Romney backtracks on birth-control stand after interview

[maddezmom]

Last edited Wed Feb 29, 2012, 07:53 PM - Edit history (1)

Source: MarketWatch

February 29, 2012, 5:45 PM

Mitt Romney granted an interview on Wednesday to an Ohio reporter, who asked the former Massachusetts governor his stance on the Blunt amendment to a transportation bill, which would override President Barack Obama’s rule requiring all employer-provided insurance plans to cover contraception and would allow any employer to refuse to cover any kind of health service on religious or moral grounds. The Blunt amendment is due for a vote Thursday.

According to an account of the interview, Romney said: “I’m not for the bill. But, look, the idea of presidential candidates getting into questions about contraception within a relationship between a man and a woman, husband and wife, I’m not going there.”

But in turns out, he is going there. After Romney’s comments were reported, multiple press reports quoted Romney officials as saying that he does support the Blunt amendment.




Read more: http://blogs.marketwatch.com/election/2012/02/29/romney-backtracks-on-birth-control-stand-after-interview/

---

Romney tells reporter he is not for Blunt bill
The transcript is below:


HEATH: “He’s brought contraception into this campaign. The issue of birth control, contraception, Blunt-Rubio is being debated, I believe, later this week. It deals with banning or allowing employers to ban providing female contraception. Have you taken a position on it? He (Santorum) said he was for that, we’ll talk about personhood in a second; but he’s for that, have you taken a position?”

ROMNEY: “I’m not for the bill, but look, the idea of presidential candidates getting into questions about contraception within a relationship between a man and a women, husband and wife, I’m not going there.”

HEATH: “Surprised that he went there?”

ROMNEY: “You know, I made it very clear when I was being interviewed by George Stephanopoulos in a debate a while ago: contraception is working just fine, let’s just leave it alone.”
more :http://www.politico.com/blogs/burns-haberman/2012/02/romney-tells-reporter-he-is-not-for-blunt-bill-115993.html

and now this:

Mitt: I misunderstood Blunt bill question

By EMILY SCHULTHEIS |
2/29/12 6:33 PM EST


Mitt Romney moved quickly tonight to clean up the budding controversy over his interview with the Ohio News Network, in which he appeared to say he didn't support the amendment in the Senate that would overturn President Obama's contraception mandate.

In a radio interview on the Howie Carr show, Romney said he merely misunderstood the question on what the ONN reporter referred to as the "Blunt-Rubio amendment":


ROMNEY: I didn’t understand his question. Of course I support the Blunt Amendment. I thought he was talking about some state law that prevented people from getting contraception so I was simply misunderstood the question and of course I support the blunt amendment.

CARR: Okay, so that should be taken off the table. That's running around the world in 10 seconds, as you know.

ROMNEY: I simply misunderstood what he was talking about. I thought it was some Ohio legislation where employers were prevented from providing contraceptives, and so I talked about contraceptives and so forth, so I really misunderstood the question. Of course Roy Blunt, who is my liaison to the Senate, is someone I support and of course I support that amendment, I clearly want to have religious exemption from Obamacare.

more: http://www.politico.com/blogs/burns-haberman/2012/02/mitt-i-misunderstood-blunt-bill-question-116002.html

[elleng]

1. The guy's gonna get whiplash!!!

[maddezmom]

4. the campaign is whining the question was confusing?

He wants to be President and the question was confusing? Seems like a yes or no to me.

[Bjorn Against]

8. It is both yes and no

It was no when he thought he was speaking to the average voter, then it became yes when he needed to reassure his base, then it will become no again during the general election campaign, and if god forbid he became President it would be yes again until he ran for reelection at which time his position would switch back to no. People say this is inconsistent, but it is not inconsistent. He consistently takes the position that benefits him most personally, he has no principles except for consistently doing what is in his own self interest but he sticks to that one principle very consistently.

[Ian David]

2. THAT didn't take long. n/t

[Faygo Kid]

3. He'll say or do anything, even support the crazed Blunt amendment.

Any women who don't think war is being waged on them just has to check another thread about Rush today - the GOP's "Majority Maker."

[Drunken Irishman]

5. This might be a record for fastest flip-flop.

[DallasNE]

6. Who's In Charge

Romney or his handlers? And what kind of leader lets his handlers override his judgement. This, rather than the rapid flip-flop is the problem here. Who is in charge? Surely he knows what is in the Blunt amendment so where is the confusion. It is like Romney doesn't even know his own position and misspeaks for the campaign. Ouch!

[Old and In the Way]

7. Good...another position to nail him with in the GE.

Of course, he'll probably repudiate every position he's taken in the primary because that's what a principle-less person does.

[kestrel91316]

9. Yeah, but I guarantee you he'd still happily restrict access to birth control

for single women.

[Auntie Bush]

10. What issue hasn't Romney back tracked on? If he were unfortunately

ever our president...we'd have no idea what the heck he stoor for or what we were getting. The man has no values...only ones that will get him re-elected.