Black Box Report

In an interview with a Nevada television station on Tuesday, Romney said Roe. v. Wade should be abolished and vowed to "let states make their own decision in this regard." On Aug. 6, he told ABC's George Stephanopoulos that he supports a human life amendment to the Constitution that would protect the unborn.

Like a near-sighted drunk at the wheel of a car, Mitt Romney has been all over the road on the abortion issue. If there's a position to be take, he's taken it, no matter how contradictory. He does this with alarming frequency, on a wide range of issues. Forexample, most recently appearing to flip on abortion while simultaneously flopping on states' rights:

On abortion, he is an advocate of state's rights, except in cases where a state might take an expansive view of reproductive liberty, in which case it could not offer more freedom than is allowed under a constitutional amendment which imposes a nationwide ban on abortion. However, the state in question would be free to impose abortion laws more restrictive than the federal standard. In this sense, then, Romney would allow states to make their own decisions about abortion, as long as they decide to become more, rather than less, restrictive.

Funny how Republicans don't seem to be nearly as concerned about Mitt Romney's flip-flops as they were about, say, John Kerry's. Another case of IOKIYAR. Because for Mitt, of course, it's not flip-flopping, it's nuance:

Mitt Romney is simply struggling to explain the Republican Party's conventional pro-life position. Which is: overturn Roe v. Wade. And then, slowly build up public support for a constitutional amendment banning abortions. ETA: 30 years or more. This is not a flip-flop.

See? Not flip-flopping. Romney's campaign calls it a nuanced approach to a very convoluted problem. Except it's neither a flip-flop, nor nuanced, but simply incomprehensible gibberish:

Romney argued for a Constitutional ban on abortions, which would take the matter out of legislatures of both the states and Congress, as well as the courts. The Constitution trumps state law in its specifics, which most people recognize. It would end any effort by individual states to find their own way on abortion.

Romney's campaign appeared to recognize this shortly afterwards. Their explanation? Romney wants abortion to be handled by the states -- and after that, he wants a Constitutional amendment to ban abortion. That makes even less sense. Romney wants the states to have these incredibly divisive debates, fight to create legislation about abortion, and then pre-empt all of them with the Constitutional change? Why bother? If Romney supports the Constitutional amendment, then that renders state action completely moot.

Why bother? I'll tell you why. "ETA: 30 years or more." Romney knows he can take the safe route of supporting the overturn of Roe v. Wade, and know for certain that he'll be dead before anyone gets around to taking even a semi-serious shot at a Constitutional amendment banning abortion. States' rights and a divided nation be damned; Mitt needs votes. Sure, he could come right out and say "Constitutional ban on all abortions!" But then he wouldn't be Mitt:

Romney's stance on abortion is crystal clear and as unnuanced as it gets. His position is whatever will get him the most votes.

Try to be all things to all people, and you'll eventually mean nothing to anybody.