Romney: I'm pro-choice; no wait, I'm pro-life

Posted by Heather Gehlert at 3:56 PM on May 4, 2007.

There is something hilarious to me about seeing 10 aging white men in suits stumble over their own words as they try but fail to eek out even one intelligent thought about abortion. No, make that hilarious and sad.

Last night as I watched the "values" portion of the Republican presidential debate in California, I laughed and cringed in equal amounts -- struggling to take the candidates' comments seriously.

Asked if the day that Roe v. Wade is repealed would be a good day for America, Sen. Sam Brownback (R-Kan.) said, "It would be a glorious day of human liberty and freedom." Perhaps Sen. Brownback is not aware that women are -- wait for it -- people too.

Not to be outdone, Rep. Rom Tancredo (R-Col.) said it would "the greatest day in this country's history."

I'm sure Tancredo must have forgotten about other important events like, say, ending slavery.

As appalling as the discussion was, possibly the most unbelievable comments of the night came from former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney. As I listened to Romney speak, I felt like a parent watching helplessly as a small child in a spelling bee blurts out random letters, hoping they amount to something.

Romney has, in past years, said he is "effectively pro-choice." Now he's saying he's not. Asked about the discrepancy, Romney said, "About two years ago, when we were studying cloning in our state, I said, look, we have gone too far. It's a 'brave new world' mentality that Roe v. Wade has given us, and I changed my mind.

"I took the same course that Ronald Reagan and George Herbert Walker Bush and Henry Hyde took, and I said I was wrong and changed my mind and said I'm pro-life," he continued. "And I'm proud of that, and I won't apologize to anybody for becoming pro-life."

I'm sure Romney and the other candidates are not paying attention to this blog, but if they are, maybe I should whisper them some answers -- because it's time that male politicians stop acting as if they are qualified, medically or ethically, to make decisions about what women can and cannot do with their own bodies.

Compliments of the Alan Guttmacher Institute, here are some of the most basic abortion facts that politicians need to stop ignoring:

• Abortion rates are higher in countries where women do not have the option of abortion and are not allowed to plan the number and spacing of their children.
• Overall unintended pregnancy rates have stagnated over the past decade, yet unintended pregnancy increased by 29 percent among poor women while decreasing 20 percent among higher-income women.
• A broad cross section of U.S. women have abortions: 61 percent have one or more children; 7 percent have never married; 57 percent are economically disadvantaged; 78 percent report a religious affiliation.

In fairness, the moderators' softball questions are, in my mind, as unforgivable as the candidates' answers. Boiling everything down to whether the repeal of Roe v. Wade would be a good day for America does not push these politicians to say anything real.

Yes, it might take an extra 10 minutes of research, but asking tougher questions is possible. Learning about women's health is possible. Understanding the factors that would make the repeal of Roe v. Wade "a bad day for America" is possible.

Heather Gehlert is a managing editor at AlterNet.