Will Romney continue the HHS persecution? Sounds like yes....

via Mark Shea
So by tomorrow, we will not be seeing GOPers flooding Romney with demands he grow a moral center. Instead, we will all be told to ignore Romney’s complete and utter betrayal on the HHS Mandate:

Romney: “I’d just note that I don’t believe that bureaucrats in Washington should tell someone whether they can use contraceptives or not. And I don’t believe employers should tell someone whether they could have contraceptive care or not. Every woman in America should have access to contraceptives.

This is basically conceding the farm on the Mandate. It’s a line straight from the Obama playbook. According to the Administration, employers who don’t want to be forced to buy contraceptives are “telling women they cannot have contraception”. Romney is signaling he opposes employers who make that argument just as much as Obama does.
continue at Mark Shea 

I continue to struggle with how I can vote for Romney.  I know, anybody but Obama.  I despise the two party system, and we should all stop believing in it.  Yes, nobody wants to talk about this, or just figure as long as Obama is gone it will be okay.  I think I'd rather have Romney win, but I may watch this election from the sidelines.  How can I vote between two men who both support persecution of Catholic institutions?  How does Paul Ryan feel in private?  It's hard to say, but I'd like to know.  Maybe he could garner a broader exception to the mandate.  I think another good piece is by my favorite John Zmirak in the NC Register.  It would seem that one of the reasons that Romney chose Ryan over Rubio(say that three times fast) was he could deflect valid criticism from his campaign because he has the Catholic golden boy as his VP. 

As a side note, I plan to start the Christian Democrat Party of America.  Hmm, I see someone got started.  Fine, the Royalist Party of America - I think those poor souls gave up on that cause.  Vive le Roy!

And also, you have all of these supposed pro-life organizations like National Right to Life, Susan B Anthony, etc. who are "neutral" on contraception, which they de facto support the HHS mandate(since there's nothing wrong with contraception).  Contraception is the biggest issue holding back the pro-life movement today.  It is the best issue for abortion groups to attack, divide and conquer the pro-life movement. 


  1. A commenter on Twitter pointed out that if Obamacare is repealed, so will the HHS mandate.

  2. I don't get it. When I first heard Romney say that, I took it that he was simply saying: "Contraceptives are available in the store ... knock yourself out." Not what we like, ultimately, but I don't see the HHS connection.

  3. That may indeed be the context Father. Shea has also posted that Romney has not said he will rescind the HHS mandate, he only spoke of a vague freedom of worship during his EWTN interview. Here's the link.


    It would be hard to make the case that anybody could be worse than the current president on these matters. Still, if Romney does intend to protect conscience rights(which he did not do as governor) he should be more forthcoming with that during the campaign.

  4. But if all of Obamacare goes out the door, so would the mandate. Yet, as Gov of Mass he forced Catholic hospitals to dispense the Morning After Pill. So his record is troubling in regard to conscience protection.

  5. I accuse Romney of pandering more than anything else. Our gateway to Romney, over the next four years, will be Paul Ryan. And, VERY EXCITING that he attends Mass right in our own diocese.

    Which brings me to another subject ... I believe the time has come to join forces in the Wisconsin pro-life community and pull together some spokespersons or person to be our liaison to Paul Ryan over the next four years. The key to this will be that we dispense with our propensity for infighting within the Wisconsin pro-life community. We have a REAL opportunity to gain HUGE ground. And, I believe we need to work together on it in a "first things first" tactical mode of operation.

  6. @Badger,

    There's a third alternative for this election, and that's the Constitution Party (CP). They are, as far as I can read, 100% on the moral issues. They have a legitimate candidate available. Since the morality of voting for a "lesser evil" presumes no other alternative, and such an alternative exists with the CP, I can make a strong case that it is *immoral* to vote for Romney given his stances. (It's also very bad for Ryan's soul, considering the Rep Party has already led him down the slippery moral path of compromise on Exceptions).

    We do *not* have a 2 party system. We have a system where 2 parties have seized power and consolidated it by making the entry bar very high for a 3rd/4th party.

    The chief weapon is the appeal to pragmatism on the part of the voter. The "wasted vote" argument for instance. In reality any vote for a non-winning candidate is a "wasted vote" since it did not elect anyone. All the votes for McCain were "wasted". A very weak argument could be made that voting for Romney might "humble" Obama by stopping a landslide victory and any sense of a public "mandate", but the counter-argument is that all non-Obama votes have the same effect. In truth, the McCain pro-life votes were wasted, because Obama was a shoe-in, and the pro-lifers wasted an election opportunity to teach the Republicans to take us seriously. I don't see Romney coming close to winning this election either and pro-lifers are going to waste another opportunity to send Republicans a message.

    Another argument advanced is that Romney might do "less evil" than Obama and a few more babies *might* be saved. I think that is rather dubious. Romney will stay the course with the status quo, and Obama is already doing about as much as he can within the constitution (assuming it isn't thrown out altogether). But what is the "lesser evil" long-term? Another election in 4 years with an even more dubious Republican candidate? Take a close look at the moral trajectory of Republican candidates in recent history. It isn't going to improve without a serious setback that forces a change. The vote for Romney out of fear for Obama is just a case of the boiling frog syndrome. Our Republican choices get worse and worse and yet the pro-lifers won't jump out of the pot. How badly do pro-lifers need to be boiled before they learn?!

    God asks us to be *faithful*, not effective. He takes care of effectiveness. We need to vote faithful to the moral issues and let the cards fall where they may. The contrary is what I call the "heresy of effectiveness". Trying to *fix* things on our own by making covenants with princes of this world (cf Dt 7:1-5). "For they would turn away your sons from following me, to serve other gods" (v4). Note what the Party did to Santorum (campaigning for Specter) and now to Ryan (compromising on Exceptions). Santorum said it straight out during the debates while defending a bad vote of his: "Politics is a team sport, and sometimes you have to take one for the team." Very true. So you better make sure your team is on the side of God. The Party is like the Godfather. It doles out lots of favors to rising stars, and then one day comes and starts asking for favors back.

    Look at it spiritually: if the Republicans actually ended abortion in America (which they won't!!), who gets the glory? They do. If instead, a pro-life party emerged that honored God, the glory of victory would go to God. Snuggling up with the Republicans for their power and money (and false promises) actually goes against the pattern of salvation history. God prefers to raise up the weak so that the glory of victory is His rather than the princes of this world.......

  7. ....Frankly, the leaders of the pro-life organizations have to get together after the election and agree to run a one-issue pro-life candidate for the next election. I've been analyzing and mulling this over for about a decade and it really is doable. I think the pro-lifers could win the Presidency with the proper campaign strategy. Even if they didn't win, they'd change the entire political landscape. But more importantly than winning or being effective, they would be acting *faithfully*.

    Maybe you should talk to your friends over at Pro-Life Wisconsin and see if they'd endorse the Constitution Party candidate. It would make for a great first salvo over the bow of the Republicans. If you want to know more about why a pro-life party would not mean an instant Democratic win, but would in fact split their party as well, you can email me and I'll go over it with you.

  8. To me the biggest issue holding back the Pro-Life movement is the absence of the Catholic ritual for miscarriage. Miscarriage is unannounced, unacknowledged, uncelebrated as a life created and therefore life from conception goes on being ignored even by Pro-Life, Catholic people.

  9. I think your headline should have read "Mark Shea sounds like he's off his rocker again" for that second clause. He's been reading too much Huffington Post if he can confuse "access to" and "paying for."

    Meanwhile, while you're not sure who to vote for, BC, just remember that when all's said and done, a president is elected. Unlike, say, how boycotting building a Planned Parenthood or boycotting buying some product can result possibly in no PP being built or no product being bought, boycotting an election will never end up in nobody becoming president. So long as one person gets more votes than the other, you've got yourself a successful election.

    If you're willing to allow Obama to win, go ahead and vote for the third party candidate. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=23_Ioj-TKj4 :P

    Oh, and Anony#2: you should check out http://www.rosarygarden.org Maybe, if you think miscarriages are unannounced, unacknowledged, and uncelebrated, do some work getting them announced, acknowledged, and celebrated. The pain is out there - maybe you can help parents find healing. These apostolates don't spread by themselves.


  10. @Kat,

    I really, *really* hate to say it (I've seen the man use logic and it ain't pretty), but Shea is right.

    Romney says, "I don’t believe employers should tell someone whether they could have contraceptive care or not."

    That can only mean that employers have to cover contraceptives in their health plan (else they are in effect telling the employee you can't have contraceptive care through us). Ergo, they must pay for it in premiums.

    Even a cuckoo clock eventually winds down and tells the right time once in a while.


Please contact matt@badgercatholic.com if you have issues commenting.