Mitt Romney stood atop his soapbox yesterday and shouted "States' rights!" over and over again. And as you can see from a recent interview with a Nevada television station, the ceding of power from Federal to local control would seem to extend, in Romney's mind, to the topic of abortion.

So then how do we square this idea with his other recent statements that there should be an amendment to the constitution banning the practice of abortion? If he views abortion as murder, then clearly states like Nevada or New York or California should not be allowed to practice the procedure. Pregnancies caused by rape? Incest? Why make exceptions for them? After all, or so the thinking goes, doesn't a second crime simply compound the first? Moreover, how does Romney reconcile the seeming discrepancy between the States' Rights view and his proposed Federal ban on abortion? From today's Washington Post:

Top Romney advisers insisted yesterday that their candidate's statements on abortion this month were consistent with each other. They say Romney supports a two-step process in which states get authority over abortion after Roe v. Wade is overturned, followed eventually by a constitutional amendment that bans most abortions.

So there you have it. Romney's for Big Government, after all. That States' Rights talk is all a smokescreen. He's dead set on a national dictate that makes it illegal for teenage girls who get pregnant to do anything other than carry the child to term. What else would Romney like to make illegal for the citizens of the United States? How about birth control? Never mind that abstinence only education has been shown to be a farce. The Baltimore Sun recently ran an article detailing Mitt's distinction between egg fertilization and implantation:

Mr. Romney's code, deciphered, meant, "I, like you, hope to reclassify the most commonly used forms of contraceptives as abortions." In fact, he told the crowd, he already had some practice redefining contraception: "I vetoed a so-called emergency contraception bill that cave young girls abortive drugs without prescription or parental consent."

You see, Dr. Romney believes he knows more about physiology than The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, who define life starting at the implantation of a fertilized egg into the mother's womb. After all, if the egg does not implant, the fetus has no possible viability. Whatever your beliefs on abortion, there's simply no denying that Romney has no business spouting off about States' Rights when it comes to this issue.

Another interesting item in the NYT highlights the difficulty the pro-lifers have this cycle. They can't afford to lose this election, but the leading GOP candidate is not their friend:

The stakes are historically high, which explains why Republican candidates including Mr. Giuliani have been promising to appoint to the court "strict constructionists," widely considered political code for judges with a conservative agenda.

Mr. Giuliani's allies argue that their candidate is sensitive to the need to reduce abortions, increase adoptions and empower the states to regulate abortion. And the Democrats will inevitably nominate a candidate "who will not be a moderate on those issues, but intensely hostile," said Representative Pete Sessions, Republican of Texas, who describes himself as both "pro-life" and a Giuliani supporter. Moreover, Mr. Sessions and others argued, Mr. Giuliani can beat the Democrats.

It all comes down to whether they can trust Rudy Giuliani to nominate pro-life, er, "strict constructionist" judges. That strategy was all going fine until sometime in a debate last spring, Rudy admitted that the judges he appoints could go "either way" on Roe. And it all fell apart from there.

Contrary to the title of this article, the Democrats are not so much "rethinking" abortion, as deciding how much of an emphasis to place on it. They're still the party of abortion, but they'd like to be known as the party of "family planning".

The Democrats' public positioning on abortion has been evolving for many years beyond a pure rights-based philosophy to a more nuanced view that takes greater account of many Americans' deeply conflicted feelings while still solidly supporting the principle that women should have the choice of aborting a pregnancy. Bill Clinton won the White House in 1992 with promises he would seek to make abortion "safe, legal and rare."

The party has recently gone further. In the last election, Democrats embraced anti-abortion candidates, at least on the state and local level. Sen. Bob Casey, D-Pa., an abortion opponent, was one of the Democrats' marquee candidates in 2006. And aggressive recruiting of anti-abortion candidates for rural conservative districts was a key component of party leaders' strategy to re take the House.

This is interesting because Roe v. Wade is hanging on by a thread. Specifically, Justice Stevens' thread, as he will be 88 years old in 2008. Unfortunately for NARAL, he can't live forever.

Extreme Makeover: Campaign Edition is a sad spectacle indeed. Few things are more pathetic than watching a politician twist in the wind as he or she tries to disown a past action or stance on a critical issue.

The once proud GOP moderate John McCain is paying for his wild swing to the right with sinking poll numbers and deflating coffers. Like John Kerry, Hillary Clinton's Achilles' heal is the disaster in Iraq; first she was for it, now she's against it. Or something, who knows, who cares. And Mr. Massachussetts Mitt Romney used to go on and on about protecting a woman's right to choose. Now he considers himself an anti-abortion "convert." Just in time for election season too!

Abortion is an issue that could dog Fred Thompson as well. Thompson is the former lobbyist who, according to his exploratory committee, wasn't really a lobbyist. Certainly the second coming of Reagan would never have gone to bat for a pro-choice organization, would he? Except that Fred would, and did:

Thompson was retained by National Family Planning and Reproductive Health Association to lobby the administration of President George H.W. Bush to ease a regulation that prevented clinics that received federal money from offering any abortion counseling.

Thompson, a social conservative these days, says he "has no recollection" about that. Nope, can't remember a thing about it. Of course, Thompson's an actor. Maybe he'll be able to give a convincing performance to the religious right on the abortion issue when and if the curtain ever goes up on his campaign.

The ruling is here. We have a good summary by Ed at Bench Memos, and this was tipped off to me by fellow Ohioan Brain Shavings.

First, let me say that while I am pro-life I do consider partial-birth abortion a particularly gruesome and disgusting procedure that should certainly be banned. Details on the procedure itself are in the ruling. I consider this law and this ruling a victory for humanity itself.

Politically, the interesting thing is that, for now, Justice Anthony Kennedy, who is the swing vote on the Supreme Court, is not in favor of throwing out Roe vs. Wade. Kennedy signed on to the Casey decision which in the early '90s upheld Roe for the most part with additional possibility for regulation. This is as expected, but it was made clear in the ruling when Kennedy applied the previous Casey decision to the current question.

Justices Clarence Thomas and Antonin Scalia filed a concurring opinion which made it clear that they were not only in favor of chucking partial-birth abortion, but Roe and Casey as well. Newly appointed Justices John Roberts and Samuel Alito did NOT sign on to that concurring opinion. Either they did not agree or they are holding their cards.

It's clear that there will be no big changes in the abortion law with the current makeup of the court. But conservatives can cheer that President Bush did replace one swing vote (Sandra Day O'Connor) with a solid conservative (Alito).

Well, better put, he kind of, sort of tries to explain it. He admits that he was for abortion rights before he was against them, as he told to the National Right to Life Committee conference this past week. Fine, people change their minds. No biggie. But take today's clip from an interview with CNN's John Roberts.

Though Romney was very clear as a candidate that he supported a woman's right to choose, he is effectively telling us that, once elected in Massachusetts, he proudly acted in the opposite regard. The question is, who exactly is this revelation of two-faced behavior supposed to comfort? The people who actually believe what he's saying this time around, or the ones who don't? Maybe it's time for a new campaign slogan. Vote Romney: Anything Might Happen!

In an interview destined to reshape perceptions of Mitt Romney as a flip-flopper, an old friend of his recounts to New Zealand newspaper Mitt's efforts to intimidate a mother of four out of an abortion -- an abortion she sought because her life was in danger if she carried the baby to term:

So then Mitt came in to the hospital. X thought Mitt had come to be comforting because that's what bishops do. They have a pastoral role. But she said that instead he was critical.

He said – What do you think you're doing?

She said – Well, we have to abort the baby because I have these blood clots.

And he said something to the effect of – Well, why do you get off easy when other women have their babies?

And she said – What are you talking about? This is a life threatening situation.

And he said – Well what about the life of the baby?

And she said – I have four other children and I think it would be really irresponsible to continue the pregnancy.

X said she found herself arguing with Romney about her medical crisis, said he was very unsympathetic, very critical, and said that under the circumstances in no way did he condone her aborting the child. And he left.

She was extremely distraught. Talked it over with her husband. They decided to go ahead with the abortion. After that she left the church.

The thing is -- this is exactly the sort of case that makes it clear for most Americans why abortion needs to remain legal. Because responsible parents often face tragic decisions. That Mitt has now clearly switched positions on abortion multiple times in his life -- and always for political expediency -- says volumes about the man.

This was the funniest moment of last night's debate. Signaling His displeasure with the permissive, liberal turn of the Republican party, God himself threw lightning bolts down upon the proceedings. In specific, God took pains to short out Rudy Giuliani's microphone so that America's Mayor couldn't get out his heretical position on abortion. How else can we explain the utter lack of interference with pseudo-creationist Mike Huckabee's remarks on whether or not the earth was created in six days? See for yourself.

This is important because Dr. James Dobson is probably the most respected among evangelical leaders. He can, and will, move votes. He's obviously been thinking a lot about Rudy Giuliani and has come to a conclusion:

My conclusion from this closer look at the current GOP front-runner comes down to this: Speaking as a private citizen and not on behalf of any organization or party, I cannot, and will not, vote for Rudy Giuliani in 2008. It is an irrevocable decision. If given a Hobson's – Dobson's? – choice between him and Sens. Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama, I will either cast my ballot for an also-ran – or if worse comes to worst – not vote in a presidential election for the first time in my adult life. My conscience and my moral convictions will allow me to do nothing else.

This is the sort of thing that I thought would happen. Further back in the article, Dobson explains that it wasn't just the abortion issue, but also his gay marriage stance, and his failure in his own personal life.

I wrote before that one of Rudy's big problems was that the GOP spent the entire eight years of the Clinton administration saying that "character matters." Those who said that will have a tough time covering for Giuliani who committed some of the same personal fouls. James Dobson has reconciled it in favor of "character matters"; and Giuliani is out.

I can't shake my conclusion that Rudy just killed his chance to get the GOP nomination with his new turn on abortion. I've been over this before, but in Houston and this morning we saw the new Rudy strategy on abortion. It amounts to "I'm Pro-choice, take it or leave it." With all due respect, the GOP is going to leave it.

Here's what he said this morning:

"In a society like ours, where people have very, very different consciences about this, it's best for us to respect each other's differences and allow for choice," he said. Still, he said on Fox News, "I am open and will continue to be open to ways to limit abortion."

Giuliani also said that if elected president, he would try to appoint the best people to the Supreme Court, regardless of their abortion views.

That seals it. He's done and I'll explain why.

If this is true, Rudy just disemboweled his own campaign. As David Knowles reported earlier, the Giuliani campaign has decided to affirm their support for abortion rights. The strategy, as speculated about in the NYT, seems to be about doing an end run around the conservative states and pulling delegates from the big liberal states like New York and California.

It's not going to work. The problem is not that Rudy is pro-choice and the GOP is mainly pro-life. The problem from the pro-life perspective is that they were asking very little of Rudy: nominate judges that would repeal Roe. That part was easy; all Rudy had to do was say he would nominate judges like Alito and Roberts, and with a wink and a nod, everyone would know what he meant.

And the second part was basically to keep the status quo on the things that were within the executive's power. No federal funding for abortion or abortion providers, etc.

But Rudy couldn't quite do that. He absolutely muffed the judge thing, saying he would elect judges that might go either way. He has not promised as far as I can tell, to keep the status quo on abortion related things. From the pro-life perspective, we were willing to overlook Rudy's social issues in order to gain his leadership qualities, and trust me, pro-lifers will feel, do feel, that they went more than halfway.

Good for Rudy:

After months of conflicting signals on abortion, Rudolf W. Giuliani is planning to offer a forthright affirmation of his support for abortion rights in public forums, television appearances and interviews in the coming days, despite the potential for bad consequences among some conservative voters already wary of his views, aides said yesterday.

Of course, on the one hand this is bad news for Giuliani's chances in the Republican primaries. There's no pro-choice plank in the GOP platform, which is why Rudy has been so evasive on the matter up to this point. But the downside to presenting a watered down, mixed-message on the subject was that it ran counter to the former mayor's signature strength: his image as a strong leader.

While I applaud Rudy for finally standing up and laying his cards on the table, I have to wonder what took him so long. The abortion issue had, after all, been singled out in his famously mislaid campaign war plans as a possible liability. Now, we'll all sit back and see if his clarified stance on a single issue will take down the current front-runner.

Mr. Giuliani hinted at what aides said would be his uncompromising position on abortion rights yesterday in Huntsville, Ala., where he was besieged with questions about abortions and his donations to Planned Parenthood. "Ultimately, there has to be a right to choose," he said. Asked if Republicans would accept that, he said, "I guess we are going to find out."

So let's hear from you. What are his chances of making it to the general election?

Ooh, guess who else has a Planned Parenthood problem? Yes, that's right, Mitt Romney. Actually it's his wife, Anne Romney, who gave one $150 donation to the group in 1994.

"The governor has not donated to Planned Parenthood or abortion-rights groups," Madden said.

Madden said he did not know whether the former governor was aware of the donation, but he noted that Romney had been publicly committed to upholding a woman's right to an abortion until late 2004.

"This is an issue that the governor has changed his position on, that the governor was wrong on in the past and believes he is right on now," he said.

This is more than a potential problem on two levels for Romney. One is that he hasn't broken any significant ground in polling and this definitely won't help. And since Rudy Giuliani is crashing on the abortion issue, Romney with this story out won't be making up any ground at this time.

The hits just keep coming for Rudy Giuliani (HT to Ohio's RightAngleBlog) and at a time when he desperately needs to repair the damage he did to himself, it's now surfacing that he continuously contributed money to Planned Parenthood throughout the nineties, according to The Politico.

Republican presidential candidate Rudy Giuliani in his campaign appearances this year has stated that he personally abhors abortion, even though he supports keeping a legal right to choose. But records show that in the '90s he contributed money at least six times to Planned Parenthood, one of the country's leading abortion rights groups and its top provider of abortions.

Federal tax returns made public by the former New York mayor show that he and his then-wife, Donna Hanover, made personal donations to national, state and city chapters of Planned Parenthood totaling $900 in 1993, 1994, 1998 and 1999.

The returns have been on the public record for years, but the detail about Giuliani's support for Planned Parenthood -- along with e-mailed copies of the returns -- was provided to The Politico by aides to a rival campaign, who insisted on not being identified.

Hmmmm... "Aides to a rival campaign"? Either John McCain or Mitt Romney as both of them have the wherewithal to conduct opposition research like this. It's a good one and they released it just at the right time for maximum damage to Giuliani, so my hat is off in admiration of whoever is behind this.

Ateam Ohio, a blogger colleague in Ohio has done the heavy lifting on what the Democratic candidates have said about yesterday's ruling on partial birth abortion. If you don't know, the Supreme Court ruled that a ban was constitutional. This is a major victory for the pro-life cause.

John Edwards:

"I could not disagree more strongly with today's Supreme Court decision. The ban upheld by the Court is an ill-considered and sweeping prohibition that does not even take account for serious threats to the health of individual women. This hard right turn is a stark reminder of why Democrats cannot afford to lose the 2008 election. Too much is at stake - starting with, as the Court made all too clear today, a woman's right to choose."