direct and intentional opposition to the Republican Party Platform that Mr. Romney is supposed to be advancing as the Republican nominee. The platform states that the members of the Republican Party “endorse legislation to make clear that the Fourteenth Amendment's protections apply to unborn children.”[23] This is exactly what Mr. Romney has said that he will not do.
In addition to considering what Mr. Romney has said that he will not do, let’s consider what he said that he would do if elected President. Mr. Romney’s proposal for ending abortion is a two-pronged approach. First, he claims that he will nominate justices who will not tell the states how to handle this issue, and second, he claims that the responsibility for crafting abortion laws should be returned to the states. Unfortunately, this two pronged approach is self defeating. Mr. Romney claims that he will accomplish the first prong of this plan by nominating justices who follow the Constitution rather than legislating from the bench, but then he claims that he wants those justices to give the states a power which is denied to them by the Constitution. He cannot do both. Either he can appoint justices who will follow the Constitution, or he can appoint justices who will give the states powers that have been denied to them by the Constitution. Mr. Romney’s plan sounds like a winning strategy, but he knows full well that his suggestion will never work.
Now, this is a somewhat complicated point of legality that probably has many of you scratching your heads, so let me take a moment to explain it in more detail. The Tenth Amendment of the Constitution states that, “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”[24] Many people have interpreted this to mean that since the Constitution never mentions the word “abortion,” the federal government has no authority to rule on this issue and should relinquish all decisions on abortion laws to the states. However, this interpretation ignores the phrase “nor prohibited by it to the States.” This phrase may seem insignificant to the issue of abortion until we notice that the Fourteenth Amendment includes the denial of a certain power to the states. Section 1 of that amendment declares that “No State shall … deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”[25] The states are therefore denied the power to deprive any person of the right to life without due process. This means that there is a Constitutional injunction against Mr. Romney’s plan of allowing states to decide for themselves whether or not unborn children should be deprived of the right to life. The Fourteenth Amendment declares the right to life to be a federal issue, and responsibility for that right cannot be returned to the states without a new Constitutional amendment that repeals the Fourteenth Amendment.
Having looked at what Mr. Romney will not do to end abortion and having seen that he cannot do what he claims that he will do, let’s consider the justification that he provided for his decision. In the midst of rejecting the plan put forth by the Republican Party platform, Mr. Romney made a very interesting statement. He said, “That would create, obviously, a Constitutional crisis.” Now, it is important to notice that he did not say that the plan suggested by the platform would violate the Constitution but rather that it would create a crisis in regards to the Constitution. It is Mr. Romney’s plan that violates the Constitution, but what is this crisis that he is referring to? There is only one possible crisis having to do with guaranteeing Fourteenth Amendment rights to unborn children and that is the question over whether or not these children are actually persons in the meaning of the amendment. This, however, is not really a crisis at all, and Mr. Romney admits as much in another interview on the topic of abortion.
In a CBS interview that aired on August 27, 2012, Mr. Romney was asked directly if he agreed with the Republican platform on the issue of abortion. He provided the following statement as his response:
“No, my position has been clear throughout this campaign. I'm in favor of abortion being legal in the case of rape and incest and the health and life of the mother. But recognize, this is a decision that will be made by the Supreme Court. The Democrats try and make this a political issue every four years, but this is a matter in the courts. It's been settled for some time in the courts.”[26]
Setting aside for the moment the fact that this statement from Mr. Romney completely contradicts his previous claim that the issue of abortion should not be settled by the Supreme Court, let’s consider what Mr. Romney has said here. He claimed that the issue of abortion has already been settled by the courts. This is correct. The Supreme Court has already issued several rulings which explain exactly how to legitimately end abortion in America.
In the majority opinion in Roe v. Wade, Justice Blackmun wrote, “If this suggestion of personhood is established … the fetus’ right to life would then be guaranteed by the 14th Amendment.”[27] This statement from Roe itself is the foundation for the plan to end abortion by passing legislation to guarantee Fourteenth Amendment protection for unborn children. The Supreme Court has already stated that this would be sufficient for ending all abortion throughout America. Additionally, the Court has also already defined the term “person” in a manner that includes unborn children. In the case United States v. Palmer, Justice Marshall wrote that, “The words 'any person or persons' are broad enough to comprehend every human being.”[28] Since the unborn child is just as much a human being as anyone else, he must be included in the phrase “any person” as mentioned in the Fourteenth Amendment. Thus, it is clear that the courts have already ruled that the unborn child is a person within the meaning of the Constitution and that his right to life is thereby guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment. The only thing missing is the passage of legislation by Congress which establishes these court decisions as law and empowers the executive branch to enforce them. The passage of such legislation is exactly what is called for in the Republican platform, and it is exactly what Mr. Romney has said that he would not precipitate.
In addition to his rejection of the Republican platform’s plan for ending abortion, Mr. Romney has also expressed his opinion that abortion should be permitted in cases of rape and incest and if necessary to preserve the life and health of the mother. I have written in other articles about the moral problems with these exceptions, and for sake of time, I will not repeat those arguments here. Instead, I would like to point out that Mr. Romney’s insistence on exceptions to abortion laws is in fact a denial of the right to life for every unborn child. Justice Blackmun gave consideration to these exceptions in the opinion of the Court in Roe v. Wade. He wrote:
“When Texas urges that a fetus is entitled to Fourteenth Amendment protection as a person, it faces a dilemma. Neither in Texas nor in any other State are all abortions prohibited. Despite broad proscription, an exception always exists. The exception contained in Art. 1196, for an abortion procured or attempted by medical advice for the purpose of saving the life of the mother, is typical. But if the fetus is a person who is not to be deprived of life without due process of law, and if the mother's condition is the sole determinant, does not the Texas exception appear to be out of line with the Amendment's command?” [29]
What Justice Blackmun said was that it is illogical to claim that the unborn child has a right to life if that life can legally be extinguished without convicting the child of any crime. In other words, if a child can legally be killed just because his father was a rapist, then that child does not have a right to life. If a child can legally be killed just because his existence causes his mother to have poor health or to have an increased chance of dying, then that child does not have a right to life. Mr. Romney’s insistence that abortion be legal for these reasons demonstrates that he does not believe that unborn children have a right to life. He may have a personal preference for those children to live, but he does not recognize them as having an unalienable, God given right to life.
We have now seen that if Mr. Romney is elected, he plans to use the tax code to enact a wealth redistribution program that will effectively eliminate all large charitable donations, that he plans to retain major portions of the socialized medicine plan that was implemented under President Obama, that he has a dangerously flawed view of Islam, that he does not recognize the nation of Israel as the chosen people of God, that he approves of granting broad rights to homosexuals including the right to adopt children, and that he opposes ending abortion in America. We have heard each of these positions voiced by Mr. Romney himself in statements made within the past few years, and we have analyzed the logical implications of those statements. All that remains is for us to decide what to do with the information that we have thus gained. I, for one, have decided that, because of these statements as well as many others which we do not have time to cover, I cannot support Mr. Romney in his bid for the Presidency. This decision led me to delve into the Scriptures in an attempt to discover how God would have me to vote in the upcoming election. I have written about my discoveries in the articles listed below, and I trust that you will take the time to read through them as you also search for God's will during this election season.
Other articles in this series:
The Lesser of Two Evils
A Biblical Strategy for Voting
A Duty to Principle
Pragmatism or Principles?
Voting Perspectives
__________________________________________________________
[1] http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2012/09/romney-says-obama-is-trying-to-fool-voters-with-inaccurate-attacks/
[2] http://kdvr.com/2012/10/01/in-fox31-interview-romney-again-avoids-specifics-on-tax-plan/
[3] http://youtu.be/Aw39MTZcz7M
[4] http://www.cnn.com/2012/10/03/politics/debate-transcript/index.html
[5] http://www.usnews.com/news/blogs/god-and-country/2009/06/03/mitt-romney-jihadism-is-not-part-of-islam
[6] http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2010/11/07/remarks-president-and-first-lady-town-hall-with-students-mumbai-india
[7] http://www.uvu.edu/religiousstudies/mormonismandislam/
[8] Green, Arnold H., “Mormonism and Islam: From Polemics to Mutual Respect and Cooperation,” BYU Studies, vol 40:4 (2001), pg 199-220 (https://byustudies.byu.edu/showTitle.aspx?title=6759)
[9] ibid
[10] ibid
[11] http://youtu.be/ukhFBJgrZxM
[12] http://maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/publications/books/?bookid=72&chapid=871
[13] Ibid
[14] Ibid
[15] Ibid
[16] http://www.c-spanvideo.org/clip/4045144
[17] http://video.foxnews.com/v/1632705999001/gov-romney-marriage-issue-isnt-about-fundraising/
[18] Ibid
[19] http://www.gop.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/08/2012GOPPlatform.pdf
[20] http://video.foxnews.com/v/1632705999001/gov-romney-marriage-issue-isnt-about-fundraising/
[21] Constitution of the United States of America, Amendment 14, Section 1, (http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/constitution_amendments_11-27.html)
[22] http://vimeo.com/42493526
[23] http://www.gop.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/08/2012GOPPlatform.pdf
[24] Constitution of the United States of America, Amendment 10, (http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/bill_of_rights_transcript.html)
[25] Constitution of the United States of America, Amendment 14, Section 1, (http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/constitution_amendments_11-27.html)
[26] http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=7419486n
[27] Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113 (1973) (http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0410_0113_ZS.html)
[28] United States v. Palmer 16 U.S. 610 (1818) (http://bulk.resource.org/courts.gov/c/US/16/16.US.610.html)
[29] Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113 (1973) (http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0410_0113_ZS.html)