The Susan B. Anthony List (SBA) recently caught Mitt Romney and exposed him as an apparent pro-choice candidate. Except, all is not as it seems.
Over at America Needs Mitt, the author shows how it was all a trap, since the bylaws of the SBA force them to endorse a woman over a man anyway. (link)
It is simply brilliant that Mitt Romney took a pro-life pledge on his own terms. The SBA nor any other organization can hope to “rule” over a president by making broad declarations of what is and is not morally acceptable—and imagine that they have the final say. Instead, candidates and positions are complicated things. The diversity is complicated, but a lack of diversity means that the candidates are not free-thinking creatures.
Mitt Romney is indeed pro-life. What does this mean for how he intends to use the power of the president?
He has already said that he wants to see the courts move in the direction of pro-life decisions, not because he feels the courts should be politically motivated, but that as a matter of law, unborn children are human and worthy of life. So he has already stated that he will appoint judges who agree with his judicial philosophy that recognizes life as a right that all people have, by the very fact that they are human.
Of course, the SBA doesn’t appear to be about promoting the issues of life. It seems like a game to them, and their electioneering is too obvious. The SBA would be better off educating and advocating, not trying to get messed up in a political process of choosing a leader. That’s my opinion, of course.
After all, suppose the SBA actively opposes Romney and then Romney becomes president. Are they expecting Romney to be so forgiving that he’ll welcome their representatives into his office? Or suppose that Romney grabs the nomination and runs for president. Do they expect the other candidate will not exploit the rifts that the SBA created?