There are a lot of things to admire about Mitt Romney. His extraordinary number of both homes and khaki-clad offspring (and offspring's offspring). His impressive attempts to emulate the emotions of real human beings. And his campaign's increasingly creative relationship with the truth.
The latest example of Romney's kinda-but-not-really truthiness? His claim that abortion legislation isn't part of his agenda. Romney actually said,
"There's no legislation with regards to abortion that I'm familiar with that would become part of my agenda."
Which, as William Saletan at Slate points out, is a statement with holes big enough to drive a team of dancing horses through. It's also kinda-sorta probably true, in its way. Is "pass legislation about abortion" at the top of Romney's personal to-do list? No, probably not. After all, abortion is lady-stuff, and Romney has been clear enough that he doesn't much care for all of that. But in office, will he nonetheless undoubtedly end up dealing with abortion-related legislation? Absolutely. Will he also be in a unique position to change the course of abortion-related law in the United States? Yes.
In the same interview in which Romney claimed abortion wasn't on his legislative agenda, he also pledged to reinstate the "global gag rule", a policy that cuts off US funding to any organization abroad that so much as mentions abortion as an option for women, provides abortions with its own non-US dollars or advocates for abortion rights. Laws preventing US money from paying for abortions abroad have been on the books since the 1970s; the gag rule is particularly pernicious because it goes significantly further than that and cuts funding to groups that are providing an array of crucial reproductive medical services in places where death from childbirth is routine. The gag rule was put in place by President Reagan, rescinded by Democratic presidents including Barack Obama and put back into place by Republican ones.
When the gag rule was in effect under George W Bush, global health leaders warned that it was contributing to "shockingly high" rates of death and disability in developing nations. Clinics that provided necessary maternal healthcare to some of the world's poorest and most vulnerable women were shut down. And the gag rule impeded access to healthcare services like pre-natal and well-baby care, children's healthcare, HIV prevention and treatment, and even malaria services. It was a global health disaster, and it's apparently one of the top abortion-related issues on Romney's agenda.
To be fair to Romney, though, the gag rule isn't legislation – it's an executive order. So his comments about abortion legislation remain technically true, if entirely disingenuous.
Also not legislation but an area over which presidents have a great deal of power: judicial appointments. The US supreme court gets a lot of attention, but it's lower courts that actually make the vast majority of law in the United States. The Bush administration stacked the lower courts with far-right conservatives; federal appeals courts, in particular, have shifted rightward. The future of a whole series of issues – abortion rights, LGBT rights, criminal defendants' rights, immigrants' rights – lies with these highly influential lower courts.
Romney will also surely face abortion legislation if he's elected, whether or not he is currently "familiar" with such legislation, and whether or not that legislation is currently at the top of his legislative agenda. There are dozens of abortion-related bills in Congress that, if passed, President Romney would be in a position to sign or not sign. So far, everything indicates that Romney would sign whatever bills rightwing, anti-choice Republicans support. After all, this is the guy who was clear that his administration would "get rid" of Planned Parenthood. (And that wasn't just an errant comment: Romney's website also pledges to cut PP's federal funding.)
Romney wants to see the supreme court overturn Roe v Wade, which has been the law of the land for decades – apparently, he only dislikes "activist" judges when they're not active according to his political preferences. As governor of Massachusetts, Romney claimed to be nominally pro-choice in order to get elected, and then he vetoed basic compassionate legislation that was opposed by pro-lifers, such as a bill that would have required hospitals to offer emergency contraception to rape victims.
Romney's own team confirms that:
"Governor Romney would of course support legislation aimed at providing greater protections for life."
And pro-life groups are entirely unconcerned – they know they have Romney in their pocket.
There's been a lot of ink spilled over "the Real Romney", and what Romney truly believes when it comes to issues like abortion, birth control, healthcare and women's rights. The truth is that there is no "Real Romney"; or at least, the real Romney is at heart a businessman motivated by a topsy-turvy 1% definition of "success" that privileges power and prestige over aims like helping people or making the world a better and fairer place. When listening to Romney speak, one gets the impression that he doesn't want to be president because he believes his ideas would best help the American people, or because he's passionate about how political issues impact the everyday lives of people around the world, or because he values public service and believes it's now his turn to give back. One gets the feeling that Romney is running for president mostly because it's the next potential accomplishment for him personally. He'll adopt whatever position is politically expedient in order to accomplish that goal.
Which is why Romney's "real" views on abortion don't much matter (although it does seem like his "real" views run pretty far right, to the extent that he cares at all). What matters are the views of the Republican party, and how much we believe a President Romney will bow to the GOP's directives. So far, the answers to those questions are, respectively, "insanely hostile to women" and "entirely".
The GOP platform is anti-abortion in all cases, including rape, incest and threat to the pregnant woman's life or health. Republicans compare women to farm animals; say that "legitimate rape" victims don't get pregnant; push laws that would allow hospitals to refuse to perform abortions even in emergencies in which the woman will die without the procedure; and oppose contraception access, even though such access has been proven to substantially decrease the abortion rate.
The story this week of the GOP congressman who cheated on his wife at least four times and then pressured one of his mistresses into having an abortion is illustrative of the Republican view on abortion generally – for rightwing men, the impetus isn't to protect babies; it's to control women.
That's just scratching the surface. The GOP takes its abortion-related directives from national pro-life organizations, not a single one of which supports birth control access, but all of which emphasize the fact that birth control and abortion have contributed to the demise of traditional gender roles, which, in the good old days, put men in charge and kept women as subservient helpmeets with little power or freedom. They're right about that – birth control and abortion access have helped to give women more options not just in reproduction, but in life generally. Most thinking people realize that's a good thing. Pro-life groups and Republicans, though, are looking to take us all backwards.
Mitt Romney doesn't care very much about abortion. But he does care about getting elected, and then getting elected again and maintaining his power and authority. The only way to do that in the modern-day GOP is to take positions on abortion that are far to the right of nearly every country on earth (including perennial conservative favorites like Iran and Pakistan). Whether or not Romney prioritizes whatever abortion-related legislation he knows to exist, he will be faced with issuing abortion-related executive orders, appointing judges who will decide a slew of abortion-related issues, and signing abortion-related bills.
We may not be able to discern Romney's personal views on abortion, but we can discern his personal views on governance: follow party orders. And when it comes to women, the Republican party orders couldn't be more clear:
Sit down and shut up.