Mitt Romney Funded Surrogate Contract for His Son that Allows for Abortion

FlipboardPinterestPrintReddit

Last updated on February 8th, 2013 at 02:42 am

Mitt Romney said he was for the Personhood Amendment, which would make even some forms of birth control illegal. In any case, it doesn’t allow for abortion even in the case of the life of the mother or rape. Remember legitimate rape? That’s the thinking behind the Personhood Amendment. According to TMZ, this Personhood Amendment candidate paid money toward his son’s surrogacy contract expenses — a contract that allows both parties to abort the fetus under non-life threatening conditions.

The contract includes several portions allowing for abortion via both the surrogate’s and the intended parent decision. Now, this same clause was not included in the previous contract they had with the same surrogate, which makes it stand out more, as lawyers usually hash out all of these details with the attention you’d expect when you’re dealing with such an emotional issue.

The contract specifically provides the choice of abortion if Romney’s son and daughter-in-law want it. TMZ reports on the Gestational Carrier Agreement dated July 28, 2011:

“If in the opinion of the treating physician or her independent obstetrician there is potential physical harm to the surrogate, the decision to abort or not abort is to be made by the surrogate.”

“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.”

“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.”

So yeah. This contract has nothing to do with danger to the mother and everything to do with “choice”. TMZ can’t say if Romney read the contract before he funded part of the expense. Fair enough. But if his own son and daughter in law feel they are entitled to choice, doesn’t it follow that perhaps Mitt Romney might want to extend that privilege to the rest of the country?

It may have been an oversight. Their attorney Bill Handel says they just “forgot” to remove the clauses pertaining to abortion. That’s possible, though certainly doesn’t reflect well on him if it true. But it also reveals the dirty secret behind anti-choicers. People with money always have choice. So when politicians discuss removing choice, they are only really removing choice from women without means.

Romney has promised to defund Planned Parenthood and deny women the right to abortions even in the case of rape. Of course, Romney has changed his position on this so many times it’s impossible to say where he stands today. It’s awkward that a man running for President would fund such an agreement while he’s out telling voters that he supports the Personhood Amendment.

Readers will say this is “personal” and I shouldn’t have reported it. To them, I say, exactly. It’s personal. It’s a personal family matter. I could not agree more.

That is the exact position of the pro-choice movement. Pro choicers believe that women and their families are best suited to make these decisions in private, with their doctors.

We would all really appreciate not having to report on the personal lives of Republicans who are inserting themselves into our personal lives with legislation, as they know they can open any door they need to due to means.

It is personal. And it’s not the place of Republicans to get into the personal lives of American families, just as they don’t want us in their personal lives. IT IS PERSONAL, and no one gets to be held to a different standard, especially when they are denying other women the same rights they take for themselves.

Sarah Jones
Follow Me
Latest posts by Sarah Jones (see all)

Tagged: , ,

You may also like...

Copyright PoliticusUSA LLC 2008-2023