Quantcast

Mitt Romney Hides His History of Profiting from Abortion

Sinpac 2012/07/05 17:15:01

Mitt Romney Hides His History of Profiting from Abortion

In the Romney Massachusetts health law, abortions are covered as per a
1981 Massachusetts Supreme Court decision that says the cost of
abortions must be included in publicly subsidized plans, and the
state-subsidized plans in Massachusetts does too, and it includes
coverage for Massachusetts residents enrolled in Medicaid,
a state and federal program. If Romney were a fierce anti-abortion
proponent like he now claims, he could have taken the same step
President Obama did and sign an executive order prohibiting taxpayer
dollars from covering abortions in line with the Federal Hyde Amendment.
However, he did not and there is a good reason; he profited from a
company that disposed of aborted fetuses according to government
documents. This issue exposes more lies from Romney about when he left
Bain Capital as well as his alleged Christianity that should serve as a
warning to the Christian community that regardless what Willard claims,
his sole purpose in life is achieving wealth and power.


In 1999, Romney was part of Bain Capital that invested $75 million in Stericycle,
a medical-waste disposal firm that anti-abortion groups attacked for
disposing aborted fetuses collected from family planning clinics. Now,
Romney claims he left Bain in February 1999 to use federal money to bail
out the Olympics, but public records tell an entirely different story.
According to SEC filings,
assorted Bain-related entities were part of the deal to purchase
Stericycle, including Bain Capital (BCI), Bain Capital Partners VI (BCP
VI), Sankaty High Yield Asset Investors, and Brookside Capital Investors
(a Bain offshoot), and it notes that Romney was the “sole shareholder, Chairman, Chief Executive Officer and President of BCI, BCP VI Inc., Brookside Inc. and Sankaty Ltd.” In 1999, Bain and Romney claimed his departure from Bain was not a resignation and far from absolute, and the Boston Herald reported that “Romney said he will stay on as a part-timer with Bain, providing input on investment and key personnel decisions,” and a Bain press release issued on July 19, 1999, noted that Romney was “currently on a part-time leave of absence,
and quoted Romney speaking for Bain Capital. In 2001 and 2002, Romney
filed state disclosure forms in Massachusetts noting he was the 100
percent owner of Bain Capital NY, Inc.—a Bain outfit incorporated in
Delaware on April 13, 1999, two months after Romney’s supposed
retirement from the firm, and a May 2001 SEC filing identified Romney as
a member of the Management Committee” of two Bain entities. In 2007, the Washington Post reported that a Bain lawyer said Romney took a “leave of absence” to save the Olympics and retained sole ownership of the firm for two more years.

In another SEC filing, Stericycle named Romney as an individual who holds “voting and dispositive power
with respect to the stock owned by Bain. It begs the question; if
Romney had fully retired from Bain Capital, why was he the only Bain
executive named as controlling this large amount of Stericycle stock
that earned them $49.5 million by the time they sold the stock in 2004?
Bain issued a statement that “Mitt Romney retired from Bain Capital
in February 1999. He has had no involvement in the management or
investment activities of Bain Capital, or with any of its portfolio
companies since that time,
” but a document Romney signed related to
the Stericycle deal identified him as a participant in that particular
deal and the person in charge of several Bain entities. The lies
associating Romney with his alleged retirement from Bain or Stericycle
notwithstanding, he did profit from a company that disposed of aborted
fetuses and it proves that regardless his anti-abortion position in
2012, his greed and desire to acquire wealth supplant his alleged
pro-life stance or adherence to the Christian faith and it should inform
the Christian community that Romney will lie, cheat, and deceive them
to garner their support to win in November.

You!
Add Photos & Videos

Top Opinion

  • Roger47 2012/07/05 18:01:30
    Roger47
    +3
    For Republicans, Obamacare has replaced abortion as the issue to use to raise money for elections, and to then do nothing about. The anti-abortion fringe no longer matter.

Sort By
  • Most Raves
  • Least Raves
  • Oldest
  • Newest
Opinions

  • Live Free Or Die 2012/07/15 22:57:21
    Live Free Or Die
    +1
    He'll deny he made millions off of disposing dead fetuses :(
  • sjalan 2012/07/08 06:09:04
    sjalan
    +2
    The uncovering of things will continue for a considerablly longer period of time.
  • Tarheel 2012/07/06 05:30:24
    Tarheel
    +2
    Oh, the horror. And the hypocrisy.
  • Roger47 2012/07/05 18:01:30
    Roger47
    +3
    For Republicans, Obamacare has replaced abortion as the issue to use to raise money for elections, and to then do nothing about. The anti-abortion fringe no longer matter.
  • Aurora Roger47 2012/07/05 18:29:49 (edited)
    Aurora
    Democrats like the Abortion issue too, hypocrisy abounds. Wait a second Obama put in place in Chicago, Hey Obama helped Romney do this in Chicago. You are a useful idiot.

    Obama’s Infanticide Votes

    By Patrick Brennan
    Archive Latest E-Mail RSS Send Follow• 198 followers

    Then-Senator Barack Obama in March 2008


    In last Wednesday’s debate, when the Republican candidates were asked about their positions on birth control, Newt Gingrich parried with one of his usual tactics, a fusillade against the mainstream media. He told CNN’s John King, “You did not once in the 2008 campaign, not once did anybody in the elite media ask why Barack Obama voted in favor of legalizing infanticide. If we’re going to have a debate about who is the extremist on these issues, it is President Obama, who, as a state senator, voted to protect doctors who killed babies who survived the abortion.”

    Two points of Gingrich’s barrage warrant assessment. First, did Barack Obama, as a state senator, vote “in favor of legalizing infanticide,” by voting “to protect doctors who killed babies who survived the abortion”? And second, has no one in the elite media ever discussed his record on the issue? Yes; and no, but essentially yes.

    Advertisement
    Gingrich’s assertion rests on then–State Senator Obama’s opposition, in 2001, ...



















    Democrats like the Abortion issue too, hypocrisy abounds. Wait a second Obama put in place in Chicago, Hey Obama helped Romney do this in Chicago. You are a useful idiot.

    Obama’s Infanticide Votes

    By Patrick Brennan
    Archive Latest E-Mail RSS Send Follow• 198 followers

    Then-Senator Barack Obama in March 2008


    In last Wednesday’s debate, when the Republican candidates were asked about their positions on birth control, Newt Gingrich parried with one of his usual tactics, a fusillade against the mainstream media. He told CNN’s John King, “You did not once in the 2008 campaign, not once did anybody in the elite media ask why Barack Obama voted in favor of legalizing infanticide. If we’re going to have a debate about who is the extremist on these issues, it is President Obama, who, as a state senator, voted to protect doctors who killed babies who survived the abortion.”

    Two points of Gingrich’s barrage warrant assessment. First, did Barack Obama, as a state senator, vote “in favor of legalizing infanticide,” by voting “to protect doctors who killed babies who survived the abortion”? And second, has no one in the elite media ever discussed his record on the issue? Yes; and no, but essentially yes.

    Advertisement
    Gingrich’s assertion rests on then–State Senator Obama’s opposition, in 2001, 2002, and 2003, to successive versions of the Born Alive Infants Protection Act, an Illinois bill that was meant to provide protection for babies born alive after attempted abortions. The bill gave them protection as legal persons and required physicians to provide them with care, rather than allowing doctors to deal with them as they would, literally, with medical waste. In 2008, Obama’s campaign repeatedly claimed that he opposed the bill because it was unnecessary, since Illinois law already provided protection for infants born alive. However, as Ramesh Ponnuru pointed out on NRO at the time, this extended only to babies whom physicians deemed to have “sustainable survivability.” Thus infants who were not expected to survive could be killed or left unattended to die. Obama, Ponnuru wrote, “did not want the gap filled.” (The National Right to Life Committee has a report on Obama, Illinois’s legal loophole, and its horrific consequences here.)

    Obama maintained at the time, with support from Planned Parenthood of Illinois, that the bill wasn’t really about protecting infants’ lives or mitigating their suffering, but was in fact a backdoor attempt to restrict abortion. The argument (which is constitutionally dubious, anyway) goes that, by providing legal protection and “recognition as a human person” for a pre-viable infant, the law could be used to threaten Roe v. Wade. Thus, in his 2004 Senate campaign, and then during the course of the 2008 campaign, Obama claimed that he would have supported a law like the 2002 federal born-alive statute, which stated explicitly that it could not be used to dispute the legal status of fetuses prior to their birth.

    In committee in 2003, however, Obama voted against a version of the Illinois bill that contained the same protection included in the federal bill (which passed 98–0 in the U.S. Senate). Thus, Obama’s tenuous constitutional argument doesn’t stand up to scrutiny.

    One other excuse for Obama’s opposition to the Illinois bill has been proffered: that the final version of the bill was coupled with another piece of legislation that imposed criminal or civil consequences for doctors who did not properly treat infants who were covered by the Born Alive Infants Protection Act. Obama and others deemed this second bill unacceptable. However, this doesn’t begin to defend Obama’s vote on the first bill.

    As Ponnuru pointed out back in 2008, FactCheck.org and PolitiFact admitted the above facts as such, but have disputed whether they constitute “legalizing infanticide”; FactCheck argued that that question remains a value judgment. Since the Illinois bill would have provided legal protection for born-alive infants who had not been protected before, by opposing it, Obama voted to continue to make it legal to kill them. Thus, the only question remaining in order to determine whether it was “infanticide” is: Were the subjects of the bill fetuses or were they infants? In order for them not to be considered infants, one would have to contend that an unviable prematurely born baby is not an infant — a claim few would be willing to make. And yet, Obama’s votes, three times over the course of three years, indicate that he believes that fetuses who have been born alive, but have not yet reached the age of viability, are not human persons worthy of protection by our laws. Such a position on abortion is, to say the least, extreme, and deserves attention.

    Which leads to the second question Gingrich raised: Have the media questioned Obama’s position on the Illinois infanticide bill? Washington Post blogger Erik Wemple has turned up a few media references to President Obama’s extreme abortion stances from the 2008 campaign: two CNN segments discussing his record, including the Illinois legislation specifically; one instance in a debate, where John McCain raised the question of Obama’s record, and he defended his position on the Illinois bill; and one interview with Chris Wallace of Fox News, in which Obama was queried on partial-birth abortion, though not the Illinois legislation specifically.

    The attention was most intense in August of 2008, after the NRLC managed to generate national debate about Obama’s position on the Illinois bill. Obama was asked about it during an interview with the Christian Broadcasting Network, where he offered a thoroughly deceptive response to the question, saying, “Here’s a situation where folks are lying” about his position. However, Obama was the one lying: He told the interviewer, David Brody, that he opposed the bill because of its threat to Roe v. Wade, and that existing Illinois law already protected infants who were born alive. As we have seen, the first assertion is implausible; the second is just plain false.

    This seems to be the one instance in which a journalist asked candidate Obama directly about his support for the bill, and he was unfortunately let off, even by a conservative reporter, with his mendacious explanation.

    Both the Washington Post and the New York Times reported on the controversy, noting the points the NRLC had raised about Obama’s inconsistent and extreme positions. The Times, citing sources on both sides, explored Obama’s claim that he opposed the final Illinois bill because of its unacceptable companion bill. However, Obama’s claim has no solid legal basis: Two different bills are two different bills.

    Thus, while one cannot say, as Gingrich did, that the media have literally never questioned Obama’s extreme record on abortion, we can certainly say that there has not been a sufficiently revealing discussion of his views. An honest appraisal would depict him as having voted repeatedly to protect a form of infanticide. Instead, the media have willingly accepted explanations that don’t stand up to scrutiny.

    And they deserve scrutiny, for two reasons. First, as explained above, Obama has offered deceptive explanations of his own pro-abortion legislative work, while simultaneously accusing his pro-life opponents of being dishonest. More important, Obama’s record as a state senator was not merely pro-choice, but radically pro-abortion. His voting record indicates that he does not believe infants deserve protection even once they have emerged from the womb if they are deemed to be below the age of viability, and he did in fact, three times, vote to keep a form of infanticide legal.
    (more)
  • Roger47 Aurora 2012/07/05 18:32:27
    Roger47
    +3
    At least Democrats do fight to keep it legal, as they say when raising funds. Republicans raise money by saying they will outlaw it, then do nothing.
  • Aurora Roger47 2012/07/05 18:35:11
    Aurora
    Yep sure so that makes it okay, again another liberal propaganda piece.
  • Roger47 Aurora 2012/07/05 18:39:40
    Roger47
    +3
    So I guess you must be one of the gullible ones, giving them money because they promise you they will ban abortion? How do you explain their failure to do anythng when they had majorities in the House, the Senate, and had "W" as president? You got played. They have been playing people like you for decades, yet you still defend them.
  • Aurora Roger47 2012/07/05 18:40:18
    Aurora
    you are a useful idiot of the left.
  • Aurora 2012/07/05 17:37:05
    Aurora
    And the liberals greed and desire to control population is somehow different, and the democratic party gets lots of kick back from planned parenthood, being a liberal you should know this you like abortion, but you just don't like people making money of it. Hypocrisy.
  • Sinpac Aurora 2012/07/05 18:25:52
    Sinpac
    +3
    Nice deflection. Topic is Romney profiting from the disposal of fetus's
    Stericycle
    Look there dead babies! Hey Mitt how much money did you make per dead baby?
  • Aurora Sinpac 2012/07/05 18:28:58
    Aurora
    How much did you make, you're the one who wants abortion, what a useful idiot of the left.
  • Sinpac Aurora 2012/07/05 18:40:07
    Sinpac
    +2
    First off Aurora you are assuming and your assumption is wrong. Why is it you folks on the far Right believe that all people on the left think abortions are ok? There are only three exceptions that I personally think it ok to abort a fetus 1.) RAPE 2.) INCEST 3.) If the mother would die carrying the baby full term. So I guess for starts you need to stop listen to talk radio or who ever is brainwashing you into believing that the republican are the only who believe abortion is wrong. Please don't reply the hole your in on this one is to deep to get out.
  • Aurora Sinpac 2012/07/05 18:41:02
    Aurora
    That is not what this article is about, deflecting.
  • Sinpac Aurora 2012/07/05 18:45:17
    Sinpac
    +2
    Nice try Baiter. Come back when you can stop switching on the topic.
    "How much did you make, you're the one who wants abortion, what a useful idiot of the left." I replied to your Off Topic.
  • Aurora Sinpac 2012/07/05 18:45:47
    Aurora
    whatever you think.
  • Roger47 Aurora 2012/07/05 18:41:16
    Roger47
    +3
    Please back up your claim the Democratic party gets kickbacks from Planned Parenthood. I say you are lying. Prove me wrong.
  • Aurora Roger47 2012/07/05 18:41:53
    Aurora
    screw you look it up yourself, you lemming.
  • Roger47 Aurora 2012/07/05 18:43:37
    Roger47
    +4
    I will take that as an admission I am right. If you posted it because you heard it somewhere, you need to stop trusting that source. They lied to you, and you appear foolish for being taken in. You should be mad at them, not me.
  • Aurora Roger47 2012/07/05 18:44:21
    Aurora
    OMG you are pathetic.
  • Roger47 Aurora 2012/07/05 18:47:19
    Roger47
    +3
    Who lied to you, Aurora? Give up your source, that they may be ridiculed! You are not going to continue to trust them, are you?
  • Sinpac Roger47 2012/07/05 18:46:44
    Sinpac
    +1
    Your right Roger!
  • Roger47 Sinpac 2012/07/05 18:49:19
    Roger47
    +3
    Thanks. I fear we have here a previously undiagnosed case of willful blindness. She does not need to remain wrong, yet she insists on it!
  • Sinpac Roger47 2012/07/05 18:50:57 (edited)
    Sinpac
    +2
    LOL The politicians she looks up to are blind too. So is that the blind leading the blind?
  • Sinpac Roger47 2012/07/05 18:46:02
    Sinpac
    +2
    She can't! She will change topics on you Roger beware I think she is a troll!
  • Live Fr... Aurora 2012/07/16 01:55:08
    Live Free Or Die
    +1
    I get your point. I'm pro-choice, but this makes me queazy. I'd be lying if I said it didn't. I understand it has to be done and so does Romney and he was happy to invest in it. Here's the kicker though, he claims to be pro-Life.

See Votes by State

The map above displays the winning answer by region.

News & Politics

2014/09/30 21:49:32

Hot Questions on SodaHead
More Hot Questions

More Community More Originals