President Obama hit Romney hard on the issue of contraception in Tuesday’s debate, and we saw Romney do what he’s done in every political environment: docilely accept the terms offered by his opponent (whether that’s Massachusetts liberalism or talk-radio conservatism). Here’s how he responded to Obama:
I — I’d just note that I don’t believe that bureaucrats in Washington should tell someone whether they can use contraceptives or not, and I don’t believe employers should tell someone whether they could have contraceptive care or not. Every woman in America should have access to contraceptives. And—and the—and the president’s statement of my policy is completely and totally wrong.
Romney whiffed this. He should have made the point—which most Americans intuitively realize—that contraception was widely available before Obamacare, and that it would be possible to make it even more widely available without, say, forcing priests, nuns, or anybody else to pay for it. There was no need for Romney to talk about Humanae Vitae or Contraception and Chastity. Just point out the president’s false opposition, ding Obamacare, and move on.
Instead, Romney swallowed Obama’s framing wholesale. Contraception is good, some people do want to take it away from women, but not Romney. That said, what Romney didn’t do—despite what some of my friends said to me tonight—is reverse his position or betray those worried about the mandate.
The statement that will have some social conservatives up in arms is, “I don’t believe employers should tell someone whether they could have contraceptive care or not.”
Nothing in this statement is incompatible with opposition to the HHS Mandate rightly understood. Even if employers don’t pay for contraception, there are many ways for women to get it. The fact that Romney didn’t change his position is further reinforced by his last sentence (“And—and the—and the president’s statement of my policy is completely and totally wrong.”). He rejects Obama’s description of his policy—opposition to the mandate—while sticking to the policy itself.
I wish Romney had stood for religious liberty, but I don’t think he would have done well to dive into details. His statement was aimed not at engaged voters worried about the HHS mandate (on either side) but rather at voters who haven’t paid much attention but are worried that he will somehow take away their contraception.
Romney’s contraception answer will reassure these low-information voters, but it will not make staffers at Emily’s List think Romney has come to their side. Voters worried about the HHS mandate, by the same token, should reread his statement and consider his intended audience before accusing Romney of betrayal.
Update: My colleague Anna Williams still has doubts about Romney.
October 17th, 2012 | 7:07 am
It requires a great deal of faith to believe pro-contraception mitt is pandering to undecideds, and pro-life mitt is being honest.
October 17th, 2012 | 7:17 am
It seems to me like you’re celebrating Romney’s ability to tell a very tricky lie.
October 17th, 2012 | 8:41 am
Romney rightly forced Catholic hospitals to dispense Plan B to the victims of rape, overruling his own health department. Too bad that principle doesn’t count very much for Romney, only expediency. That’s why he opposed the Blunt Amendment, before he supported it (on the same day, no less).
October 17th, 2012 | 9:30 am
Romney simply did not have time to fully explain his position on this issue. The moderator let Obama basically talk on and on without condition, whereas she cut Romney off several times. In this instance, Romney should have been given a chance for a second rebuttal, but he was not.
October 17th, 2012 | 10:31 am
Romney displayed clearly the trait that social conservatives are most concerned about: He will shift his position with the changing winds of public opinion. Many people cannot trust Romney and rightfully so.
Still, doing what is best for himself is better than deliverately doing what is evil to attack the Church. That is our choice – live with a selfish president lacking moral conviction, or live with a president that will persecute the Church.
October 17th, 2012 | 10:36 am
I thought Gov. Romney deftly deflected the question without getting into payment. The governor had to allay fears that contraception might not be available depending on one’s employer. Of course, it would be available. (I just won’t be paid for.)
Doesn’t Plan B suppress implantation, not ovulation? Wouldn’t that violate a Personhood amendment? Re. Personhood amendment, does the fetus’s right to property include the uterus and the uterine lining, or is that an illegal ‘taking’ of property of the mother?
October 17th, 2012 | 10:48 am
I think those who are pro-life need to resign themselves to the fact that Romney is as pro-life a candidate as they are going to get. No candidate for president is going to oppose abortion in cases of rape, incest, or threat to the life of the mother, and no candidate is going to oppose contraception. The old Mitt might have made a fuss about the contraceptive mandate, but “Moderate Mitt” was not going to say on national television, when he was trying to woo women voters, that he doesn’t want them to get free insurance coverage for contraception. Now, his campaign might issue a “clarification” about what he meant to have said, but I think on the issue of contraception, he said everything he wanted to say under the circumstances.
October 17th, 2012 | 10:53 am
[...] colleague Matthew Schmitz has asked whether Romney betrayed social conservatives at Tuesday’s debate, and his answer is [...]
October 17th, 2012 | 12:37 pm
I’ve been searching online as to who Romney’s Catholic advisors are.
October 17th, 2012 | 12:38 pm
At this point I think we ought to consider what is going on. Is Mitt perfect? No he is not; but, he has not advocated or voted to kill babies who survive an attempted abortion. Obama has. Mr. Obama is challenging Religious Freedom and if he succceeds we will be in avery sorry state. Can we have everything we want as pro-life Americans? Not all at once. Yes I oppose contracpeption; but, that issue is not going to be on anyones agenda. We need to do all we can to stop abortion and secure Religious Freedom. DOn’t be discouraged by this attempt by the Obama administration to destroy the only cnadidate who at least supports a program that can lead us out of a culture of death.
October 17th, 2012 | 1:56 pm
As Larry stated succinctly, Romney is not a perfect candidate for social conservatives or for Catholics, but his positions are preferable to Obama’s. There is just no contest here. Obama supports unrestricted abortion, gay marriage, and then there is the HHS Mandate which the Church is still fighting. That mandate will be a disaster for all religious institutions if it is not overturned. I fail to see how any Catholic, for example, can vote for Obama and not be complicit in moral evil.
October 17th, 2012 | 2:03 pm
DOn’t be discouraged by this attempt by the Obama administration to destroy the only cnadidate who at least supports a program that can lead us out of a culture of death.
Larry,
It is not the Obama administration who is complaining that Romney is not sufficiently pro-life or anti-contraception. If anything, the Obama administration wants to paint Romney as more anti-abortion and anti-contraception than he actually is.
But you are correct that Romney is the best candidate those who are anti-abortion or anti-contraception have in this race. In fact, he’s the best they are likely to get in any presidential race.
October 17th, 2012 | 2:36 pm
I think the main concern here is that abortion on demand is not for the woman to “choose” who should live or die. So although Mitt may not be perfect in all cases of Catholic doctrine but at least he is the lesser of two evils. And, with his running mate, Ryan, he may come to understand what Catholics are talking about when they say they believe all life is precious.
October 17th, 2012 | 3:15 pm
David,
You know very well that the issue is not “opposing” contraception. It is opposing a government regulation that requires all employers to provide contraception, along with sterilizations and abortion-inducing drugs, to employees, and an “exemption” that is far too narrow.
Nothing Romney said last night indicated he is suddenly in favor of the mandate. Unfortunately, he was cut off before he was able to explain the rest of his position (he was cut off four times more often than Obama, in fact, and spoke for significantly less time).
October 17th, 2012 | 3:26 pm
Ugh…Is Romney perfect….NO! But is he better on the issue of prolife and religious freedom than Obama….100% YES! I am getting tired of redaing posts from Catholics and others that ask for the perfect litmus test for Romney on this issue. He has said on day 1 if he becomes POTUS, the HHS mnadate goes away. Keep on fiddling folks and Obama (abortion ondemand POTUS) gets back in.
October 17th, 2012 | 4:12 pm
You know very well that the issue is not “opposing” contraception.
Mike P.,
You are correct, sort of. (I am not quite sure why I merit a response, since my main point is that for those who are pro-life, Romney is the clear choice.) Both Santorum and Ryan actually oppose contraception, although they are “personally opposed, but . . . ”
However, Ryan introduced a “personhood bill” that theoretically would have banned contraceptives that are “abortifacient” (which, depending on whom you believe, could be basically all of them except barrier methods) as well as banning IVF.
The Catholic Church has been strangely inconsistent, wavering between objecting to the mandate and wanting an exemption, on the one hand, and wanting to scuttle the whole program, even for those who have no objection to it.
October 17th, 2012 | 6:29 pm
Romney will NOT force religious institutions to pay for abortion inducing drugs, sterilization and birthcontrol, like Obama does. He will defund planned parenthood. That is huge! He is no friend of the abortion indusdry. I am prolife but I think you have to be nuts not to vote for Romney.
October 17th, 2012 | 7:45 pm
I just pray that all people, especially catholics, would be given the grace by the Holy Spirit to understand that God made them. A man and a woman do NOT create life. God does. We are given the great great gift of sharing in that miracle. And life is not merely the life of the body, which animals can create (and sadley perhaps appreciate more than man), but the life of a soul.
Who made me? God made me.
Why did God make me? To know Him, to love Him, and to serve Him. And to be happy with Him in this world and the next.
Bob
October 18th, 2012 | 12:49 am
Romney might not express the way Catholics do on abortion but he is not as bad as Obama who really say it so proudly that women’s behavior should be protected by providing insurance paid abortifacient drugs in the guise of breast cancer screening and pap smear. How many times a year does a woman need a pap smear or screening? I did this in my doctor’s office.
Links
Blogs
Find Us
Contact