Here we go with another flip flop from Mitt Romney with his stance on abortion and the Supreme Court. As Jed Lewison explained, here was his flip flopping from a couple of weeks ago: Romney campaign denies Romney's claim that he supports health exception for abortion:
Mitt Romney in an interview released by CBS News this afternoon:
My position has been clear throughout this campaign. I'm in favor of abortion being legal in the case of rape and incest and the health and life of the mother.
That's not true—Romney was against all abortion until last Monday, when he decided to support abortion in cases of rape, incest, or when the woman's life was in danger. But he didn't support abortion in cases "merely" involving health—that exception was entirely new. Never fear, though, Greg Sargent reports Romneyland has already walked that back.
But there is no shift, Romney spokesperson Andrea Saul tells me. She emails:
“Gov. Romney’s position is clear: he opposes abortion except for cases of rape, incest and where the life of the mother is threatened.”
That means no health exception.
So now the question is which side is telling the truth: Mitt Romney ... or his campaign?
And there lingers another important question. In the interview, Romney said that he believed the legality of abortion was a settled issue and shouldn't be a political topic. "The Democrats try and make this a political issue every four years," he said, "but this is a matter in the courts. It's been settled for some time in the courts."
Romney's claim that the legality of abortion is "settled" is a huge deal. If he sticks to that position, he'll basically be coming full circle to his 1994 position, which was that Roe v. Wade was the law of the land and that it was time to move on to other issues. It would be great if Republicans were actually willing to do that, but they're not. That's why time and time again Mitt Romney has pledged to overturn Roe v. Wade, a position utterly in conflict with his claim that Roe v. Wade is "settled" and shouldn't be an issue in elections.
Now this week, he says he "recognizes" that the life of the mother is an issue as well. How kind of him. And he claims he'll nominate judges who he hopes will overturn Roe v. Wade. So much for that "settled" law comment. As Jed noted, he's been on so many sides on the abortion issue that he should be getting hammered by all sides. I don't know how anyone can believe a thing that comes out of his mouth.
Transcript below the fold.
GREGORY: I want to ask you one question on a social issue and that is abortion. You were on this program in 2007 and you said that you would fight to overturn Roe V. Wade. I know you said this is an issue for the courts. I ask you now would a President Romney fight to overturn Roe V. Wade? And what would you do in that fight to achieve that goal?
ROMNEY: Well, there are a number of things I think that need to be said about preserving and protecting the life of the unborn child. And I recognize there are two lives involved: the mom and the unborn child. And I believe that people of good conscience have chosen different paths in this regard. But I am pro-life and will intend, if I'm president of the United States, to encourage pro-life policies. I don't--
GREGORY: Just encourage or fight for it to be overturned?
ROMNEY: Well, I don't actually make the decision the Supreme Court makes and so they'll have to make their own decision. But, for instance, I'll reverse the president's decision on using U.S. funds to pay for abortion outside this country. I don't think also the taxpayers here should have to pay for abortion in this country.
Those things I think are consistent with my pro-life position. And I hope to appoint justices for the Supreme Court that will follow the law and the constitution. And it would be my preference that they reverse Roe V. Wade and therefore they return to the people and their elected representatives the decisions with regards to this important issue.