This is actually not something I’m generally inclined to write. I’m trying to get beyond writing things that might be construed as negative about Republican candidates. But, we had Hugh the other day suggest that Fred should not have gotten the NRLC endorsement because he did not support the HLA and, though not directly stating so, fairly well implied that Romney did.
In fact, of course, Romney has in the past said he supported the HLA. But then he contradicted himself. Nonetheless, after I posted the other day that Fred and Mitt held the same position, I got several emails suggesting that they did not because, in fact, Mitt does support passage of the HLA.
In August, there was also a fuss, when he said that the states would decide post-Roe. Fact is, the odds of a Human Life Amendment are slim and it will come down to the states. Considering the National Right to Life Committee has dumped automatic support for the HLA from their criteria of who should be president, what Romney said isn’t all that shocking, though the coverage will continue to feed into that same flipper label that’s been sticking to him, even though he’s far from the only one who’s been one place and moved to another.
Now, to be fair, I don’t think it is safe to say “the National Right to Life Committee has dumped automatic support for the HLA from their criteria of who should be president.” They did not. And Fred did not say he’d drop it from the platform. In fact, Fred said he supports the platform, like McCain, Romney, and Huck, but, as Kathryn says, “the odds of a Human Life Amendment are slim and it will come down to the states,” so Fred’s position, like I assume Romney’s real position is, is that he’ll work on goals that can be accomplished, e.g. originalist judges.
Frankly, I think Fred and Mitt hold the best position on this. The HLA is a worthy goal, but it’s unrealistic to expect a President to invest major political capital in getting it passed when it won’t get passed. The President can accomplish his goals in a host of other ways.