Bill Hurlbut is a very close friend and colleague, and thanks to a Kathleen Parker column in the Washington Post, he is in the news regarding former Governor Mitt Romney’s ideological transition from pro choice to pro life. From “Behind Romney’s Change of Heart on Abortion:”
Romney’s own change of heart evolved not from personal experience but rather from a purposeful course of study. I know this because I know the man who instructed him in 2005 on the basics of embryonic life during the stem-cell research debate then taking place in Massachusetts. As governor at the time, Romney was under intense pressure to help flip a state law that protected embryos from stem-cell research. Some of that pressure came from Harvard University, Romney’s alma mater, where scientists hoped to assume a leading role in stem-cell research.
The politically expedient choice was obvious, but Romney took a more thoughtful approach and sought to educate himself before staking out a position. Enter William Hurlbut, a physician and professor of biomedical ethics at Stanford University Medical School. For several hours, Hurlbut and Romney met in the governor’s office and went through the dynamics of conception, embryonic development and the repercussions of research that targets nascent human life. It was not a light lunch.
Here is what Bill told Parker about his conversation with Romney:
“Several things about our conversation still stand out strongly in my mind,” Hurlbut told me. “First, he clearly recognized the significance of the issue, not just as a current controversy but as a matter that would define the character of our culture way into the future.
“Second, it was obvious that he had put in a real effort to understand both the scientific prospects and the broader social implications. Finally, I was impressed by both his clarity of mind and sincerity of heart. . . . He recognized that this was not a matter of purely abstract theory or merely pragmatic governance, but a crucial moment in how we are to regard nascent human life and the broader meaning of medicine in the service of life.”
For what it’s worth, I spoke at some length with Bill very soon after the meeting referenced by Parker, and that was just the way he described it to me at the time. He was thoroughly convinced of Romney’s intellectual seriousness and moral probity in considering the issue.
But then again, as I have repeatedly written, embryonic stem cell research and legalized abortion deal with different matters, e.g. the reason abortion was made a right by the Supreme Court involved the personal autonomy and privacy of the woman, matters irrelevant to ESCR. Thus, one can consistently be pro choice and opposed to government funding of (and/or) ESCR and human cloning research–and not suffer ideological whiplash. I don’t think the same thing can be said the other way around.
Oh, and while we’re on the issue of Hurbut, I have a profile of him coming out shortly in the American Journal of Bioethics. More on that soon.
December 2nd, 2011 | 11:19 pm
“Thus, one can consistently be pro choice and opposed to government funding of (and/or) ESCR and human cloning research”.
While I agree, you would think there’d be more opposition to late term abortion than ESCR.
Wesley J. Smith Reply:
December 3rd, 2011 at 12:29 am
I would bet that there is.
December 3rd, 2011 | 8:48 am
It’s good to hear this about Romney. I’ve thought that he’s gotten at least somewhat of a bad rap for his so called “flip flopping”, and this conforms my thinking. If he’s such a “flip flopper”, why didn’t he give up his Mormonism, in order to placate the antimormonism of more than a few Evangelicals?
Bret Lythgoe Reply:
December 3rd, 2011 at 8:54 am
@Bret Lythgoe, That would be “confirms” my thinking, not “conforms”! (although it does conform to my thinking!) Sorry for the error.(just writing too fast).
December 3rd, 2011 | 10:54 am
However actions do speak louder then words.
December 3rd, 2011 | 4:49 pm
Romney has all the credibility he needs on pro-life issues. When Dr. John Wilke, the senior statesman of the pro-life movement vouches for and when pro-life Harvard Law professor Mary Ann Glendon says that a “After participating in a searching no-holds-barred conversation among Mitt, his wife, Anne, and a group of pro-life activists in March 2007 ’I was completely convinced of his sincerity on the life issues,” you have to go with it. What more proof do we want? Glendon also said “The pro-life movement has staked so much on the confidence that people’s minds can be changed that it would be strange to accuse a person of ‘flip-flopping’ when, as in Mitt’s case, his mind and heart have brought him to respect the dignity of human life from conception to natural death.”
The good thing about Mitt Romney is that he has flipped the right way, to life. Flipping for convenience is a serious issue. But if the pro-lifers are not going to vote for candidates who have sincerely come out of the darkness of abortion into the pro-life light because they have previously had abortions, been involved in abortions, voted for abortions, advocated for abortions (I was pro-abortion-not pro-choice- in my early 20s) then we are sending a clear signal to they will not receive our support if they take up our issues. The pro-life movement is made up of many people like Mitt Romney who were previously opposed to us but now support us. It’s those converts who have made pro-life the new normal and led to what abortion advocates call “hundreds and hundreds” of new “anti-choice” laws across the country. A look around the country shows that a huge amount of people in pro-life leadership have had abortions, advocated for it and voted for it in the past. Abby Johnson is the most recent sensation. She’s had abortions, assisted in a couple, scheduled & sold them, advocated for them and worked for Planned Parenthood. If we embrace her and the others who were previously involved in abortions as pro-life celebrities we throw in the face of the abortion movement, why not trust Mitt and others?
Politicians looking for the pro-life vote who are sincerely pro-life need to quit hurting the pro-life movement by attacking pro-life converts. It makes me sick. We had a situation in NV where one pro-life candidate was attacking a pro-life convert for political advantage. Our group jumped in because we realized that three of the pro-life leaders in our state could never run as pro-lifers if the convert could not because all three of us were converts. I used to advocate for abortion, another voted for our radical abortion law and another had an abortion. The candidate was attacking us as well as his opponent.
Pro-lifers and candidates should also stop trying to portray candidates who support abortion in the very rare instances of rape and incest as somehow not really being pro-life for political purposes. This would have excluded pro-life, “anti-choice” George W. Bush. I don’t support those abortions and I don’t know of any pro-life group that does, but it hurts the cause to call/accuse the substantial number of pro-life voters who support abortion in this small instances of not really pro-life or pro-choice. It also alienates them.
Bret Lythgoe Reply:
December 3rd, 2011 at 7:15 pm
@Don Nelson, Excellently put. I think that romney is sincere in his conversion. As has been pointed out by many, as his role as Bishop of his Church, he counseled a member to not not get an abortion. The Mormon church is against most abortions, abd this action on his part certainly suggests strongly his sincerity.
In our culture, it would be easier to accept abortion. And I’ve debated with myself on this issue, since the argument that restricting abortions infringes on a woman’s right to control her own body is a serious moral argument. Certainly everyone has a right to control her or his own body. But since the fetus is a human being, and a human person, it has a right to life. In my judgment, the best way to reconcile the importance of one’s right to life, with one’s right to control one’s own body, is to allow abortions only when the pregnancy is a consequence of rape, incest, or if it threatens the life of the mother. This is a reasonable pragmatic approach.
Bret Lythgoe Reply:
December 3rd, 2011 at 7:30 pm
@Bret Lythgoe, I would add that, most americans from what I can gather, accept that there should be at least some restrictions on abortions. So Romney could kill two birds with one stone here ( perhaps not the best metaphor for me, a supporter of animal rights!) by being more likely to win the presidency by reflecting what the population wants on this issue, and by using his presidential powers to help restrict abortions. (by the way, I had one too many “nots” in my previous comment about Romney counseling one of his members not to get an abortion. I should have said that ronmey counseled a woman not to get an abortion).
Don Nelson Reply:
December 4th, 2011 at 1:06 am
@Bret Lythgoe, Thanks Brett. I’ve always appreciated your pro-life views. I don’t support abortion for rape and incest, but it’s pretty hard to call people who support it only in those instances “pro-choice” or not really pro-life when, like GWB, they oppose all other abortions except when the also rare instances when mother’s life is at risk. In Poland they banned abortions except for the rare exceptions and have almost wiped abortion out.
I think the LDS allow abortion for rape and incest, but I’m not sure if they would counsel for it. I heard one caller to a radio show say that means the LDS position/church isn’t really pro-life. I think that’s unfair. Women who have been raped and become pregnant for the most part have the baby and don’t regret it. Women abortion are more likely to regret the abortion even in those circumstances. Children of rape and incest don’t turn out to be legacies or children of rapists. They turn out to be people like youth speaker Pam Stenzel http://www.pamstenzel.com or attorney/pro-life spokeswoman Rebecca Kiesling http://www.rebeccakiessling.com-both guests on our old radio show. So even if I allowed abortion for rape and incest, I these things that would compel me to counsel against it.
I’m an animal welfare supporter like SHS instead of an animal rights supporter. But I’ve respected your position more because you don’t bring humans down to bring animals up. You support animal rights while supporting human rights. That is, you are pro-life and pro-animal rights. I think I’ve read you right. Those two don’t always go together. I think Ianthe, who comments from time to time-he used to comment a lot-is pro-life and pro-animal rights.
Bret Lythgoe Reply:
December 4th, 2011 at 1:48 am
@Don Nelson, Thanks so much,Don. I have great respect for all you do. You’re doing great work helping to inform people of the importance of the Pro-life view. You have read me right, I think that one can be Pro-life and for animal rights. I wish more on the animal rights side would become pro-life.
December 5th, 2011 | 11:57 pm
Bret Lythgoe: “So Romney could kill two birds with one stone here ( perhaps not the best metaphor for me, a supporter of animal rights!)…”
Could feed two birds with one piece of bread.
Bret Lythgoe Reply:
December 8th, 2011 at 5:10 am
@bmmg39, Thanks, bmmg39, I like that!
Links
Blogs
Find Us
Contact