I just don’t see how much longer the pro-life crowd can keep lying to themselves about Mitt Romney. He’s already been on shaky ground with the fetus-fetishers, thanks to his own unwavering words in support of a woman’s right to choose:
But it’s one thing to be pro-choice because that is the law of the land. Some pro-lifers have defended Romney’s flip-flop thusly: “Well, he had to say stuff like that to have a political career in a liberal state like Massachusetts. What counts are his actions, and he acted pro-life.” Hmm, okay. But did he really? Because it’s looking like that’s another lie. It’s looking like he personally profitted from abortion. Fattened his own wallet with the procedure you guys liken to the holocaust.
The issue of Bain’s investment in Stericycle, a medical waste company that disposes of aborted fetuses, has been percolating for some time. David Corn did an excellent job outlining all of the mounting evidence showing Romney is indeed an abortion profiteer. This Kos piece also contains a lot of good links and other information that should give the anti-choicers pause.
The best defense the anti-choicers have contrived is here. The basic claim is that Stericycle wasn’t in the aborted fetus business until 2003, after even liberals admit Romney was long gone from Bain. But how do they know this? The rabidly homophobic right-wing outfit Repent America said so! Repent America — a group so right-wing, they called President George W. Bush “evil” for appointing a gay ambassador — launched an anti-Stericycle campaign in 2011, but their look into the company’s fetus disposal business only goes back to 2003! So that proves … er, what, exactly? That Repent America only went back to 2003 researching this company?
Yup. Sorry folks, but in 1991 Stericycle began construction on its Washington State medical waste facility, prompting the Seattle Times to report on the company’s many OSHA violations at its Arkansas plant. Among the string of violations listed was this one:
— Body parts, fetuses and dead experimental animals – pathological waste the company accepts as a convenience to its clients – were stored, until incineration, in an unmarked cooler, putting employees at risk.
If Stericycle wasn’t in the fetus disposal business, then where did these fetuses come from? It seems to me that Stericycle always handled fetuses as part of its medical waste business. Unless the fetus people want us to believe that the company disposed of fetuses in the 1990s, stopped in 1999, and then started up again in 2003? That scenario needs to be washed down with a healthy dose of right-wing Kool-Aid to be believed.
The other defense we keep hearing is that Romney left Bain in 1999, so “not his fault.” The previously-mentioned OSHA violations make that 1999 date irrelevant. But also, over the weekend that 1999 claim unraveled, as well.
But we also have Stericycle’s 1999 SEC filings, which show Romney as having sole “voting and dispositive power” of stock compromising 11% of the company. All told, the Bain investment in Stericycle comprised 22.64% of Stericycle. As Corn noted:
If Romney had fully retired from the private equity firm he founded, why would he be the only Bain executive named as the person in control of this large amount of Stericycle stock?
So far the fetus folks have concocted some pretty flimsy arguments in an effort to defend the likely Republican candidate. And none of it holds water. The original argument — “that’s what a Massachusetts Republican has to say to get elected” — should really be the most troubling to these folks. Because what they’re really saying is, Mitt Romney is a man who will say whatever he has to in order to get elected. Which is basically what we on left have been saying about him since forever.
If you’re going to believe that, then you have to accept that Romney is telling you lies now for the same reason. There’s just too much evidence in the memory hole debunking the spin coming from camp Romney on this. It doesn’t add up, and if your basic premise is “he said what he had to in order to get elected,” well, you’ve said a mouthful.
I’m really not trying to concern-troll the pro-lifers, though I realize that’s what this sounds like. No, what I’m trying to do is point out that the Republican Party is poised to nominate someone who not only is on record for being pro-choice, but who actually profited financially from abortion. If this is going to be acceptable to the pro-life “values voters,” then they are bigger hypocrites than even I could have imagined. I mean yes, being “pro-life” while supporting war and the death penalty is definitely hypocritical in my book, but there’s plenty of that stuff in the Old Testament. I can see someone justifying those things with a selective reading of the Bible. I’m not saying I agree with it, because I don’t. But I can see how someone could justify it in their minds.
But this? Nope. No excuse. Mitt Romney is an abortion profiteer and I just don’t see how someone who thinks this is the issue of a generation can vote for him.