Rubio: Romney Is For-Against Contraceptives And Will Ban Abortion

One glum dude—Senator Marco Rubio—but don't worry Marco, Fidel ain't your real daddy (so far as I know anyway). However, you do have to explain Mitt Romney's Etch-a-Sketch bullshit to America once again. That would make anybody look unhappy.
When show host David Gregory made it clear yesterday, on Meet the Press, just what he was asking about, his guest, Senator Marco Rubio (R-FL), looked like he'd just been told his real daddy was Fidel Castro.

Gregory told Rubio he was confused about things Mitt Romney had been saying: "I don't see how both things can be true".

What things? Oh, you know—another outrageous Mitt Etch-a-Sketch lie, where Romney says one thing to one audience in one place and time, and another, completely contradictory thing, to some other audience.

This time the question was about Mitt Romney's position on women's health care rights, especially as those are spelled out in Obamacare.

Gregory explained:
"We know that Governor Romney supported that measure in Congress that would have said to employers, look, you don’t have to provide access to contraception if it violates your own moral code or religious code, to any employer."
Correct. Now, what was "that measure in Congress"? Well, hang in there for a history lesson from way back in late February of this year (AKA the olden days in campaign terms).

The measure was called the Blunt Amendment—an amendment to Obamacare specifically—and it is often referred to as the Blunt-Rubio Amendment, since Senator Marco Rubio co-sponsored it and certainly championed it.

Another person who championed the Blunt Amendment was a guy named Rick Santorum, who was running against Mitt Romney for the Republican nomination early in the year, back when they had the vote in Congress on this amendment.

When an Ohio cable news channel, ONN, asked Mitt Romney on the day before the vote what he thought of the Blunt amendment, Romney said the following:
"I'm not for the [Blunt Amendment], but look, the idea of presidential candidates getting into questions about contraception, within a relationship between a man and a woman, a husband and wife, I'm not going there."
ONN's interviewer, Jim Heath, realized he had a big piece of news, and tweeted it:
"ALERT: Mitt Romney tells ONN he would not vote for senate bill which would allow employers to deny coverage for birth control."
Not much time elapsed after that before Romney realized he had just made a big mistake by sounding too Moderate Mitt in the Republican primary.

Romney then went on a Boston radio show, and gave the following correction (or flip-flop)—notice how many more words this takes than Mitt's first answer, back when he promised he wouldn't "go there".:
"I didn't understand [Jim Heath's] question. Of course I support the Blunt Amendment. I thought he was talking about some state law that prevented people from getting contraception. So I was—simply—misunderstood the question. And of course I support the Blunt Amendment…I simply misunderstood what he was talking about. I thought it was some Ohio legislation, where employers were prevented from providing contraceptives. So I talked about contraceptives and so forth, and I really misunderstood the question. Of course Roy Blunt, who is my liaison to the Senate, is someone I support, and of course I support that amendment. I clearly want to have religious exemption from Obamacare."
So, Romney claimed he "didn't understand the question."

Well, here is Jim Heath's question:
"Blunt-Rubio is being debated, I believe later this week, that deals with banning, or allowing employers to ban providing female contraception. Have you taken a position on it—[Santorum's] said he's for that, and we'll talk about personhood in a second, but he's for that. Have you taken a position on it?"
So, did Mitt Romney think Blunt-Rubio were a couple of Ohio legislators? Or maybe a flavor of ice cream? Did he have any idea whatsoever what he was talking about, when he said "I'm not for the bill"?

But, as Romney had claimed a short time later: "Of course Roy Blunt, who is my liaison to the Senate, is someone I support, and of course I support that amendment."

So, how could Romney not understand that Roy Blunt's signature legislation for this Congress anyway, was what Jim Heath was asking him about?

You can see that David Gregory isn't the only person who finds Mitt Romney's changing and utterly unreliable positions on contraception, abortion, women, and pretty much everything, to be extremely difficult to understand. Even Romney himself is deeply and sometimes hourly confused about what he really thinks.

But that can happen to you when you're lying about everything 24-7.

Anyway, Gregory, having reintroduced Romney's Blunt-Bunt fiasco, then noted to Rubio that Romney had just gotten through telling the nation another version of how he felt about women's healthcare rights, in the most recent Presidential debate (last week). Romney said the following in the town-hall meeting debate:
"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."
After playing that clip of Romney, which was obviously the Moderate Mitt guise coming back to the stage, Gregory told Rubio "I don't see how both things can be true."

And Rubio, battered Romney surrogate, looking extremely unhappy he had to try to explain the inexplicable (once again) for Mitt Romney, nevertheless made this attempt:
"Well, because—I think that’s a general statement about most employers. But there are a handful of employers that have conscientious objections to it, for example, the Catholic Church. This is not an issue about contraception. No one is talking about banning contraception. No one is talking about preventing people from gaining access to contraception. This just happens to conflict with a constitutional principle of religious liberty."
When Gregory pointed out to Rubio that the Blunt-Rubio Amendment did not limit objections to contraception based on religious grounds, but it says any person, just on "moral" grounds alone, can refuse to pay for or provide a legal medical treatment or service, Rubio claimed people's objections would have to be "real", and that "fake" objections would meet with public ridicule. Rubio did not explain why anyone would object to paying for or providing contraceptives for a "fake" reason, and nor how his bill would have provided a means to tell the difference.

Gregory did not point out, perhaps because he did not need to, that the Blunt-Rubio Amendment, which was defeated in Congress, would have created an insanely chaotic situation in health care, with any religious or "moral" nut, being able to dictate the terms of medicine to American women.

On the question of abortion, Rubio had an easier time of things, as he confirmed for everyone—and won't most women be happy to hear this—that Mitt Romney will definitely sign a bill banning all abortions in the USA, if the Congress presents him with such a bill.

Yes, that's right. Moderate Mitt—or whatever his appropriate label should be—is in favor of eliminating the legal right to abortion in the USA.

At least, that is what Rubio said Mitt believed—yesterday.

Maybe today, Moderate Mitt will show back up to claim he's for "exceptions", or is not really going to ban anything, or hey—he's late for an appointment with his Caymans money guy and just really does not have time to talk about stuff that's supposed to be between a man and a wife (or hey, lots of wives, depending).

Seriously, Mitt Romney? The polls say he's picking up more support among women every day.

If American women have lost ALL respect for themselves and wish to move into a 1950s sitcom—where they play the hilarious ninny of a wife who does what the white men in charge tell her—vote for Mitt Romney.

If you'd prefer to not be condemned to Michele-Bachmann-style, you know what to do.

Comments