Why Is Mitt Romney Picking A Fight With Planned Parenthood

Maybe it’s because he’s in danger of losing the nomination to a candidate with a platform developed during the Salem witch trials and no real campaign apparatus, but former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney has decided that the surest path to the Republican nomination comes from eradicating Planned Parenthood.

At least, that’s the only reason I can think of that Romney would want to re-ignite a debate that has, so far, turned out to be a disaster for Republicans.

In a speech on the economy, Romney said that as part of his plan to tackle the deficit he would “get rid of” Planned Parenthood. Romney has already expressed opposition to Title X, the federal funding mechanism that provides money to Planned Parenthood for family planning services. But this is the first time Romney has expressed a de facto opposition to the organization.

Cecile Richards, president of the Planned Parenthood Federation of America responded. “I was really stunned to read that Mitt Romney has now said he wants to get rid of Planned Parenthood, because really what that means is he wants to get rid of preventative health care for 3 million folks every year,” Richards told reporters on Wednesday. “It shows an extraordinary lack of understanding of family planning and the budget to say one of the ways he’s going save money in this country is by ending birth control and family planning,” she added. “The most conservative economist will tell you that family planning saves money. It saves taxpayers money. It’s ludicrous to think that Mitt Romney, who is running for president of the United States, thinks we’re going to balance the budget by ending birth control access in this country.”

Naturally it didn’t take long for Romney to back track these statements and clarify that he wasn’t against the organization just that he would “have to make some tough decisions about spending.”

At least with Rick Santorum and Ron Paul it’s clear their opposition to Planned Parenthood and family planning services in general comes from their deep-seated hatred of women. Romney, on the other hand, is just shamelessly pandering for power. And that might make him more dangerous than even those other two.

Related Stories:

Gov. Perry Tries To Spin Women’s Health Cuts, Texans Push Back

Oklahoma GOP Attacks Family Planning For Poor

Catholic Food Shelf Rejects Food From Planned Parenthood


Photo from S.MiRK via flickr.


Addie Stone
Addie Stone5 years ago

Well, so far I've heard Mitt say that he's going to fix the economy by mending "the fabric of society". That said, given his views on things, I figure he thinks that removing Planned Parenthood from existence will bring about a stronger societal fabric. That's why he's against gay marriage. He thinks making sure gays can't marry will make the fabric of society stronger. He doesn't believe in contraceptives, but he said in an interview that he would never push that on someone else. Perhaps, it's about abortions (they do those there, right?). I kind of figured after he went after the LGBT population (if he got elected) that he would probably go after that. But what really worries me is, what would be next? I mean, just think about the scenario of a person who is elected to high office and wants to mend society, not through common sense or compassion, but through making policies based on his personally held belief system.

Most people will be asleep or cheering about the anti-gay policies. Many would be quite alright about anti-abortion policies (and, let me point out, I've not heard him say anything one way or another about abortion, but this was just my own personal theory about what he would probably go after when the gay issues were done with). People might almost be lulled to sleep when he is going fervently after things that they are just as strongly against. But what else does he think is ruining society?

Ofcourse, after 4 years of someone trying to fix the economy

Miranda Lyon
Miranda Lyon5 years ago

Why? Because he will jump on any bandwagon...and then jump on a different and contradictory bandwagon...if it will get him another vote toward enough delegates to become the Republican nominee in the upcoming Presidential contest.

Mark S.
Mark S5 years ago

Because republicans are anti-women. Simple answer. If thet repubs were truly pro-life, they'd support the baby once it's born. But they want to abolish "safety nets" for the poor.

Sue Matheson
Sue Matheson5 years ago


Kathy M.
Kathleen M5 years ago

I now believe that because lawmakers at every level of government have no earthly idea what to do about the economy or how to stop taking money from their corporate cronies, they have become obsessed with women's reproductive rights. It's as if we've fallen down the rabbit hole and come out in the land of Alice's worst nightmare!!

Samantha Garlejo
Samantha Garlejo5 years ago

“The most conservative economist will tell you that family planning saves money. It saves taxpayers money. It’s ludicrous to think that Mitt Romney, who is running for president of the United States, thinks we’re going to balance the budget by ending birth control access in this country.”

Word on that, sistah!
The Republican candidates are all morons. They sure know how to make jokes of themselves. It's no wonder Mitt Romney is about to lose his platform!

leonie t.
Leonie Trevanion5 years ago

Contraception and planned parenthood makes a lot of sense to me there are too many unwanted babies in the world, to many people who can't afford to have children should get free birth control

Past Member 5 years ago

thanks for posting this

Angel C.
.5 years ago

For an excellent article about the role of women in Mormonism:
(Mike H - the third paragraph discusses what I was saying about a 12-year-old boy having more authority than his own mother)

Another good site discussing how women are viewed in the Mormon religion: http://www.utlm.org/onlineresources/resurrectwife.htm

There are quotes with references that talk about how a woman cannot get into heaven without her husband, and if she isn't married, then she will be a servant.

SO -- it is easy to see why I will never vote for anyone - especially a man - who is an actively participating member of the Mormon religion. You think Santorum is scary? Just wait...

Angel C.
.5 years ago

@ Mike H., asking for a link regarding my comment that "... he will never have my vote as long as he is a member of a church that teaches that 12-year-old boys have more authority in the home than their mothers. "

First, let me tell you that I was raised in the Mormon Church so I am speaking from personal experience. When I was old enough to be on my own, I got out and never looked back. My only regret is that I wasn't able to flee sooner.

Second, let me point you towards The Journal of Discourses, a compilation of speeches given by Mormon leaders. There's a lot, but dive in and you will start finding all kinds of gems: polygamy exists in heaven and God is a polygamist, Jesus was crucified because he was polygamist, Adam was actually an incarnation of God, etc. Your link to that: http://www.journalofdiscourses.org/ If you want specific sources, I suggest you inquire at exmormon.org. They will be glad to supply you.

Mormons believe that the 'priesthood' (power of God) can only be given to males, and the lowest level of priesthood is conferred to boys beginning at age 12. Priesthood holders are the authority in all situations, including the home, which is why a mother ranks lower than her young son in terms of authority in the eyes of the Mormon church. I'm sorry I don't have the time to provide you with exact links, but the discussion forum at exmormon.org can give you more than you ever imagined.