I’m completely through with the Romneys. Count on me voting for George Allen and my GOP Congressional candidate, but I might just vote for Obama to send Team Romney a message.
Mitt Romney has said during this whole campaign that he is against abortion. While this may be his current stance, September 24,TMZ reported that his son is pro abortion which is quite apparent in the surrogacy contract he and his wife filed with the surrogate mother and her husband of his twins. Specifically, the contract states;
“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.”Mitt is against abortion but paid his son’s surrogate mother for the termination rights of the fetus if it wasn’t up to Romney standards.
“Any decision to abort because of potential harm to the child, or to reduce the number of fetuses, is to be made by the intended parents.”
In other words, if the Romney family doesn’t like something about the twins the surrogate was carrying, they reserved the right to terminate the fetuses. This is not a right that Romney’s son would have if under his presidency as he plans to attempt to overturn Roe vs. Wade if elected.
Mitt Romney claims that this is standard fair in any surrogate contract, however, that it was still there was an over-sight by the family attorney. Tagg claims that yes, he does feel this way about the contract and would want those options if there was something not up to par with the unborn fetuses. The contract also included options for the Romneys to abort if testing finds a defect, be it chromosomal, genetic or physiological (think Down Syndrome, dwarfism or a partially formed brain), with the fetus or fetuses. The Romneys also asked the surrogate to agree to abortions to reduce the number of fetuses if (what they felt) too many were viable.
The Romneys believe that a special needs child is undeserving of the Romney family name.
This should be offensive to a reasonable person regardless of the person’s stance on abortion. I happen to be pro-life and I admire the strength and resolve of people like Governor Sarah Palin who chose against all odds and public criticism to give birth to a special needs child and give the kid the gift of life.
At the same time, I am aware of the complications and complexities of such a difficult situation and won’t pass judgment on someone who chose otherwise. However, judgment is deserved for the Romneys, especially Mitt and Tagg, because of the sheer, unbending, mind-boggling hypocrisy and aristocratic pretensions on display.
Forced abortions are uncivilized and traumatic to the mother. Abortion rights is about giving women the right to choose and make their own decisions about their pregnancy so they would not be at the mercy of a domineering, patriarchal man. If I was pro-choice, I would be deeply offended that the surrogate mother’s right to choose has been usurped by an aristocratic, elitist Romney family who would rather require the mother to abort the child in her womb instead of raise a Romney child that would be a special needs child.
Who wants to be a Romney anyway? Ugh. Money can buy you a lot of things and certainly Mitt is trying to buy the Presidency, but it can’t buy you class.
A colleague of mine described Mitt Romney and Team Romney as “elitist, entitled, and exclusive.” That just about sums it up. Mitt will prohibit abortion for all the little people, but when it comes to his son, it is allowed in order to protect the Romney name if the surrogate mother does not bear the perfect genetic specimen.
Count me in as a Republican for Obama.