The following comes from a June 18 story by pro-life veteran Jack Wilke on LifeSiteNews.

As this is written, Barack Obama has proven to be the most pro-abortion president of modern times and he is now seeking a second term. Former Massachusetts Governor, Mitt Romney, is the presumptive nominee for the Republican Presidential slot in November. Naturally, some have questioned his pro-life credentials and convictions so let’s examine the details of Governor Romney’s conversion.

When he was first elected Governor of Massachusetts, it was generally presumed that his position was “prochoice.” However, about half way into his first term as governor in 2005, Romney announced that he was opposed to embryonic stem cell research and proceeded to veto a bill making the “Morning After,” plan B contraceptive pills available. In the same year, he declared that he was pro-life.

Governor Romney tells us that he changed his mind in November 2004. At that time, he was obviously searching and had questions. He met with Douglas A. Melton, PhD, a scientist from the Harvard Stem Cell Institute on November 9. In that interview the Governor said this researcher told him, “Look, you don’t have to think about this stem cell research as a moral issue because we kill the embryos after fourteen days.”

This had a major impact on Romney and his chief of staff, as they saw it recognizing that such embryonic stem cell research in fact was killing what they were convinced were human lives already in existence. Later, through a spokesperson, Dr. Melton disputed that he used the word “kill.”

But Governor Romney, wanting to know more, consulted with one of the best people available in February 2005. This expert was William B. Hurlbut, a physician and professor at Stanford University Medical Center Neuroscience Institute. Dr. Hurlbut is a dedicated pro-lifer.

The two of them met for several hours, discussing the issue in great detail. They went through the dynamics of conception, embryonic development and repercussions of the various research and experimentation that has been going on aimed at exploring the first weeks after fertilization. At that point, Romney was under intense pressure to change a state law that, at the time, still protected human embryos from lethal stem cell research. Some of the pressure came from Harvard, his own almamater. After this in-depth consultation, Romney stated that he was pro-life.

Asked about their meeting by columnist Kathleen Parker, Dr. Hurlbut said, “Several things about our conversation still stand out strongly in my mind. First, he clearly recognized the significance of the issue, not just as a current controversy, but as a matter that would define the character of our culture way into the future.

“Second, it was obvious that he had put in a real effort to understand both the scientific prospects and the broader social implications. Finally, I was impressed by both his clarity of mind and sincerity of heart. He recognized that this was not a matter of purely abstract theory or merely pragmatic governance, but a crucial moment in how we are to regard nascent human life and the broader meaning of medicine in the service of life.”

….Life Issues Institute and I are confident that Governor Romney’s conversion is real, heartfelt and authentic. Since the Institute is a 501(c)(3) organization, we cannot endorse a political candidate. As such, this article should not be construed as an endorsement of Governor Romney’s candidacy but rather a testament to the fact that we believe Mitt Romney is truly pro-life.

For the entire story, including an account of Dr. Wilke’s pivotal meeting with George H.W. Bush, Click here.



Posted Thursday, June 21, 2012 5:02 AM By AnnaAsher
I’m impressed.

Posted Thursday, June 21, 2012 5:24 AM By Juergensen
More interesting than whether a Mormon is authentically pro-life, is whether Catholics who refuse to protect the Holy Eucharist from profanation by abortionists and homosexualists are authentically Catholic? I mean, how can someone believe that the Holy Eucharist is the Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity of Jesus Christ and at the same time ignore the warning of St. Paul (1 Cor. 11:26-29) and the command of the Church (Can. 915) regarding reception of Holy Communion by manifest grave sinners?

Posted Thursday, June 21, 2012 6:47 AM By Carolyn
An intelligent man, who has the sense to want to know and investigate the truth….that is good criteria for a leader of our country. I posted a beautiful picture of M/M Romney and their beautiful family and all the grandchildren last Jan. They are a big and growing family, and in some ways I felt a little sad that they would now be in the public eye if there grandpa would become president. Thanks Dr. Wilke for that insightful article. I believe that Romney is a good and decent man, he is my prayers. We wait with bated breath for the Supreme Court decision any day now. As Russia rises to power, we need all the good and decent we can get to clean up this sinful land and turn our faces to our God. We are on perils doorstep. Pray to Our Queen….as she said, in the end her Immaculate Heart will triumph!

Posted Thursday, June 21, 2012 7:18 AM By Maryanne Leonard
Regardless of whether Romney is pro-life or not, Obama is definitely anti-life. He stated publicly before he was elected that he would be in favor of murdering his own unborn grandchildren should his daughter, um, make a mistake. Her daughter may have been intrigued by her father’s willingness, promise or threat to happily murder her unborn children. In the present president’s favor, at least didn’t murder his two children that we know about, and hopefully didn’t murder any others that we don’t know about. It sounds as if he was also stating that he would have been fine with the concept. How can anyone fail to choose Romney over such a man? To vote for Obama is to vote for the murdering of unborn American children. To vote for Romney is to vote for a man with both feeling and a conscience. The choice is clear.

Posted Thursday, June 21, 2012 7:37 AM By Steve Phoenix
Just for some perspective: Notre Dame University, Bp. Blaire, and much of his cadre of the US bishops and bishops’ conference people were falling all over the present occupier of the Oval Office, despite Obama’s unfailing and strident support for all forms of abortion. Remember, Obama made one of his few “yes” votes (instead of ‘present”) as an Illinois senator in favor of a law that allowed for the killing of an infant if the child somehow was born after a botched abortion. Mr Obama’s cold disregard for life, shown in other respects in the death of hundreds in the Fast and Furious operation, as well as the weekly drone killings list he enthusiastically checks off, is only outdone by his heinous disregard for the lives of the unborn and the virtually born.

Posted Thursday, June 21, 2012 8:05 AM By JLS
The glaring difference between Romney and Obama camps is the Second Amendment; Romney believes in human rights, whereas Obama does not.

Posted Thursday, June 21, 2012 8:07 AM By MGM
I am happy that the scientist doctor admitted it was killing of the embryo they do after 14 days just to do their experiment so I do not have to ask my 5 year old son. If we do not stop the killing now, it will be the ONLY issue that will follow and haunt us on our death bed repenting why we did not do anything then. After our last breath is the FINAL JUDGEMENT no one can escape away from.

Posted Thursday, June 21, 2012 8:12 AM By Phil
Reminds me of Thomas the Apostle. Thank you Jesus for showing Romney the truth.

Posted Thursday, June 21, 2012 8:21 AM By MD
God Bless Dr. Wilke. I think it is doubtful that Romney will be elected. We have to pray for this election not only for the presidency, but for the Supreme Court nominations that will arise during the next presidential term. This battle has just begun. God Love you.

Posted Thursday, June 21, 2012 8:55 AM By Sarah
There is a clear, unequivocal choice between the two presidential candidates. Romney is pro-life and pro-family. Obama is pro-abortion, pro-embryonic stem cell research and pro-plan B aborto-facients (the morning after pill). He voted against giving life saving medical care to just-born babies who survived unsuccessful abortons and he demands that Catholic institutions provide contraception, sterilization and abortions in employee health insurance plans. No Catholic should vote for Obama, the anti-life candidate.

Posted Thursday, June 21, 2012 9:49 AM By mrpkguy
Thanks for clarifying candidate Romney’s position on the abortion issue. I am glad it is not the “flip-flop” positioning that so many talking heads attribute to his desire for the presidency, which it appears it is not!

Posted Thursday, June 21, 2012 9:57 AM By Juan Oskar
To my understanding, the LDS Church has always been pro-life. But, I’m very happy with Romney’s conversion on the issue.

Posted Thursday, June 21, 2012 9:57 AM By Cami Murphy
I had blindly accepted the accusation that Mitt Romney is a “flip-flopper” with no true convictions. This article has changed my mind, and I am ready to vote for him as more than “the lesser of two evils”: as the best, most godly man for the job.

Posted Thursday, June 21, 2012 10:03 AM By John F. Maguire
First, there is nothing partisan or vote-recommendatory in this, my present reply to the article posted above. Second, what I’d like to point out is that the task of defining Governor Romney’s position on the right-to-life of preborn infants does not turn on speculations concerning the authenticity of a postulated conversion, but on the dispositive issue, Conversion to what? Rick Santorum campaigned on the proposition that preborn infants are persons under the Personeity/Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment (“nor shall any State deprive any person of the right to life…without due process of law”). For Rick Santorum — as he made clear in his Party’s primary contests — all living human bodies are persons as a matter of fundamental law. For this reason, we can fairly conclude that, whatever our voting disposition might be in his regard, Senator Santorum, at all events, is not an abortocrat. Here though we come to the crux of the matter. In sharp contrast to the integrally pro-life position of Rick Santorum, state-prerogativists, although sometimes they are even professedly pro-life, nevertheless DENY that preborn infants are persons as a matter of fundamental law. State-prerogativists would POSIT a purported legal power in state legislatures to vote thumbs-up/thumbs down on whether a subset of living human bodies — namely, the living human bodies of preborn infants — are persons or not. You see the point. The question is not the vague and ill-defined question whether Romney is in certain respects pro-life, but rather whether he is an abortocrat, bearing in mind the definition of the term, viz., a person who denies that preborn infants are persons under fundamental law, which law in our American Republic is the Organic Law of the United States — the Declaration of Independence, with its recognition that all men are created equal; and the United States Constitution, with its Personeity Clauses. Is Romney still an abortocrat?

Posted Thursday, June 21, 2012 11:11 AM By k
So if a bishop in a cult that believes Catholicism is an abomination to God is pro-life, you’ll vote for him?

Posted Thursday, June 21, 2012 11:14 AM By MacDonald
I have heard Dr. William Hurlbut of Stanford speak on this subject, and he is more convincing (from a purely scientific, moral, ethical, non-Catholic perspective) than many Catholics I have heard. I am so happy that he was able to speak with Mitt Romney and help his change of heart. Dr. Hurlbut is a hero for the pro-life cause! He also chose a Catholic school for his children’s education, which is no great surprise, given his Christian faith and his strong ethical stance on such issues.

Posted Thursday, June 21, 2012 12:21 PM By Abeca Christian
I don’t like Romney but because Obama is the worst of them all, getting Obama out will be a relief!

Posted Thursday, June 21, 2012 12:41 PM By Kenneth M. Fisher
As a Latino on my mother’s side, I am very disturbed by the fact that a majority of Latinos will vote for Obama in spite of his strong anti-life positions. Do they think that God will accept the sorry excuse that he was for illegal immigrants, over the fact that he is the most pro-abortion, anti-family “President” in the history of this Nation when they come before His Judgement Seat? God bless, yours in Their Hearts, Kenneth M. Fisher

Posted Thursday, June 21, 2012 1:13 PM By Bud 
My vote is still with Romney. And we certainly have a huge share of “ex Catholics” even in high political places. Isn’t it time to stop blubbering who is and who isn’t pro or con on the issue of abortion. We know who must go first! The only solution is to do the best we can to eliminate abortion thru the Supreme Court.

Posted Thursday, June 21, 2012 1:35 PM By max
as a non-latino on either side, i have no idea who will vote for whom. mitt romney and his clan came from mexico, though, where they sought refuge in order to conntinue their polygamy cult after itt was outlawed in the u.s., so maybe latinos will indeed vote for Señor Romneyy after all, given his mexican bakcground…

Posted Thursday, June 21, 2012 1:52 PM By steven
@Juergensen: you answered your own question

Posted Thursday, June 21, 2012 2:01 PM By k
abeca, check out Andre Barnett of the Reform Party.

Posted Thursday, June 21, 2012 3:38 PM By Ray
As some of you remember, after Ronald Reagan studied and researched the pro-death/pro life situation, he went down the same river, from abortion is OK to a pro life conviction, as Mitt Romney has done more recently.

Posted Thursday, June 21, 2012 5:04 PM By JLS
max, polygamy is not intrinsically evil; whereas voting for Obama is and gets one excommunicated latae sententiae via complicity, aiding and abetting.

Posted Thursday, June 21, 2012 7:28 PM By Sly
So, k. you’re willing to use your vote for someone who guaranteed will not win and therefore propel the current man in the White House to another term, which is guaranteed to be disastrous? What principles are you operating on? [As opposed to voting for someone whom I have not been enthusiastic about, but seems will uphold solid pro-life values, who has a real chance of ousting the current WH resident? Do you know what he believes in his heart of hearts vs what that his larger religious group holds (erroneously)?

Posted Thursday, June 21, 2012 10:43 PM By k
Sly, my vote does not matter because of where I live. I can vote for anybody and the same guy will get elected.

Posted Thursday, June 21, 2012 10:53 PM By k
Sly, I’m too scared of him to tell you what to search for. Just search.

Posted Thursday, June 21, 2012 10:59 PM By JLS
k, why vote for a perfect prolife candidate who cannot win, instead of simply voting for yourself? The only difference is that you know for sure how you stand on issues.

Posted Thursday, June 21, 2012 11:20 PM By SOLOMON
REP. will let U be BORN, but don’t give a damn for U therafter!!! Although I profoundly dislike Obama, if the election were tomorrow I would be tempted to vote for him if neither the US nor Israel had not attacked Iraq. Iraq has very powerfu allies in Russia and China. The US had THOUSANDS of Russian missiles pointed at us for decades. And we are concerned about a rudimentary single missile from Iraq – Israel has HUNDREDS which we supplied them with!!!

Posted Thursday, June 21, 2012 11:25 PM By k
JLS, even I wouldn’t vote for me.

Posted Thursday, June 21, 2012 11:25 PM By Anne T.
If Dr. Wilke says it, I believe. He is one of the most pro-life people I know. It was some of the pictures in his books that convinced me how terrible abortion really is. I saw for myself.

Posted Friday, June 22, 2012 12:52 AM By stanley
Americans have come to a definitive crossroads. They are either tired of living in a free society or they are not. There can be no true freedom without fundamental morality. The choice in this election should be clear enough to any person with common sense and a modicom of basic values. Choose America.

Posted Friday, June 22, 2012 5:25 AM By Peter
I am a pro-life Catholic. However, in a critical way, these media pieces on the abortion issue are all fatally flawed. By not ENERGETICALLY opposing contraceptive use, Catholic media opposition to abortion, to save lives, is to spit into the wind. Why? Because after the Pill was approved in 1960, a pro-contraception, pro-risk-free-sexual-pleasure ethos became the norm in Western Society. That tidal wave of expectation of entitlement to risk-free sexual pleasure is the single most powerful social force in our society. Very quietly, people of that ilk — and that’s most of us, including 72.8% of CHURCH-GOING Catholics, and nearly 100% of the rest — use abortion as a birth control backstop. That’s why Roe v. Wade was decided AFTER the Pill was legalized. The Pill popularized contraceptive use, which generated a social ethos of entitlement to risk-free sex, which generated a flood of abortion demand by people using abortion as a birth control backstop. Opposing just abortion, without opposing contraceptive use, is a perfect and hypocritical waste of effort.

Posted Friday, June 22, 2012 5:40 AM By Ted
Again (or more accurately) many people will go to the polls to vote for someone they’re unsure of. When was that not the case ? I believe Romney is genuinely pro-life. I know (notice one is belief one knowledge, and keep the difference in mind, please) the Barack Obama is so pro-death that he would allow live babies to be killed if they survived a botched abortion. There is absolutely NO choice here if you are pro-life. A – you cannot in good conscience vote for Obama. B- you can vote for Mitt Romney. This is a no-brainer if I ever saw one. The rest of the above debate is meaningless in light of the facts I pointed out.

Posted Friday, June 22, 2012 5:48 AM By Tracy O.
As moving as this story is, as any conversion from being Pro-Choice to Pro-Life is, there are still some facts that need to be considered regarding Mitt Romney and his stance on life. He is THE ONLY Republican candidate that DID NOT sign the Personhood Pledge in THIS election cycle. If his conversion were truly authentic and in this election cycle, why would he NOT sign it? It’s completely Constitutional (ask Ron Paul- he signed). In addition, just less than a month ago, he had a $50,000 a plate fundraiser at the house of the chairman of the board of directors for Teva Pharmaceuticals, a major manufacturer of contraceptives—in particular Plan B, the so-called “morning-after pill” that Romney has previously denounced as being “abortion pills.” I see someone spitting out more campaign rhetoric and making “friends” with as many of the people that will support his rhetoric and his campaign when he needs it. Conclusion: Mitt Romney – still a FLIP FLOPPER! He cannot be trusted! This does NOT mean that Obama is the “better” candidate but we must not decide that the “lesser of two evils” is somehow better. It is not. Vote your conscience and PAY ATTENTION. May God’s Mercy be on us in this election that we be vigilant and do His Will.

Posted Friday, June 22, 2012 8:02 AM By JMJ
K: I understand how you feel, as all of my votes don’t seem to matter, but the truth is, we still need to vote and let God take charge. If you don’t vote, you can’t complain about the wrong one getting into office. JLS: read Pope Leo XIII Encyclical “Arcanum Divinae” on Christian Marriage, dated Feb 10, 1880ad. It is so up to date and he will tell you about the dangers of the Israelites with their many wives and one reason why the Roman Empire fell apart from the inside. As for Mr. Romney, being from Mass. I have very little use for him. A poor choice, indeed; but, still much better than the big ‘o’. +JMJ+

Posted Friday, June 22, 2012 8:14 AM By JLS
In some states they have dogs registered to vote; Calif might be one of them since some of the elected politicians look and act just like dogs …no offence to dogs intended by me, of course.

Posted Friday, June 22, 2012 10:51 AM By k
JMJ, thank you for your post. I know a lot of people who don’t vote and still complain. Some don’t vote because the choices are so bad. It is usually not apathy. It is disgust. I understand that if you think Romney could beat Obama that you would want to vote for him. If you live in a state that always goes Democrat or always goes Republican, you could vote 3rd party to show that the two party structure is not working for Americans. This election is the kind of thing people have warned about for years. For me, pro-life has always been a deciding issue. But this election, we have issues of freedom (and not just religious) at stake. You are from Massachusetts. Did Romney tell the truth? Was he forthright? We have read that he was pro-choice when he was your Governor and that he installed the healthcare plan that Obamacare is patterned after. Is that true?

Posted Friday, June 22, 2012 11:35 AM By any person with comm
Stanley, 12:52 AM, “any person with common sense”, says it all. We have allegedly Catholics on the Site who say they will vote for the most pro-abortion, pro-sodomite, anti-Catholic “President” this nations has ever faced, and by knowingly doing so, condemning themselves to Eternal Damnation unless they repent, they have no common sense. Romney is not my choice either; however at least he says he is now pro-life and pro-family while Obama says just the opposite and is even willing to illegally use Executive Orders, and Executive Privilege to enforce his evil beliefs, so go figure anyone who professes to be Catholic and is willing to vote for the Obamanation. God bless, yours in Their Hearts, Kenneth M. Fisher

Posted Friday, June 22, 2012 11:39 AM By Kenneth M. Fisher
JLS, My dog, a Labradoodle is very handsome. He would probably bite you if he knew you said he looked like some of the elected crooks! God bless, yours in Their Hearts, Kenneth M. Fisher

Posted Friday, June 22, 2012 12:01 PM By Abeca Christian
Christ move us, mold us, turn our hearts to help get Obama out of office please! Our unborn and our sanctity of marriage and human life are depending on it. Lord how many more tears do we need to shed, how many more prayers or offerings do we need to offer up in order to make right for all our offenses. We have offended you so much, I am sorry Lord.

Posted Friday, June 22, 2012 1:07 PM By max
“JLS—In some states they have dogs registered to vote; Calif might be one of them since some of the elected politicians look and act just like dogs …no offence to dogs intended by me, of course.” i don’t know if califonria allows dogs to vote (mine are quite silent on the subject), but i do know wild old iowa has allowed gay marriage since 2009. so maybe all the homosexuals in san francisco will move to iowa which is open to marrying them?

Posted Friday, June 22, 2012 4:18 PM By David 
I am a bit skeptical of articles, too many put their politics over their faith and shoe horning a pro choice Republican into a morally acceptable choice is not past them. But this will cause me to investigate the matter more thoroughly.