Oh Mitt. Is there no position you won't run from?
Once upon a time, Mitt Romney supported women's reproductive rights:
"I believe that abortion should be safe and legal in this country. [...] I believe that since Roe v. Wade has been the law for 20 years, that we should sustain and support it and I sustain and support that law and the right of the woman to make that choice. [...] And you will not see me wavering on that."
But that was waaaaaaaay back when he was running for office in 1994. And you can't expect a politician who promises not to waver to actually, you know, not waver. Which is why, when you fast forward to October 2011, it makes perfect sense that he would say, in his Awkward-a-thon with Mike Huckabee:
HUCKABEE: Would you have supported a constitutional amendment that would have established the definition of life at conception?
ROMNEY: Absolutely.
Yeah. Totally not inconsistent to promise to "sustain and support that law and the right of the woman to make that choice" and then voice his support for a constitutional amendment that would strip women of that choice.
But now that Mississippi's attempt to pass a constitutional amendment that would have established the definition of life at conception—you know, that amendment Mitt would "absolutely" support—well, Team Mitt is none too happy that anyone is pointing that out:
Mitt Romney's campaign, seeking to nip a potent general election attack in the bud, says he's being falsely characterized as supporting a proposed amendment to define a fertilized egg as a "person" that was badly defeated in Mississippi yesterday. [...]
Romney's current position? He supports, per spokeswoman Gail Gitcho, "a Human Life Amendment that overturns Roe vs. Wade and sends the issue back to the states" -- which sounds like something short of a federal abortion ban.
"Mitt Romney is pro-life, and as he has said previously, he is supportive of efforts to ensure recognition that life begins at conception. He believes these matters should be left up to states to decide," she said.
But that's funny. Because that's not what he said to Huckabee last month. In case your memory is even shorter than Mitt's, here's what he said:
HUCKABEE: Would you have supported a constitutional amendment that would have established the definition of life at conception?
ROMNEY: Absolutely.
No mention of Roe v. Wade. No mention of letting the states decide anything. Just a full-throated endorsement of a constitutional amendment defining life. Which is exactly what the failed Personhood Amendment tried to do.
So Mitt was committed to supporting a woman's right to choose. Until he flipped to being "absolutely" supportive of a hypothetical constitutional amendment to define when life begins. Until he flipped to being supportive of a constitutional amendment to overturn Roe v. Wade, but not necessarily committed—and not necessarily not committed—to supporting a constitutional amendment to define when life begins.
Flip-flop, flip-flop, flip-flop. The one thing we know Mitt is "absolutely" committed to is refusing to commit to anything.
