Widgetized Section
Go to Admin » Appearance » Widgets » and move Gabfire Widget: Social into that MastheadOverlay zone
Mitt Romney Funded Surrogate Contract for His Son that Allows for Abortion
Mitt Romney said he was for the Personhood Amendment, which would make even some forms of birth control illegal. In any case, it doesn’t allow for abortion even in the case of the life of the mother or rape. Remember legitimate rape? That’s the thinking behind the Personhood Amendment. According to TMZ, this Personhood Amendment candidate paid money toward his son’s surrogacy contract expenses — a contract that allows both parties to abort the fetus under non-life threatening conditions.
The contract includes several portions allowing for abortion via both the surrogate’s and the intended parent decision. Now, this same clause was not included in the previous contract they had with the same surrogate, which makes it stand out more, as lawyers usually hash out all of these details with the attention you’d expect when you’re dealing with such an emotional issue.
The contract specifically provides the choice of abortion if Romney’s son and daughter-in-law want it. TMZ reports on the Gestational Carrier Agreement dated July 28, 2011:
“If in the opinion of the treating physician or her independent obstetrician there is potential physical harm to the surrogate, the decision to abort or not abort is to be made by the surrogate.”
“In the event the child is determined to be physiologically, genetically or chromosomally abnormal, the decision to abort or not to abort is to be made by the intended parents. In such a case the surrogate agrees to abort, or not to abort, in accordance with the intended parents’ decision.”
“Any decision to abort because of potential harm to the child, or to reduce the number of fetuses, is to be made by the intended parents.”
So yeah. This contract has nothing to do with danger to the mother and everything to do with “choice”. TMZ can’t say if Romney read the contract before he funded part of the expense. Fair enough. But if his own son and daughter in law feel they are entitled to choice, doesn’t it follow that perhaps Mitt Romney might want to extend that privilege to the rest of the country?
It may have been an oversight. Their attorney Bill Handel says they just “forgot” to remove the clauses pertaining to abortion. That’s possible, though certainly doesn’t reflect well on him if it true. But it also reveals the dirty secret behind anti-choicers. People with money always have choice. So when politicians discuss removing choice, they are only really removing choice from women without means.
Romney has promised to defund Planned Parenthood and deny women the right to abortions even in the case of rape. Of course, Romney has changed his position on this so many times it’s impossible to say where he stands today. It’s awkward that a man running for President would fund such an agreement while he’s out telling voters that he supports the Personhood Amendment.
Readers will say this is “personal” and I shouldn’t have reported it. To them, I say, exactly. It’s personal. It’s a personal family matter. I could not agree more.
That is the exact position of the pro-choice movement. Pro choicers believe that women and their families are best suited to make these decisions in private, with their doctors.
We would all really appreciate not having to report on the personal lives of Republicans who are inserting themselves into our personal lives with legislation, as they know they can open any door they need to due to means.
It is personal. And it’s not the place of Republicans to get into the personal lives of American families, just as they don’t want us in their personal lives. IT IS PERSONAL, and no one gets to be held to a different standard, especially when they are denying other women the same rights they take for themselves.
Related Posts :
On "Meet the Press" today, Romney surrogate Senator Marco Rubio confirmed a troubling fact: as President ...
Post Ryan soul mate Todd Akin's "legitimate rape" comment that exposed the Republican Party's true age ...
The media may be ignoring Romney as they get swept away by the latest GOP candidate show, but conservati ...
Mitt Romney may have finally managed to wake the press up to his duplicity. This, of course, is the one ...
Congressman Paul Ryan outed the Romney/Ryan position on abortion last night during the vice presidential ...
17 Responses to Mitt Romney Funded Surrogate Contract for His Son that Allows for Abortion
Public Service Advertisements
calma60
Sep. 21st, 2012 at 10:08 pm
I was going to say, “hey, it’s personal.” But you answered that very well. Thanks.
Colleen
Sep. 21st, 2012 at 10:12 pm
This only applies to everyone else. Not anyone i his family I guess.
Kevin Shinn
Sep. 21st, 2012 at 10:26 pm
Privilege has its privileges.
DixiePixie
Sep. 21st, 2012 at 10:36 pm
It may have been an oversight. Their attorney Bill Handel says they just “forgot” to remove the clauses pertaining to abortion.
No way was this an over sight. The intended parents clearly wanted a “healthy” baby and nothing less would do. If there was a test for homosexuality, that clause would have been in there too. Only want a girl “we reserve the right to abort the boys”. I call BS on all pro-lifers that wouldn’t abort if their young daughter was raped or if their wife’s life was in danger. And remember in a speech when Palin talked about being in New Orleans and just found out that her baby had DS? She said “here I am in a different town and no one would know but I made the CHOICE to keep the baby” (side note: I’m a birther and don’t believe she was really pregnant). She made a choice but wants to take that choice from everyone else. These people make me sick.
Sally
Sep. 21st, 2012 at 10:43 pm
How very Christian of them. We’re paying for this baby and it damn well better be perfect. It’s always struck me as unusual in the pictures of Mitt’s extended family that there are very few girls. My husband has three siblings, and we have 14 kids between us: 6 girls and 8 boys. Those kids have seven children…four girls and three boys. No abortions, two ‘had to marry’ and one divorce. I have a music student who’s Mormon, and there are six boys and no girls in his family either…do they abort girls?
Reynardine
Sep. 21st, 2012 at 10:58 pm
I worked as a bench person on some of the early ultrasound monitors in 1978, and they were by no means refined enough to tell the sex of a fetus. It’s possible sperm centrifuging existed when the Romney kids were conceived, but tempting as it is to suppose the Romneys were picking the sex of their kids, they can’t have.
When I was a kid in the Fifties, a Catholic family down the road had eight boys and a girl. Some men father only, or predominantly, one sex.
Sandra
Sep. 22nd, 2012 at 12:02 pm
Sure they could. They could abort despite the 20 week law once the sex of the fetus was developed and determined. Rich people can get away with anything. Do you think the Mormon Doctors who supervised the pregnancies would divulge this information. They will do anything for their Mormon God and their Mormon Church.
Reynardine
Sep. 22nd, 2012 at 12:26 pm
No. What I have said is that there was not even any reliable way to determine the sex of a fetus prior to the mid-Eighties, nor any reliable method of pre-conception sex selection prior to the mid-Seventies, and that was only about thirty percent better than chance.
Gorgegirl
Sep. 24th, 2012 at 1:21 am
You are right In 1978 the only way to tell the sex of the baby was by amniocentis. I was 35 at the time, so my doctor required it of anybody who would have a higher chance of having a baby with downs syndrome. At least then they would have a choice and know what to expect. They could also tell the sex of the baby. So, I found about my baby was a boy in August before he was born in Dec of 78. And the amniocentis was not without some risk as well. They only had ultrasound machines in a few of the hospitals at that time. I think the doctor’s offices having these expensive machines is what drives up the cost of medical services.
Jose Martinez MSQR
Sep. 22nd, 2012 at 2:24 am
Is that lawyer Bill Handle of KFI AM Los Angeles? Anyway, why am I not surprised? Just when I thought Romney could not top his latest gaff(cosmetically manipulating his tax returns), comes this breaking news on his self entitled behavior on abortion. I hope it’s a girl.
Reynardine
Sep. 22nd, 2012 at 8:31 am
It was twin boys, and since the younger Romneys probably had in vitro to create the embryos for implantation, they clearly did select the sex. Furthermore, in vitro always creates a number of embryos that are not used, and are thus discarded.
If this is not a full surrogacy and the gestational mother is also the biological mother, then that does not apply. In that case, however, there get to be Thirteenth Amendment problems with the whole contract.
Reynardine
Sep. 22nd, 2012 at 12:01 pm
In fact, the first two, or perhaps three, Romney kids were born before there was any scientifically-grounded preconception sex selection, and even the youngest before there was any post-conception method of sex selection.
clarence swinney
Sep. 22nd, 2012 at 8:38 am
Given Americans’ limited knowledge about the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, let’s begin with an introduction to Mormon mores, where sin-wise “ unchastity is next to murder in seriousness .” The Mormon Church forbids any and all sex outside of heterosexual marriage , including “ necking and petting ”; masturbation; pornography; homosexuality; and abortion in almost all circumstances. Gays who act on their “ inclinations” are banned from entering Mormon temples, where many of the most important family events and sacred rituals—marriage, funerals, baptism of the dead—are celebrated. Traditional gender roles are encouraged , and often enforced. Mormonism bars women from the priesthood, enjoins them to have many children, and frowns on mothers working outside the home. In a nation of declining middle-class incomes, there’s not much the hierarchy can do to force mothers back into full-time motherhood and wifedom. Still, the LDS Church doesn’t employ Mormon women with young children or cover birth control for its employees .
In Mormonism, mothers may be exalted, but women sure aren’t equal.
To be sure, the LDS church isn’t impervious to change. It did, after all, end polygamy and eventually allow African American men into the priesthood. Yet when it comes to stepping into the 21st century on women’s equality, gay civil rights and sex—as many ordinary Mormons would prefer– the Mormon Church has dug in its heels.
And this is where Romney comes in.
In 1981, the 34-year-old Romney was already a fabulously successful consultant at Bain & Company when the LDS hierarchy tasked him to be a lay bishop. The Belmont ward, where Romney’s family worshipped, was a hotbed of Mormon feminism —a sign, from Salt Lake City’s perspective, that the congregation needed a Mr. Turnaround. Romney ultimately spent nearly 14 years as a Mormon clergyman, becoming the highest Mormon Church leader in the Boston region. He resigned in 1994 to run for the U.S. Senate against Ted…
littlebadwolf
Sep. 22nd, 2012 at 11:28 am
‘you can’t do as i do, you do what i tell you to do’
KatzKids
Sep. 23rd, 2012 at 5:02 am
This is a link to an interview with a prominent Professor who is also a Democratic Mormon woman, giving her personal experience with Bishop Romney’s feelings on abortion when the life of a Mormon mother is at risk. Many other interesting details as well.
www.scoop.co.nz/stories/H...
ahlnord
Sep. 24th, 2012 at 12:27 am
Tagg Romney’s wife had first a daughter and then 2 sons before they turned to surrogacy for their last 3 children — all boys. What does it say that a family with one daughter and 2 boys would choose (in vitro allowing for sex selection) to have 3 more boys ? And why resort to such extreme and expensive (requiring Mitt’s funding) methods as in vitro and surrogacy when you already have 3 healthy children? Such extreme measures are usually used by childless and infertile couples desperate to have biological children.
Inez
Sep. 24th, 2012 at 10:39 am
Don’t do as I do, do as I say, Mitt announced by his hypocritical attitude towards abortion. They only want perfect children, it seems. Of course, Mormonism wants women to bear as many children as possible to perpetuate their numbers. I wonder, are their any disabled children in a Mormon family?? Is it flip flop or flop flip, again?