Author: Romney Cleared Abortion Stance with Reagan Pollster, Church Before Challenging Kennedy in ‘94
by Charles C. Johnson
A new book out about Mitt Romney, Mitt Romney: An Inside Look at the Man and His Politics (Lyons 2011), makes a startling revelation: in the 1990s, candidate Mitt Romney relied upon polling by the late Richard Wirthlin, a Mormon pollster and chief strategist to the Reagan campaign, that made clear that no pro-life candidate could win elective office in Massachusetts. The book suggests that Romney tailored his position of government neutrality on abortion around that polling.
Romney famously went on to be skewered by Ted Kennedy as “multiple choice” on the question of abortion in the 1994 race for U.S. Senate in Massachusetts, losing by seventeen points after polling even with him into the debates. Still despite Kennedy’s characterization, Romney was endorsed by Massachusetts pro-life organizations.
Before announcing his candidacy, Romney also solicited advice from the Mormon church’s powerful Quorum of Twelve and the First Presidency before running against Ted Kennedy in 1994. In those meetings, Romney stressed his interpretation of the church’s doctrine of “free agency.” In essence, if free men and women can choose between good and evil, then it it is up to God, not men, to judge them for their actions.
That includes the choice of abortion, which Mormon theology permits in the cases of rape, incest, and threats to the life of the mother. Though technically correct, several of the Mormons profiled in the book argued that the theological position Romney presented was a little too convenient for Romney’s election.
Written by fellow Mormon, Bostonian and Time reporter, Ronald. B. Scott, the book reveals that Romney’s decision to rely on polling on what is for many Americans and many Mormons a pivotal issue may raise a character issue for a candidate who portrays himself as pro-life.
As a young stake president (equivalent to a bishop in the Catholic church) Romney counseled against abortion for women under his care. He often clashed with Judy Dushku, a Mormon feminist figure and the mother of actress Eliza Dushku. Dushku has repeatedly argued that Romney was more conservative on abortion in private than he was publicly. Local Mormon leaders redrew the map of the local wards to guarantee that Romney and Dushku would never meet in what was known as the “Duskhu gerrymander, an unrequested courtesy extended to their former stake president Mitt Romney and his wife, who would never again have to be face to face with Judy Dushku while they worshipped,” Scott wrote.
In 2007, Judy Dushku recalled a published anonymous article in her feminist Mormon magazine, Exponents II, by a Mormon woman who wanted to have an abortion in 1990 when Mitt Romney was a stake president. (The article did not mention Mitt Romney by name, but Dushku later identified him.) The woman, Carrel Hilton Sheldon, has since come forward. Sheldon claims that Romney worked very hard to prevent her from having an abortion, even though her doctor (also a Mormon and past stake president) said her pregnancy might take her life. The woman ultimately had the abortion.
In 1983, according to another new book about Romney, The Real Romney, he also allegedly pressured Peggy Hayes, a single mother seeking an abortion, to give up her baby for adoption or risk excommunication. Prior to relaying the church’s position, Romney had worked with other members in the church to help Hayes pay her bills and find work. Hayes ultimately kept the baby and was not excommunicated, even though having a baby out of wedlock is also apparent grounds for exclusion from the church, at the discretion of church leaders.
Romney has since backed off of his ‘94 views. On July 26, 2005, Mitt Romney announced he was pro-life in the pages of The Boston Globe, except in the cases of rape and incest, as is more common with Mormon teachings. Critics dismissed the conversion as politically motivated, and as having been just in time for his bid for the presidency, but Romney maintained that his change of heart had been sincere.
Email this to a friend | Print |
Share on Facebook
| Tweet this
| 
Follow Us on Twitter
Subscribe via RSS
Got a Tip?
52 Comments
For the record, I have a serious distaste for a lot of the candidates running, but if comes down to NEWT or Mitt, I will pull the lever for Mitt, at least I know what I will be getting.
"If you just set out to be liked, you would be prepared to compromise on anything at any time, and you would achieve nothing."
-Thatcher
This is why Libertarians don't win elections. They're too honest, sincere and don't pander for votes.
Another good one from Thatcher: "There are still people in my party who believe in consensus politics. I regard them as Quislings, as traitors… I mean it."
"Romney stressed his interpretation of the church’s doctrine of “free agency.” In essence, if free men and women can choose between good and evil, then it it is up to God, not men, to judge them for their actions."
Hey, I readily agree with that statement.
I also support the idea that abortion should not be funded by government with taxpayer funds. It should be supported – or not – by private donations to specific charities.
Mitt has many attributes that are admirable and desirable in a POTUS, but I do harbor concerns that he is too malleable to the moment. That said, of course I would vote for him over Obeonekedopey, but I would be doing so with my fingers crossed.
So we are officially the party of Pro-Choice?
A lot changed since yesterday.
Not at all. I'm pro life; but mankind has free will to choose. Having stated the preceding, I also feel that abortion is a private matter and should not be regulated by government.
As for changing my mind about flip flopper Mitt, not by any stretch of the imagination.
An obvious flip-flopper over a more sneaky flip-flopper is hardly a choice.
Ron Paul promised to sign a bill removing Federal jurisdiction and thus over turning Roe v. Wade.
All it takes is a majority of both Houses and a Presidential signature, no more jostling for Supreme Court Justices.
I see no other "pro-life" candidate willing to repeal Roe v. Wade.
I see mitt as the boss's son
Newt reminds me of the work place back stabber. Taking credit for your work and then getting you fired.
I cannot begin to express how profoundly unimportant the matter of abortion rights is to elected office. This argument is a disgusting distraction that never bears upon any function or conduct of office. It does not matter what anyone else thinks about abortion laws, they exist and are not reasonably expected to be changed. The candidates could just as well walk away from this line of absurd inquiry in as much as Bill Clinton could have ignored the question about his underwear. And I DARE you to ask Newt Romney about his!
That's called Pro-Choice.
I spent a good amount of time and energy defending Paul's Pro-Life stance from people that assume he's ok with abortions because of his Libertarian leanings.
Paul is his own man. He is not a follower. His Pro-Life stance comes from his Christian faith and having brought many babies into this world.
He's a good guy.
Is there some way that could happen, that Americans could pull the lever and choose between Newt and Mitt? If so, we could sure save a lot of time and ugliness while depriving the media of fodder.
Newts victory makes the debate over social issues mute.
It is victory at any cost thus that is the cost of your victory.
I am not a Mormon. I do believe that Mitt and the Mormons got it right with exceptions for rape, incest, and health of the mother. The folks that say those exceptions are miniscule and don't count are wrong. Exceptions are exactly that. Exceptions are supposed to be minimal. So, if you happen to be one of those exceptions you don't count. That is wrong. There are exceptions to every rule. Who is the God among us that seeks to play God.
Totally agree that the individual pays the abortion cost. You do the crime, you pick up the tab.
Taxpayers should not be paying sterilization costs for others either.
In other words, his positions are taken on what will get him elected.
Obama lite.
The country is BROKE. We are borrowing money to pay the interest on what we already owe and the priorities are ABORTION LAW
LEGALIZING GAY 'MARRIAGE'
Surely, this is the reason our country is in such terrible shape. INSANE PRIORITIES.
BO is a used car salesman selling a piece junk wrapped up in a bow.
Newt reminds me of the work place back stabber. They take the credit for all your work then they get you fired.
Rick reminds of the work place suck up getting ahead by…….i will be nice
Mitt is the boss's son.
Paul is just the worker who does his job.
The real advantage to paul is the chances are high that there will be no second term. Thus the vice president choice becomes real important.
Also he can do all the heavy lifting the others will refuse to do until a second term.
While paul is not a true libertarian after all he is republican, the people will get a chance to see a real alternative to the democrat party.
I am free and unaffiliated
By law i cant vote for any of them…. Tax payer supported closed primary.
When in doubt vote them out
Send the illegals home
Maybe in your mind but not in mine. I believe all life is sacred, but there is the sticky wicket called free will which allows one to determine his/her own path.
It appears you believe the govt should legislate such actions. I do not. However, the right of a woman to choose was determined by the Supreme Court ruling of Rowe vs Wade. I just hope that women make the correct choice.
Mitt is a polster's dream. He got money.
That's still called Pro-Choice.
If you truly believe life is sacred, protect it. Maybe the word "sacred" means something different to you.
Like I said, as well, irrelevant distractions that have nothing to do with the conduct of elected office, at least at the POTUS level.
100% correct NK.
I have a Dushku question. Why was a stake leader allowed to have an anti-life stance? The doctrine of the church is pretty clear. This is how religions are torn down and God himself knows the troubles of the LDS church .
I can at least understand the necessity of Romney's past positions. There was no way an outspokenly pro life candidate was going to win any public office in Massachusetts. Gingrich on the other hand, what was he thinking when he branded the Ryan plan "right wing social engineering"? Who was he pandering to?
That is where I am at. In fact the government should NOT even be in medicine.
Women will abort legal or illegal.
I raised my daughters & taught them my moral values, no need for the government to do MY DUTY.
Newt victory has muted the social issues.
The victory at any cost has a cost to be paid.
Newt will fall.
Because of buyers remorse
because the price was too high.
But there are no refunds in politics.
Newts victory can be seen as sexist. The old double standard.
I'm glad someone agrees with me. We are so foolish to focus on this abortion issue while other issues impact the daily lives of all Americans.
Even if someone really cares about this issue, they need to realize we cannot effectively ban abortion without a constitutional amendment. Even if you manage to get RvW overturned (or shift it back to the states), it will just lead to chaos, and a system where a few red states ban it, and young women drive to the next state over.
If a girl wants to have an abortion, well that's between her and God, and perhaps the provider of the abortion.
Yes you will know, a non-conservative that goes by what is polling, instead of his convictions. Good luck!
I'm right there with you. It is possible to be against abortion, but not believe that the government has the power to determine what goes on inside a woman's body. In fact this basically was the stance Herman Cain took, before those allegations surfaced. Furthermore the state cannot make a philosophical determination such as when life begins, since it is inherently religious in nature.
Libertarian circles are closely divided on the subject too. The Republican Liberty Caucus refuses to take a stand on it even.
It is infuriating that Santorum has made these issues the forefront of the primary!
We are completely tanking this election, by taking the focus off Obama's failed economic policies.
That's just about the sum of it. It never should have been a government matter in the first place but it is now and no candidate is going to do anything about it. I'd rather have a discussion about expanding the Public Health Service and increasing the number of Physicians and Allied Health Service providers. Instead of Obamacare, how about delawyering the outrageous malpractice monsters and increasing the supply of health care providers.
So according to the article above he urged a woman not to have an abortion and convinced another woman not to have an abortion. So how is that not Pro-Life? Where in fact is The Flip-Flop? Again, look at his actions not his words. He has been consistently Conservative. Yes, he had a poll done. You really don't think every other candidate doesn't use polling to help shape their opinion and message? The one subtle plus to sharing this article is that it shows LDS Folk's don't walk in lockstep with one another. Evidence is Dushku and the author of the report. So there you go.
We're talking about a human being, not some random thing like a virus in a woman's body. All laws are based on morality, it just depends on which morality you are choosing. We are not free to hurt others. Abortion is taking the life of another.
Our finances are terrible because we have become an immoral people- willing to sacrifice a baby's life for a moment of pleasure, taking no responsibility for our actions and reshaping the culture to fit what gives us self-esteem. The fact that our politicians are able to spend taxpayer money to bribe citizens is not unrelated to this lack of morality.
You got some bad info there. And even if you were right (which you aren't) you would still need to find 60 votes in the senate, which is not a simple majority.
People opposed to abortion should not have one. In America we have freedom of choice.
I totally agree with you. I would love to see abortions performed only in cases of rape, incest or when the mother's life is threatened, but we are never going to change the laws until we change the culture.
Romney doesn't care one whit about abortion or gay marriage or any of that social conservative nonsense. He's more of a fiscal Republican and everything else is a distraction… a mine field that must be navigated to get the nomination from a right wing political party. Once he wins the nomination you will never hear another word about abortion. In fact, look for him to tack back to the center as fast as he can to try and convince moderate voters to vote for him in the general.
I don't understand your question. It appears that in his capacity as a church leader, Romney was very pro-life and counseled against abortion. Are you asking why didn't he impose his religious values on the citizens of Massachusetts, whether they were LDS or not?
I am asking why Dushku was allowed by the LDS church to hold a leadership position while also holding the view that abortion is lovely which is against the rules of their Church.
I cannot begin to express my disgust at your attitude. There is nothing MORE important to elected office than a candidates position on the rights to life, to equal protection, and to due process of law. Unborn people have been denied those rights by the tens of millions, and our country has suffered greatly for it. You are speaking foolishly.
This article is giving me pause; I had been in the "any Republican but Romney" camp, but I feel much better about him knowing how opposed he has been to abortion when out of the public eye. I can forgive him for softening his rhetoric while trying to get elected in an uber-liberal socialist state like Mass. I would rather that he had not have done that, but since that was nearly twenty years ago and since he does appear to be a lifelong opponent of abortion, I feel a lot better about him now.
It will certainly be interesting to see who gets the nomination.
I hear you, bro, but there is something to be said for Coulter's theory, which is that he knows how to trick liberals into voting for him. At least that's what I keep telling myself, because I don't know if Gingrich will win or whether he would be any better if he did.
Well of course you can express your disgust, you just did! Keep those thoughts in mind when you have an opportunity to elect your local leadership. No president has made one iota of difference in respect to the decisions of RvW. The topic is irrelevant and distracting and has nothing to do, whatsoever, with these candidates or this election. As to attitude? MmmHmm.
I have never been a complete Ron Paul supporter. I have just never been able to accept his foreign policy extremism. I don't disagree with it entirely but if it could be filtered through a less radical Secretary of State and Defense Secretary then I am with you on all the reasons he would be best for President in Jan 2013.
I am hoping that 2012 elections will send a loud message and a majority in both houses. If congress pays attention to the electorate it should be able to buffer the negatives of any one of the candidates including BO. But, any of the non-BO candidates will be much more effective at turning the course as long as we continue to yell the message to the hill.
Did she have a leadership position? Nothing in this article indicates that she did. Her magazine, Exponents II, is not an official LDS publication but something she does on her own.
It is good to trade words with you.
At this time …I am not for anyone.
I just know who I will vote against and who I will not vote against.
I will vote against BO, newt and rick.
I am not a paul supporter, but I do support paul supporters.
The fear of BO has driven people to turn on each other and that is not how you defeat BO.
Paul will act as the president of the united states and not a party hack, that much I am sure.
Mitt is a politician thus a large march on washington will effect his actions, even overwhelming polls, thus the times we live in.
<DIV>Agree. Rome is burning and the idiots say,PARTY ON.</DIV><DIV></DIV><DIV></DIV><DIV style=”MARGIN: 5px 0px; BORDER-TOP: #bcbcbc 1px solid”></DIV>
I did misunderstand! I thought LDS members could chose which stake they attended, so I figured she had to be a leader or else she would have had some leeway to move around without having everyone accommodate her.
Wow Romney's a pure phony. Everyone knows that except the Romney-bots that get a thrill up their leg when he smiles their way.
He has no convictions. He's an empty suit. He dodges every hard question and gives his followers nothing of substance. You like him now until he changes his tune in the general then you'll be whining how it's not his fault.
You must be logged in to post a comment.