"Mitt Romney paid for son's surrogate 'abortion contract', right to kill fetus" TMZ.com and Examiner.com

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Sep 24, 2012 4:31 PM GMT
    http://www.examiner.com/article/mitt-romney-paid-for-son-s-surrogate-abortion-contract-right-to-kill-fetus

    THE FACTS DO JUSTIFY THE HEADLINE:

    "The section of the contract which gave the Romney's abortion power over the child reads as follows:

    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. "

    Translation: Tagg and his wife, Jen, had the right to abort the fetuses if they felt they would not be healthy.

    Read more: http://www.tmz.com/2012/09/20/mitt-romney-son-tagg-abortion-clause-surrogate-birth-agreement-contract-bill-handel/#ixzz27PFpta00


    THE ROMNEY CAMPAIGN has a perfectly innocent explanation for this. Have a read.

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Sep 24, 2012 4:46 PM GMT
    JockTheVote saidTHE ROMNEY CAMPAIGN has a perfectly innocent explanation for this. Have a read.

    They claim the clause is standard in surrogate birth contracts, and they "forgot" to have it removed. They say they did remove it in a previous 2009 surrogacy (what's with these surrogate births?).

    But if that's the case, then they would have known the drill, known that the clause was there once again, and once again needed to be removed. And nobody reads what they sign, for such an important matter?

    "Is that the surrogate contract? Good, toss it over here. Where do I sign? Page 8, and initial there? Done. Now are we packed for the Cayman Islands?"

    Romney's son, and whoever else's signature was on this contract, surely didn't treat a document governing the birth of a child with no more attention than signing a UPS package receipt, did they? This raises questions on quite a few levels.
  • Koaa2

    Posts: 1556

    Sep 24, 2012 6:39 PM GMT
    The whole family are such hypocrites. No one knows what these people really beliieve in, if anything, other than making a dollar and screwing over everyone else while they do it.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Sep 24, 2012 6:55 PM GMT
    ART_DECO said
    JockTheVote saidTHE ROMNEY CAMPAIGN has a perfectly innocent explanation for this. Have a read.

    They claim the clause is standard in surrogate birth contracts, and they "forgot" to have it removed. They say they did remove it in a previous 2009 surrogacy (what's with these surrogate births?).

    But if that's the case, then they would have known the drill, known that the clause was there once again, and once again needed to be removed. And nobody reads what they sign, for such an important matter?

    "Is that the surrogate contract? Good, toss it over here. Where do I sign? Page 8, and initial there? Done. Now are we packed for the Cayman Islands?"

    Romney's son, and whoever else's signature was on this contract, surely didn't treat a document governing the birth of a child with no more attention than signing a UPS package receipt, did they? This raises questions on quite a few levels.


    How true. And even if they relied entirely on their highly paid Mormon lawyers to go over the small print, how come none of them said, "I would be neglecting my duty - as a Latter-day Saint and as your lawyer - if I did not point out to you that the contract contains a standard abortion clause, that is totally at odds with the teachings of the Church, not to mention your father's presidential campaign policy."?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Sep 24, 2012 8:04 PM GMT
    If the health insurance plan offerred by my employer covers abortion, should I refuse to take the plan, since even as a man I am against abortion? Should a straight person refuse to take the employer offerred plan because, as in my company, domestic partners are covered? Your assertion that a contract, which may have been a standard contract used in all cases, which may or may not have been modifiable, is an example of hypocrisy is a bit of a stretch. It's reaching for a story where there probably isn't one, in order to enable a tabloid to put out outrageous headlines. There are more important things to report on.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Sep 24, 2012 8:55 PM GMT
    Blakes7 saidIf the health insurance plan offerred by my employer covers abortion, should I refuse to take the plan, since even as a man I am against abortion? Should a straight person refuse to take the employer offerred plan because, as in my company, domestic partners are covered? Your assertion that a contract, which may have been a standard contract used in all cases, which may or may not have been modifiable, is an example of hypocrisy is a bit of a stretch. It's reaching for a story where there probably isn't one, in order to enable a tabloid to put out outrageous headlines. There are more important things to report on.


    You appear to be confusing generic clauses in an insurance contract with specific clauses in a surrogacy contract. The former is designed to cover everyone who buys the insurance, while the latter is a contract between 2 or 3 people and therefore ought to be easier to tailor to individual requirements and personal preferences.

    The point is, Romney appears happy to give his son and the mother of his son's child the right to choose abortion in non-life threatening circumstances, while declaring that, as president, he would seek to limit that right for every woman in the US. It is pure hypocritical flip-flopperly.

    If the Romneys are opposed to abortion in non-life threatening circumstances and the only way to contract a surrogacy is to allow the parties to that contract the right to choose such an abortion, then the Romneys should refuse to enter into a surrogacy agreement, as a matter of principle. Otherwise, this is clearly a case of one rule for 'them' and another rule for 'us'.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Sep 24, 2012 9:12 PM GMT
    Ex_Mil8 said
    Blakes7 saidIf the health insurance plan offerred by my employer covers abortion, should I refuse to take the plan, since even as a man I am against abortion? Should a straight person refuse to take the employer offerred plan because, as in my company, domestic partners are covered? Your assertion that a contract, which may have been a standard contract used in all cases, which may or may not have been modifiable, is an example of hypocrisy is a bit of a stretch. It's reaching for a story where there probably isn't one, in order to enable a tabloid to put out outrageous headlines. There are more important things to report on.


    You appear to be confusing generic clauses in an insurance contract with specific clauses in a surrogacy contract. The former is designed to cover everyone who buys the insurance, while the latter is a contract between 2 or 3 people and ought therefore to be easier to tailor to individual requirements and personal preferences.

    The point is, Romney appears happy to give his son and the mother of his son's child the right to choose abortion in non-life threatening circumstances, while declaring that, as president, he would seek to limit that right for every woman in the US. It is pure hypocritical flip-flopperly.

    If the Romneys are opposed to abortion in non-life threatening circumstances and the only way to contract a surrogacy is to allow the parties to that contract the right to choose such an abortion, then the Romneys should refuse to enter into a surrogacy agreement, as a matter of principle. Otherwise, this is clearly a case of one rule for 'them' and another rule for 'us'.




    Absolutely correct.

    It will be interesting to see if the right-wing media - and religious right voters - give Romney a pass on this.

    Do religious right voters who feel so strongly about abortion - choose to stand on principle - or do they choose to back the Repub party, whether it's right or whether it's wrong.
  • coolarmydude

    Posts: 9190

    Sep 25, 2012 2:30 PM GMT
    RickRick91 said

    Absolutely correct.

    It will be interesting to see if the right-wing media - and religious right voters - give Romney a pass on this.

    Do religious right voters who feel so strongly about abortion - choose to stand on principle - or do they choose to back the Repub party, whether it's right or whether it's wrong.



    They already do. I was blasting a "Lay Catholics for Romney" facebook ad, where they outright question any Catholic who votes for Obama. I mentioned the fact that Romney profited off an abortion company, Stericycle. And then some idiot was trying to create a "lesser-of-two-evils" argument and concluded with, "Should I go on?"

    I replied, "Yes! Let's talk about cognitive dissonance."

    But all this pro-life crap ignores the death penalty. The Republicans don't have the abolition of the death penalty in their platform. And the Catholics are silent on that as well.
  • thadjock

    Posts: 2183

    Sep 25, 2012 5:38 PM GMT
    ART_DECO saidThey claim the clause is standard in surrogate birth contracts, and they "forgot" to have it removed. They say they did remove it in a previous 2009 surrogacy (what's with these surrogate births?).

    hmm...i dunno, but from all the movies i've seen , aliens need a human womb to grow their spawn and infiltrate our species .

    either that or mormons are so messed up chromosomally from decades of ibreeding that they need to hire ouside DNA, just to have a chance at a normal baby. hence the "quality control" clause.
  • rnch

    Posts: 11524

    Sep 25, 2012 5:42 PM GMT
    [quote][cite]Ex_Mil8 said...The point is, Romney appears happy to give his son and the mother of his son's child the right to choose abortion in non-life threatening circumstances, while declaring that, as president, he would seek to limit that right for every woman in the US. It is pure hypocritical flip-flopperly.

    If the Romneys are opposed to abortion in non-life threatening circumstances and the only way to contract a surrogacy is to allow the parties to that contract the right to choose such an abortion, then the Romneys should refuse to enter into a surrogacy agreement, as a matter of principle. Otherwise, this is clearly a case of one rule for 'them' and another rule for 'us'. [/quote]



    "do as I say, not as I do".

    MORE of Romney's "flip-flop" hypocritical actions.

    ONCE AGAIN, "The Mitt Hits The Fan."
  • thadjock

    Posts: 2183

    Sep 25, 2012 6:23 PM GMT
    i think the true hypocrisy is mitt pretending to be hardline pro-life, when he clearly has never been. the clause in the surrogate contract reflects their true position.

    politics aside, makes you wonder how many prospective parents get news of a profoundly compromised fetus and opt to abort.

    would you?

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Sep 25, 2012 6:27 PM GMT
    JockTheVote saidhttp://www.examiner.com/article/mitt-romney-paid-for-son-s-surrogate-abortion-contract-right-to-kill-fetus

    THE FACTS DO JUSTIFY THE HEADLINE:

    "The section of the contract which gave the Romney's abortion power over the child reads as follows:

    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. "

    Translation: Tagg and his wife, Jen, had the right to abort the fetuses if they felt they would not be healthy.

    Read more: http://www.tmz.com/2012/09/20/mitt-romney-son-tagg-abortion-clause-surrogate-birth-agreement-contract-bill-handel/#ixzz27PFpta00


    THE ROMNEY CAMPAIGN has a perfectly innocent explanation for this. Have a read.



    Fixed Links
  • HottJoe

    Posts: 21366

    Sep 25, 2012 6:37 PM GMT
    I'd be very afraid of a Romney presidency if I were a woman. He doesn't trust women to make their own decisions. He thinks he should make laws that force his views on women's bodies. icon_confused.gif
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Sep 25, 2012 6:41 PM GMT
    HottJoe saidI'd be very afraid of a Romney presidency if I were a woman. He doesn't trust women to make their own decisions. He thinks he should make laws that force his views on women's bodies. icon_confused.gif


    Unless, it seems, the woman happens to be the mother of his son's child.
  • thadjock

    Posts: 2183

    Sep 25, 2012 6:44 PM GMT
    HottJoe saidI'd be very afraid of a Romney presidency if I were a woman. He doesn't trust women to make their own decisions. He thinks he should make laws that force his views on women's bodies. icon_confused.gif


    i praise god every day i'm not a woman.

    that uterus thing causes more hell in the world
  • thadjock

    Posts: 2183

    Sep 25, 2012 7:27 PM GMT
    coolarmydude said
    But all this pro-life crap ignores the death penalty. The Republicans don't have the abolition of the death penalty in their platform. And the Catholics are silent on that as well.


    pro-life-cartoon.gif
  • rnch

    Posts: 11524

    Sep 25, 2012 7:31 PM GMT
    [quote][cite]thadjock said.......that uterus thing causes more hell in the world [/quote]



    SO True icon_exclaim.gif




    icon_eek.gif
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Sep 25, 2012 7:32 PM GMT
    The difference between abortion and the death penalty is the difference between innocent life and evil. icon_rolleyes.gif
  • HottJoe

    Posts: 21366

    Sep 25, 2012 7:34 PM GMT
    Blakes7 saidThe difference between abortion and the death penalty is the difference between innocent life and evil. icon_rolleyes.gif


    What's the difference between slavery and forcing your will over the bodies of women?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Sep 25, 2012 7:51 PM GMT
    We obviously see things differently.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Sep 25, 2012 8:40 PM GMT
    Blakes7 saidThe difference between abortion and the death penalty is the difference between innocent life and evil. icon_rolleyes.gif



    The commandment is "thou shalt not kill"
    Period.
    There are no exceptions or qualifying circumstances.

    For you to make an exception to excuse murder is to defy the word of God and to inject your own personal opinion.

    Religious right nuts do this all the time.

    For example - there is no commandment against homosexuality.
    It didn't make God's top ten list of sins.
    But the religious right haters consider homosexuality to be one of the two worst sins - right up there with murder.
    They do so because they personally disapprove of and are uncomfortable with homosexuality

    It's a perversion of the word of God.
    It's using the Bible to try to validate your own bigotry and intolerance.

    The religious right are not more moral than the rest of us - they're hateful and LESS moral.

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Sep 25, 2012 10:04 PM GMT
    I didn't mention the bible. Please do not project onto me.
  • Webster666

    Posts: 9217

    Sep 25, 2012 10:08 PM GMT
    coolarmydude said
    RickRick91 said

    Absolutely correct.

    It will be interesting to see if the right-wing media - and religious right voters - give Romney a pass on this.

    Do religious right voters who feel so strongly about abortion - choose to stand on principle - or do they choose to back the Repub party, whether it's right or whether it's wrong.



    They already do. I was blasting a "Lay Catholics for Romney" facebook ad, where they outright question any Catholic who votes for Obama. I mentioned the fact that Romney profited off an abortion company, Stericycle. And then some idiot was trying to create a "lesser-of-two-evils" argument and concluded with, "Should I go on?"

    I replied, "Yes! Let's talk about cognitive dissonance."

    But all this pro-life crap ignores the death penalty. The Republicans don't have the abolition of the death penalty in their platform. And the Catholics are silent on that as well.



    Agreed.
    Plus, they're all for "Supporting our troops," yet they completely abandon those same troops, when they become veterans.

    Plus, they're all for ZERO abortions, yet they completely abandon the needs of the fetus as soon as it becomes a baby and is born.