Mitt Romney is running for President of the United States on a platform that is staunchly anti-abortion. He has stated (more than once) that life begins at conception and that the morning after pill and its ilk are akin to murder. So why is so much of his money tied up in companies that make these pills? Is he just one giant hypocrite?
The answer: Yes. But it is more complicated than that. Romney wants to be president so badly, it is almost sad. He is a bit like the weird girl at the middle school dance who will do anything (ANYTHING!) to dance with the most popular guy in the school. In this case, "anything" includes telling his potential voters that he believes the morning after pill is murder even when he made $600,000 in 2010 on investments heavy in pharmaceuticals. Some of these include Watson Pharmaceuticals, Johnson & Johnson, Pfizer, Mylan, and Merck.
Just Watson makes nine different forms of morning after pills. That's a lot of "murder," right?
It's not that I agree with Romney. I don't. But I do expect people to put their money where their mouth is, especially a person as smart with money as Romney and especially when dealing with something as serious as "abortive pills" (the words Romney once used to describe the morning after pill).
This is a man who has made millions of dollars over the years. This is a man who signed documents indicating that he is well-aware of every company in which he invests in 2008. In other words, Romney really does not care where his money is coming from as long as it is rolling in.
In that, we have the crux of who Romney is. His desperation for money and power are palpable and the two sometimes can't co-exist.
Personally, I would rather vote for 10 presidents who do things I don't agree with but are honest about who they are than a single one who is a con artist. And that is what Romney is. He is a con artist in the truest sense. He wants to con the American voter out of their ballot and he will say anything to get it.
I don't agree with being anti-choice (and I question whether Romney even really is), but if he had integrity, I could at least respect it. As of now, it seems Romney cares more about money than his feelings about the unborn. Is that really the kind of person we want running the country?
Which is it, dear Romney? Are you pro-choice, anti-choice, or none of the above? Is your real position that you want whatever will give you the highest return on your financial investment and pave that desired road toward the White House? The man has zero integrity and one needs only to follow his money to see it.
Do you find this hypocritical?
Image via Gage Skidmore/Flickr
Do People Who Have Kids Deserve Special Treatment?
Controversy: Gwen Stefani Bleaches Her Son's Hair
A '50 Shades of Grey' Shortcut for Busy Moms
Latest on Baby in Washing Machine Case (VIDEO)
Are People Who Eat Organic Judgy & Mean?
A Dad's Perspective on Playdates
Bagged Salad Recall Sparks New Fears
Help Dying 4-Year-Old Fulfill His Bucket List (VIDEO)
Melissa McCarthy & Sandra Bullock's Buddy Cop Movie
Do Working Moms Have It Easy?
Your Morning Coffee Could Save Your Life
Join the Fight Against Toxic Kids' Products
8 Summery Sweet Popsicles You Can Make at Home
Guy Gets Chest Waxed on National TV (VIDEO)
14 Ways to Be a Happier Mom
Emma Lives with Severe Food Allergies
How to Pack a No-Waste Lunch
Memorial Day Survival Guide
Backstage at Mamma Mia! with Irene Bunis

Comments (12)
Romney's investments are in a blind trust, so he's not in control of where his profits come from, so this doesn't make him a hypocrite, or a con artist. And, since you probably know that, I'm pretty sure you're the one trying to run a con. Nice try, though.
Then what do you make of his claim that he knows exactly where all his investments lie?
If I had strong convictions about something, I would be making damn sure my money wasn't going into it.
"He's not in control of where his profits come from?" Of course he is! It's his money, therefore he has the control -- "blind" trust or not. I lived in Boston when he was govenor. He ran as a pro choice candidate, and maintained that stance throughout his 6-year term. I remember his pro chioce "pitch" clearly -- he said he had an aunt who had died as a result of a "back alley abortion." As a result, he said he believed in maintaining the status quo. Actually, what he believed -- correctly, at that -- was that he wouldn't get elected govenor of MA as a pro-life mormon. Less than 10 years later, here he his professing to be "Pro-Life," stating that a pill that PREVENTS contracteption is akin to murder, and supporting anything but the status quo. Vote for him if you like, but let's not pretend Romney is anything but inconsistent... and in many people's eyes -- a hypocrite.
So, you are saying that he shouldn't invest in any pharmaceutical companies whatsoever because they *might* make birth control pills, and that makes him a hypocrite? That is asinine. Those pharma companies make life-saving cancer medications, too. So if he chooses NOT to invest in them, then he wants cancer patients to die, right?
Romney is not my choice, but I think this is really reaching on your part.
Oh, and further....
"Personally, I would rather vote for 10 presidents who do things I don't agree with but are honest about who they are than a single one who is a con artist."
So that means you're not voting for Obama, either, right? Because he's about the biggest con artist out there.
It's not a matter of "might" make morning after pills. At least one company that he rakes in money from *does* make them.
I'm sorry but if his moral stance against them is so strong, then he should not be making money from their manufacture.