Ann Romney & Mitt Romney on Stem Cell Research

Ann Romney has shown that she would make the ideal first lady, (perhaps the next presidential elections can make that happen). That fact is no more evidence by her stance on stem cell research. Watch this video illustrating her willingness to put her principles before personal gain.

YOUTUBE VIDEO of ANN ROMNEY on Stem Cell Research

Our friends at www.evangelicalsformitt.org stated it best when they said:

It takes a person of rare character to look beyond themselves in a time of intense suffering, and that is exactly why Ann Romney’s story is so encouraging and inspiring. As the story shows, it’s not like she takes MS lightly or that the disease isn’t terribly frightening. She also knows that other people matter — even unborn people she may never meet or know. But what makes this extraordinary is that she takes this intellectual and moral conviction, and translates it into action — supporting a husband who opposes a form of medical experimentation that could conceivably relieve her own suffering.

And why does Ann have such strength of character? Why is she able to deny herself and seek what is right and true at (potentially) great personal cost? Is it because she has a faith that places other values over the self? Is it because she serves a God and Savior that gives her eternal hope — that comforts her with the knowledge that the world we see is not all there is?

As the debate swirls over whether … Mitt and Ann are Christians or members of a cult, I would just like to show the video below again and again — and then remind their detractors of a declaration in a book that both evangelicals and Mormons hold dear: “By their fruits you shall know them.”

Mitt himself is no exception. According to CNN on February 19, 2007 Mitt “defended his opposition to most embryonic stem cell research despite its scientific promise to cure diseases like multiple sclerosis that afflicts his wife, Ann.”

Mitt for VP!!!

Mitt being interviewed with Jan Mickelson in Iowa – His JFK Speeh

I just wanted to give my amen to Nathan Waite’s (a contributor at http://blog.electromneyin2008.com) characterization of Mitt’s interview with Jan Mickelson. He indicated that:

“I believe that this discussion is the John F. Kennedy speech that Romney needed to deliver. It does not wholly pertain to the influence of Mormon leadership, but does show how Romney can be a member of a Church so adamantly opposed to abortion and yet hold a different political view for years without compromising the principals and values of that religion. Romney did not compartmentalize his beliefs for political gain. He did not do that when he ran for Senator or when he ran for Governor. How is that possible? Watch or read this exchange and judge for yourself. If you feel this “off-the-air discussion” does not answer the religious concerns of voters, then please comment on what you feel Romney still needs to deliver to voters about his religion.”

To read the entire article click the following link: Romney Delivers “JFK Religion” Speech

Over 136,000 people have viewed the interview, but for the few who read this blog and who haven’t seen it please click on the following youtube link: YOUTUBE VIDEO: Jan Mickelson Interviews Mitt Romney.

To contribute to Mitt’s Campaign or to learn more about his stance on important issues, please visit www.mittromney.com.

Part 2 – Romney is the ONLY candidate that will fight to protect the FAMILY.

As a follow up to posting entitled “Mitt Romney is the ONLY Top-Tier Candidate that Will Fight to Protect the Family” and to the posting entitled “Look at the Record”, I’m entering this post to illustrate what others, who have personally worked with Mitt Romney, are saying about his sincerity and commitment to defending the family.

The following is a letter sent by various community and religious leaders in Massachusetts:

An Open Letter Regarding Governor Mitt Romney

January 11, 2007

Dear conservative friends:

We hail from a broad spectrum of organizations dedicated to fighting for the pro-family agenda in Massachusetts. As you know, Mitt Romney became the governor of our state in 2003. Since that time, we have worked closely with him and his excellent staff on that agenda.

Some press accounts and bloggers have described Governor Romney in terms we neither have observed nor can we accept. To the contrary, we, who have been fighting here for the values you also hold, are indebted to him and his responsive staff in demonstrating solid social conservative credentials by undertaking the following actions here in Massachusetts:

• Staunchly defended traditional marriage. Governor Romney immediately and strongly condemned the 2003 court decision that legalized “same-sex marriage” in our state. More importantly, he followed up on that denunciation with action – action that saved our nation from a constitutional crisis over the definition of marriage. He and his staff identified and enforced a little-known 1913 law that allowed them to order local clerks not to issue marriage licenses to out-of-state couples. Absent this action, homosexual couples would surely have flooded into Massachusetts from other states to get “married” and then demanded that their home states recognize the “marriages,” putting the nation only one court decision away from nationalizing “same-sex marriage.”

• Worked hard to overturn “same-sex marriage” in the Commonwealth with considerable progress to date. In 2004 he lobbied hard, before a very hostile legislature, for a constitutional amendment protecting marriage – an amendment later changed by the legislature to include civil unions, which the Governor and many marriage amendment supporters opposed. Working with the Governor, we were successful in defeating this amendment.

• Provided active support for a successful citizen petition drive in 2005 to advance a clean constitutional amendment defining marriage as the union of one man and one woman.

• Rallied thousands of citizens to focus public and media attention on the failure of legislators, through repeated delays, to perform their constitutional obligation and vote on the marriage amendment.

• Filed suit before the Supreme Judicial Court. The Governor’s suit asked the court to clarify the legislators’ duty to vote and failing that, to place the amendment on the 2008 ballot. That lawsuit, perhaps more than any other single action, was by all accounts instrumental in bringing pressure on the legislators to vote. The vote ultimately was taken on January 2, 2007 and won legislative support – clearing a major hurdle in the three year effort to restore traditional marriage in the Commonwealth.

• Fought for abstinence education. In 2006, under Governor Romney’s leadership, Massachusetts’ public schools began to offer a classroom program on abstinence from the faith-based Boston group Healthy Futures to middle school students. Promoting the program, Governor Romney stated, “I’ve never had anyone complain to me that their kids are not learning enough about sex in school. However, a number of people have asked me why it is that we do not speak more about abstinence as a safe and preventative health practice.”

• Affirmed the culture of life. Governor Romney has vetoed bills to provide access to the so called “morning-after pill,” which is an abortifacient, as well as a bill providing for expansive, embryo-destroying stem cell research. He vetoed the latter bill in 2005 because he could not “in good conscience allow this bill to become law.”

• Stood for religious freedom. Last year, Governor Romney was stalwart in defense of the right of Catholic Charities of Boston to refuse to allow homosexual couples to adopt children in its care. Catholic Charities was loudly accused of “discrimination,” but Governor Romney correctly pointed out that it is unjust to force a religious agency to violate the tenets of its faith in order to placate a special-interest group.

• Filed “An Act Protecting Religious Freedom” in the Massachusetts legislature to save Catholic Charities of Boston and other religious groups from being forced to violate their moral principles or stop doing important charitable work.

All of this may explain why John J. Miller, the national political reporter of National Review, has written that “a good case can be made that Romney has fought harder for social conservatives than any other governor in America, and it is difficult to imagine his doing so in a more daunting political environment.”

We are aware of the 1994 comments of Senate candidate Romney, which have been the subject of much recent discussion. While they are, taken by themselves, obviously worrisome to social conservatives including ourselves, they do not dovetail with the actions of Governor Romney from 2003 until now – and those actions have positively and demonstrably impacted the social climate of Massachusetts.

Since well before 2003, we have been laboring in the trenches of Massachusetts, fighting for the family values you and we share. It is difficult work indeed – not for the faint of heart. In this challenging environment, Governor Romney has proven that he shares our values, as well as our determination to protect them.

For four years, Governor Romney has been right there beside us, providing leadership on key issues – whether it was politically expedient to do so or not. He has stood on principle, and we have benefited greatly from having him with us.

It is clear that Governor Romney has learned much since 1994 – to the benefit of our movement and our Commonwealth. In fact, the entire nation has benefited from his socially conservative, pro-family actions in office. As we explained earlier, his leadership on the marriage issue helped prevent our nation from being plunged into even worse legal turmoil following the court decision that forced “gay marriage” upon our Commonwealth.

For that our country ought to be thankful. We certainly are.

Sincerely,

Rita Covelle
President, Morality in Media Massachusetts

Richard Guerriero
Immediate Past State Deputy, Massachusetts State Council, Knights of Columbus

Mary Ann Glendon
Learned Hand Professor of Law, Harvard Law School

Kristian Mineau
President, Massachusetts Family Institute

Dr. Roberto Miranda
President, COPAHNI Fellowship of Hispanic Pastors of New England

James Morgan
President, Institute for Family Development

Joseph Reilly
President, Massachusetts Citizens for Life

Thomas A. Shields
Chairman, Coalition for Family and Marriage

To contribute to Mitt’s campaign or to learn more about his stance on important issues, please visit www.mittromney.com.

Mitt Romney is the Only Top-Tier Candidate That Will Fight to Protect the Family

On November 18, 2003, four of the seven justices of the Massachusetts Supreme Court made it unconstitutional to prohibit gay marriage. Since that day, Mitt Romney has consistently fought to preserve the institution of marriage.

In an article to the Wall Street Journal entitle One Man, One Woman: A citizen’s guide to protecting marriage, Mitt wrote:

No matter how you feel about gay marriage, we should be able to agree that the citizens and their elected representatives must not be excluded from a decision as fundamental to society as the definition of marriage. There are lessons from my state’s experience that may help other states preserve the rightful participation of their legislatures and citizens, and avoid the confusion now facing Massachusetts.

In a decision handed down in November, a divided Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts detected a previously unrecognized right in our 200-year-old state constitution that permits same-sex couples to wed. I believe that 4-3 decision was wrongly decided and is deeply mistaken. Contrary to the court’s opinion, marriage is not “an evolving paradigm.” It is deeply rooted in the history, culture and tradition of civil society. It predates our Constitution and our nation by millennia. The institution of marriage was not created by government and it should not be redefined by government.

Marriage is a fundamental and universal social institution. It encompasses many obligations and benefits affecting husband and wife, father and mother, son and daughter. It is the foundation of a harmonious family life. It is the basic building block of society: The development, productivity and happiness of new generations are bound inextricably to the family unit. As a result, marriage bears a real relation to the well-being, health and enduring strength of society.

Because of marriage’s pivotal role, nations and states have chosen to provide unique benefits and incentives to those who choose to be married. These benefits are not given to single citizens, groups of friends, or couples of the same sex. That benefits are given to married couples and not to singles or gay couples has nothing to do with discrimination; it has everything to do with building a stable new generation and nation.

It is important that the defense of marriage not become an attack on gays, on singles or on nontraditional couples. We must recognize the right of every citizen to live in the manner of his or her own choosing. In fact, it makes sense to ensure that essential civil rights, protection from violence and appropriate societal benefits are afforded to all citizens, be they single or combined in nontraditional relationships.
So, what to do?

• Act now to protect marriage in your state. Thirty-seven states–38 with recent actions by Ohio–have a Defense of Marriage Act. Twelve states, including Massachusetts, do not. I urge my fellow governors and all state legislators to review and, if necessary, strengthen the laws concerning marriage. Look to carefully delineate in the acts themselves the underlying, compelling state purposes. Explore, as well, amendments to the state constitution. In Massachusetts, gay rights advocates in years past successfully thwarted attempts to call a vote on a proposed constitutional amendment banning gay marriage. This cannot happen again. It is imperative that we proceed with the legitimate process of amending our state constitution.

• Beware of activist judges. The Legislature is our lawmaking body, and it is the Legislature’s job to pass laws. As governor, it is my job to carry out the laws. The Supreme Judicial Court decides cases where there is a dispute as to the meaning of the laws or the constitution. This is not simply a separation of the branches of government, it is also a balance of powers: One branch is not to do the work of the other. It is not the job of judges to make laws, the job of legislators to command the National Guard, or my job to resolve litigation between citizens. If the powers were not separated this way, an official could make the laws, enforce them, and stop court challenges to them. No one branch or person should have that kind of power. It is inconsistent with a constitutional democracy that guarantees to the people the ultimate power to control their government.

With the Dred Scott case, decided four years before he took office, President Lincoln faced a judicial decision that he believed was terribly wrong and badly misinterpreted the U.S. Constitution. Here is what Lincoln said: “If the policy of the government upon vital questions affecting the whole people is to be irrevocably fixed by decisions of the Supreme Court, the instant they are made in ordinary litigation between parties in personal actions the people will have ceased to be their own rulers, having to that extent practically resigned their government into the hands of that eminent tribunal.” By its decision, the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts circumvented the Legislature and the executive, and assumed to itself the power of legislating. That’s wrong.

• Act at the federal level. In 1996, President Clinton signed the Defense of Marriage Act. While the law protects states from being forced to recognize gay marriage, activist state courts could reach a different conclusion, just as ours did. It would be disruptive and confusing to have a patchwork of inconsistent marriage laws between states. Amending the Constitution may be the best and most reliable way to prevent such confusion and preserve the institution of marriage. Sometimes we forget that the ultimate power in our democracy is not in the Supreme Court but rather in the voice of the people. And the people have the exclusive right to protect their nation and constitution from judicial overreaching.

People of differing views must remember that real lives and real people are deeply affected by this issue: traditional couples, gay couples and children. We should conduct our discourse with decency and respect for those with different opinions. The definition of marriage is not a matter of semantics; it will have lasting impact on society however it is ultimately resolved. This issue was seized by a one-vote majority of the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court. We must now act to preserve the voice of the people and the representatives they elect.

Furthermore, on June 22, 2004, Mitt testified before the US Senate Judiciary Committee regarding the sanctity of marriage. He wrote, “With the inauguration of same-sex marriages, a plethora of legal and regulatory issues are now arising.” For example, “[t]hese issues will not be confined to Massachusetts alone. Our state’s borders are porous. Citizens of our state will travel and may face sickness and injury in other states. In those cases, their spousal relationship may not be recognized, and it would be likely that litigation would result. Massachusetts residents will move to other states, and thus issues related to property rights, employer benefits, inheritance, and many others will arise.”

“It is not possible for the issue to remain solely a Massachusetts issue; it must now be confronted on a national basis. We need an amendment that restores and protects our societal definition of marriage, blocks judges from changing that definition and then, consistent with the principles of federalism, leaves other policy issues regarding marriage to state legislatures. The real threat to the states is not the constitutional amendment process, in which the states participate, but activist judges who disregard the law and redefine marriage in order to impose their will on the states, and on the whole nation.” Click here to read the entire speech.

On June 2, 2006, Mitt wrote to every US Senator requesting that each of them vote to pass the Federal Marriage Amendment. He wrote, “Attaching the word marriage to the association of same-sex individuals mistakenly presumes that marriage is principally a matter of adult benefits and adult rights. In fact, marriage is principally about the nurturing and development of children. And the successful development of children is critical to the preservation and success of our nation.” Click here to read the entire letter.

Mitt has also urged his own state legislatures to allow the people to vote on a marriage amendment. In fact, he got 170,000 residents of Massachusetts to sign a referendum that would put the marriage amendment on the ballot. The ballot initiative would’ve allowed the state’s citizens to vote on the definition of marriage. The legislature refused to address the issue and thus violate the Massachusetts Constitution. Here is Mitt’s reaction:

On November 19, 2006, Mitt addressed a rally at the Massachusetts State House and called on the legislature to vote on a marriage amendment. Here is his speech:

Overall, I agree with Maggie Gallagher who hailed Mitt Romney as “a brave man.” America needs a President who is willing to protect and defend the traditional family. America needs Mitt Romney.

To contribute to Mitt’s campaign or to learn about his stance on important issues, please visit www.mittromney.com.

Romney’s Stance on Abortion

It is true that Mitt Romney has changed his position on abortion. I believe, however, that his conversion was genuine.

Mitt explains that several years ago, as Govenor of Massachusetts, he was faced with a tough decision regarding stem cell research. That experience caused him to reexamine where he stood on the issue of abortion. In this video Mitt explains the events that influenced his conversion.

Click here to watch a youtube video clip.

Since that experience, Mitt has been unwavering in his support for the pro-life movement. For example, on January 1, 2007 (the 34th anniversary of Roe v. Wade), Mitt released a statement saying, “We must create a culture of life where the weakest and most innocent among us are protected. … While there are well-meaning people on both sides of this debate, no one can deny that when hundreds of thousands of abortions are performed every year, it should be a major concern for a nation as great as ours. If we commit ourselves to promoting a culture of life, I believe that one day our nation’s laws may reflect what is in our hearts.”

According to his official website www.mittromney.com website, Mitt has stated, “I am pro-life. I believe that abortion is the wrong choice except in cases of incest, rape, and to save the life of the mother. I wish the people of America agreed, and that the laws of our nation could reflect that view. But while the nation remains so divided over abortion, I believe that the states, through the democratic process, should determine their own abortion laws and not have them dictated by judicial mandate.” (Boston Globe, Mitt Romney Editorial, July 26, 2005)

Click below for more information on Mitt’s pro-life stance.

- The 34th anniversary of Roe v. Wade, March for Life.
- Life is Sacred

To contribute to Mitt’s campaign or to learn more about his stance on important issues, please visit www.mittromney.com.

Is Mitt’s Mormon Faith Going to Hurt Him? Probably Not.

According to our friends at http://georgiansforromney.blogspot.com there was an interesting article on Pepperdine’s website that discussed Mitt’s faith.

“What’s the big deal about Romney’s religion? Of course, it is important to know which way the needle points a president’s moral compass. Most Americans like to know that the president believes in God— as per Carter/Reagan/Bush I and II, or at least acknowledge God— as per Clinton.”

“Contrasted against the agnostic McCain and the pro-abortion, pro-gay marriage Giuliani, Romney will emerge as the sensible choice for evangelicals uniting the Republicans, not dividing them. Once again, the media have got it wrong.”

In addition, contributors at www.mothersformitt.com found an article by Jeffrey Weiss of the Dallas Morning News. Jeffrey “wrote a very good article yesterday explaining how Mormon theology and practices could influence national politics. Actually, it probably wouldn’t change much. The article compares Harry Reid (Senate majority leader), the highest ranking Mormon elected official, and Mitt Romney’s religious views and political views, and discusses how being a Mormon doesn’t really mean you should be a Republican or Democrat.” See http://www.dallasnews.com for the full article.

What do you think? Will Mitt’s Mormon faith hurt him?

Here’s a few interesting links that answer that question:
(1) Video on MSNBC.
(2) Article by Mike Allen of Time Magezine
(3) Article by Terry Eastland of The Weekly Standard.

To contribute to Mitt’s campaign or to find more news on current events and information on Mitt Romney’s stance on important issues, please visit his official website at www.mittromney.com.