This Site

Entire Web




Home > Issues > Mitt Romney's Two Faces

Mitt Romney's Two Faces
by Daniel Newby, July 25, 2007
(New content added on 8/21/2007)

Click on picture to enlarge.

"Whenever a person affiliates with an organization that commands its adherents to believe that some people inherently have more rights than others, we should be alarmed. This alone constitutes sufficient grounds to distrust that candidate's ability to represent our interests and to protect the rights of the Sovereign Man."

Summary: Voters question Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney on two fronts: (1) his flip-flopping on issues such as abortion, and (2) whether his affiliation with The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (Mormons) affects his ability to put America's interests first. This article demonstrates why both of these concerns are valid, and why Romney is unfit for any public office.

(1 page .pdf)


1. Romney's 2006 Abortion Expansion

2. Being "Subject to Kings"

    Rejecting the American Revolution

    What Should We Reasonably Expect Today?

3. Infallibility Under A Different Banner

    Absolute Obedience to Church

    Absolute Obedience to Prophet

    Wrong Equals Right

    Religious Thought Crimes

    Formula for Disaster

4. Conspiring to Weaken Freedom

    Most Favored Nation Status for China

    Mormon Leaders Schmooze East German Dictator (Added 8/14/07)

    Back Door for Illegal Aliens

    Thought Crimes, Gun Control, & Political Appointments

    Federal HHS Director Michael Leavitt

    Utah Governor Jon Huntsman, Jr.

5. Problems Not Unique to Romney

Appendix 1: Romney on Gun Control & Taxes

    He Likes Guns, He Likes Them Not...

    Taxes that Sound Better

Appendix 2: Mormon Territorial Legislature Enacts Slavery (Added 7/28/07)

Appendix 3: Details of Romney's Abortion Expansion (Added 8/21/07)

    Taxpayer-Funded Abortions Before the Plan

    Increased Access to Taxpayer-Funded Abortions

    Increased Taxpayer-Funding Toward Abortions



1. Romney's 2006 Abortion Expansion

Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney recently stated that:

"I am pro-life… In my 1994 debate with Senator Kennedy he said that I was 'multiple choice' for which he got a good laugh because I would not say I was pro-choice. I said what I would do if I were elected senator, the same thing I said when I was running for governor. As governor, I indicated that I would not change the law as it related to abortion. I would keep it the same. I have had roughly four provisions that have reached my desk which would have changed the laws as they relate to abortion, all of which would have expanded abortion rights. I vetoed each of those. My record as governor has been very clearly a pro-life record."
Source: "A Mormon in the White House?" Hugh Hewitt, p.110 Mar 12, 2007

Let's examine these claims. In 2006, Romney signed a socialized health care bill that established universal health care coverage. Included was a "Payment Policy Advisory Board" that includes:

"1 member appointed by Planned Parenthood League of Massachusetts".
Source: "Chapter 58 of the Acts of 2006: AN ACT PROVIDING ACCESS TO AFFORDABLE, QUALITY, ACCOUNTABLE HEALTH CARE," Section 16M (a).

More significantly, the bill vastly expanded taxpayer funding of abortions. As described by Community Resources, Inc., an IRS 501(c)(3) tax-exempt organization in Massachusetts:

"Commonwealth Care is a health insurance program for low and moderate-income Massachusetts residents who don't have health insurance. Commonwealth Care members get free or low cost health services through managed care health plans. There are several health plans to choose from. The plans are offered by private health insurance companies.

"Commonwealth Care is run by the Commonwealth Health Insurance Connector Authority and funded by the state. The Connector Authority was created as part of the Health Care Reform Act of 2006. The Connector helps Massachusetts residents and businesses find and pay for health insurance… All Commonwealth Care health plans include: outpatient medical care (doctor's visits, surgery, radiology and lab, abortion, community health center visits)[;]… wellness care (family planning, nutrition, prenatal and nurse midwife)"
Source:, under the heading, "Commonwealth Care," bold added.

First, let's start with the less obvious phrase: "family planning." This is a celebrated, backdoor term for all sorts of contraception methods, including abortifacent birth control pills such as the RU-486. What makes this particularly duplicitous is that Romney vetoed such taxpayer-funded contraception for rape victims in 2005, and continues to brag about it. In 2006, however, he signed a bill that offers abortifacents to the masses — and forces taxpayers to pay for it.
Source: Associated Press on,, Jul 27, 2005.

Next, consider that, no matter what Commonwealth Care program participants might choose, it includes abortion coverage. How is this not an expansion — even a vast expansion — of abortion in Massachusetts?  Perhaps someone should stand up at the Romney campaign's next "Ask Mitt Anything" event and inquire.

In response, the Romney campaign might claim that the federal Medicaid program requires that abortions be funded by taxpayer dollars; therefore they were forced to expand abortion services in order to pass universal, socialized health care (and continue to participate in the Medicaid program).  That would not be valid.  For information on actual Medicaid funding restrictions, see Appendix 3: Details of Romney's Abortion Expansion.

It is important to note that voters of the State of Colorado outlawed all direct and indirect public funding of abortions in 1984. The courts later required them to allow abortion funding in cases of rape or incest in order to continue to participate in the Medicaid program, but this has been the only court restriction upheld against that 1984 law. Learn more.

Why, then, did Romney's "pro-life" personality fail to pursue an end to federally-mandated requirement for taxpayers to fund frivolous abortions? He had an entire gubernatorial career at his disposal to push Massachusetts to follow Colorado's suit.  At the very least, he could have pressured the federal government to allow states more latitude to freely decide abortion policies, which he has previously expressed support for.  The answer is that Romney's "pro-choice" personality dominated his actions as long as he was operating in pro-choice Massachusetts.
Note: Were the above analysis of Colorado's taxpayer-funded abortion ban wrong (which it is not), Romney could have pressed the federal government to change its Medicaid abortion mandates. He could have even solicited support from his federal Health and Human Services Director, Michael O. Leavitt, a fellow Mormon who served as Utah Governor during Romney's 2002 Salt Lake City Olympics shindig. We will later touch on Leavitt's duplicitous nature as well, as part of a broader argument. For more information on Romney's abortion quotes, see

Romney might retort that:

"I've always been personally pro-life, but for me, it was a great question about whether or not government should intrude in that decision. And when I ran for office, I said I'd protect the law as it was, which is effectively a pro-choice position."
Source: Mitt Romney, 2007 GOP primary debate, at the Reagan library, hosted by MSNBC, May 3, 2007. See

Well, which is it? Was Romney a pro-life governor with a "pro-life record," or a protector of the "pro-choice" position? More importantly, what does this portend regarding Romney's character and future political behavior?

For more information on this much-touted 2006 universal health care plan, see Appendix 3: Details of Romney's Abortion Expansion.

Note: Abortion is one of many issues that demonstrate Romney's lack of character.  The Appendix 1 below provides additional research on Romney's recent pandering to the self-defense lobby, contrasted with his support of gun control initiatives, and his claim to have not raised taxes, contrasted with his record of increasing hundreds of "fees" (which is official-speak lingo for taxes).


2. Being "Subject to Kings"

King George III, an advocate for the "divine right of kings."

Now that we have addressed Romney's gymnastic ability to waffle, let's discuss the more sensitive criticism: his allegiance to the Mormon Church. Is the Mormon Church benign and harmless? Or are there facets of Romney's belief system, and relationships within that belief system, that constitute cause for alarm?

Let us begin with the belief system. The Mormon 12th Article of Faith, purportedly written by founder and organizational prophet, Joseph Smith, is contained alongside the Book of Mormon, Doctrine and Coventants, Pearl of Great Price, and Bible in their canonized scriptures. It states:

"We believe in being subject to kings, presidents, rulers, and magistrates, in obeying, honoring, and sustaining the law."

Being "subject to kings" is not a new concept, and, in ages past, went hand-in-glove with the "divine right of kings" philosophy. According to Judeo-Christian tradition, Deity periodically endowed certain mortals and their posterity with authority and power to rule over other mortals. Moreover, those who were not "chosen" by Deity to rule were obligated to serve as slaves to these mortals.
Sources: "But I have chosen Jerusalem, that my name might be there; and have chosen David to be over my people Israel." — 2 Chronicles 6:6, Old Testament; "Then thou spakest in vision to thy holy one, and saidst, I have laid help upon one that is mighty; I have exalted one chosen out of the people." — Psalms 89:19, Old Testament; "I EXHORT therefore, that, first of all, supplications, prayers, intercessions, and giving of thanks, be made for all men; For kings, and for all that are in authority; that we may lead a quiet and peaceable life in all godliness and honesty." — 1 Timothy 2:1-2, New Testament; "PUT them in mind to be subject to principalities and powers, to obey magistrates, to be ready to every good work…" — Titus 3:1, New Testament; "Submit yourselves to every ordinance of man for the Lord's sake: whether it be to the king, as supreme; Or unto governors, as unto them that are sent by him for the punishment of evildoers, and for the praise of them that do well." — 1 Peter 2:13-14, New Testament

Astonishingly, the Mormon Doctrine & Covenants further asserts that:

"We believe it just to preach the gospel to the nations of the earth, and warn the righteous to save themselves from the corruption of the world; but we do not believe it right to interfere with bond-servants, neither preach the gospel to, nor baptize them contrary to the will and wish of their masters, nor to meddle with or influence them in the least to cause them to be dissatisfied with their situations in this life, thereby jeopardizing the lives of men; such interference we believe to be unlawful and unjust, and dangerous to the peace of every government allowing human beings to be held in servitude."
Source: Doctrine & Covenants, Section 134, Verse 12.

Is it unlawful and unjust to disturb governments that hold other human beings in slavery and bondage? What if the soldiers and people of France had followed Mormon doctrine and had refused to support the American Revolution for fear of disturbing the "…peace of every government allowing human beings to be held in servitude"? American Mormons would likely not have the freedom to worship today were it not for those meddling Frenchmen.


Rejecting the American Revolution

Over 200 years ago, many Americans began to see through the fog of this philosophy and assert their self-evident freedom against their oppressors. They came to detest the notion of being "subject to kings" so completely, they bled and died in a revolutionary upheaval. Their Declaration of Independence in 1776 shook the halls of kings and tyrants throughout the world with a bold, new way of viewing the individual and his, or her, relationship to Deity:

"We hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal and endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights..."

These words, and the conflict that followed, was the opening salvo in leveling the haughty status enjoyed by pompous monarchs for many hundreds of years. In one explosion of Enlightenment, our ancestors set all men back upon equal grounds; giving them equal say — as individual sovereigns — in the agreements that comprise a government. The idea of the worth of the individual swept the nation until revolutionary firebrand, Thomas Paine, explained in his publication, Rights of Man:

"If I ask a man in America, if he wants a King? he retorts, and asks me if I take him for an ideot?"

Americans fought to free man from subjection to any mortal, be he a king, president, ruler, or magistrate. This nation was originally founded to subject our government to us:

"Those who are not in the representation, know as much of the nature of business as those who are… Every man is a proprietor in government, and considers it a necessary part of his business to understand. It concerns his interest, because it affects his property. He examines the cost, and compares it with the advantages; and above all, he does not adopt the slavish custom of following what in other governments are called LEADERS…"
Source: Thomas Paine, Rights of Man.

In an article by the watchdog group, Accountability Utah, "How Citizens Enable Political Corruption," this way of viewing government is further described:

"Representative government is unique in that certain individuals are elected to represent the interests of constituents. Elected officials surrender their equal status to a degree, and assume the role of servants and subordinates — literally 'at will employees' for those who selected them.

"The sovereign citizen, having other responsibilities to attend to, directs his elected servant to represent his interests and to perform the administrative functions required to protect his inalienable rights. The sovereign citizen does not surrender his power or status to the politician, any more than the trustee of a company surrenders power or status to his subordinate employee."

Unfortunately, while Mormon leaders have periodically rendered lip service to the virtues of the American Revolution, their core doctrine contradicts the very essence of revolution by commanding men to be slaves, and by supporting governments that practice slavery. Their doctrine rejects the self-evident truth that all men are created equal and are in nowise subject to the oppression of kings and other forms of tyranny.

This begs the question: How can freedom be important enough to Mormons for their non-Mormon American ancestors to have fought and won it for them, but not important enough to actively resist kings and tyrants in other countries?

How would Mormons have behaved had they existed during the Revolutionary War? Would they have participated on the side of the revolutionaries? Or would they have preached their doctrine of "being subject to kings" as did the Quakers and other pro-British religious sects? How would the Mormon-owned and –operated Deseret News, for instance, have responded to the freedom fighters who resisted gun confiscators in Lexington and Concord, or to the sufferings of the rebel army in Valley Forge?


What Should We Reasonably Expect Today?

The infinitely more important question, of course, is where Mormon allegiances lie today. Are they at all inclined to "buck the system"? Would they ever disobey an unjust statute? Would they ever rebel against the corporations and individuals who have corrupted our institutions of government? Or are they inclined to be subjects, to go along and get along, regardless of the cost to the freedoms of their fellow man?

Unfortunately, Mormon scriptural commands reflect not only the "divine right of kings" doctrine, but the belief that such kings make only divine laws. In a revelation from the Mormon Deity:

"Let no man break the laws of the land, for he that keepeth the laws of God hath no need to break the laws of the land. Wherefore, be subject to the powers that be, until he reigns whose right it is to reign, and subdues all enemies under his feet."
Source: Mormon Doctrine & Covenants, Section 58, Verses 21-22.

Oh, really? Then abolitionists living at the time this section was written (1831) were apparently not in line with the laws of God to hide slaves from their masters (see "Appendix 2: Mormon Territorial Legislature Enacts Slavery"). According to Romney's scriptures, any civil disobedience conducted during the civil rights era, or in our day for that matter, are offenses against Deity. The moral ramifications of such presumptions, if followed, would reverse the entire progress of man since the Dark Ages.


3. Infallibility Under A Different Banner

Emperor Napoleon Bonaparte, an advocate for the "divine right of kings."

In addition to core Mormon doctrines, does Romney have potential relationships within the Mormon Church that might negatively influence his ability to function with integrity? Specifically, are there those within the Mormon Church leadership who are likely to attempt to exert their influence over Romney? Most importantly, how is Romney likely to respond to those exertions?

Some might reject this line of discussion on the basis that we can merely speculate without relevant facts. Therefore, we will first consider how faithful, active Mormons, which Romney claims to be, are expected to view their own organization and religious leaders.


Absolute Obedience to Church

Current Mormon president and organizational prophet, Gordon B. Hinckley, stated in an official Mormon Conference:

"The strength of this cause and kingdom is not found in its temporal assets, impressive as they may be. Faith underlies loyalty to the Church."
Source: "The Miracle of Faith," Ensign, May 2001, bold added.

"Now, brothers and sisters, let us go forth from this conference with a stronger resolve to live the gospel, to be more faithful, to be better fathers and mothers and sons and daughters, to be absolutely loyal to one another as families, and absolutely loyal to the Church as members."
Source: "Good-bye for Another Season," Ensign, May 2001, bold added.

The April 2002 Mormon General Conference provides another example:

"One of the sneaky ploys of the adversary is to have us believe that unquestioning obedience to the principles and commandments of God is blind obedience. His goal is to have us believe that we should be following our own worldly ways and selfish ambitions. This he does by persuading us that 'blindly' following the prophets and obeying the commandments is not thinking for ourselves. He teaches that it is not intelligent to do something just because we are told to do so by a living prophet or by prophets who speak to us from the scriptures.

"Our unquestioning obedience to the Lord's commandments is not blind obedience. President Boyd K. Packer in the April conference of 1983 taught us about this: 'Latter-day Saints are not obedient because they are compelled to be obedient. They are obedient because they know certain spiritual truths and have decided, as an expression of their own individual agency, to obey the commandments of God.... We are not obedient because we are blind, we are obedient because we can see.'"
Source: organizational apostle Boyd K. Packer, "Agency and Control," Ensign, May 1983, 66.


Absolute Obedience to Prophet

What is required to be absolutely loyal to an organization? From many other teachings of various prominent Mormon leaders, it appears the same subjection that is required to serve a king. One must surrender his conscience and place all hopes and trust upon certain mortals.

Wilford Woodruff, the third President of the Mormon Church, stated, for instance, that:

"The Lord will never permit me or any other man who stands as President of this Church to lead you astray. It is not in the programme. It is not in the mind of God. If I were to attempt that, the Lord would remove me out of my place, and so He will any other man who attempts to lead the children of men astray from the oracles of God and from their duty."
Source: Excerpts from Three Addresses by President Wilford Woodruff Regarding the Manifesto, Doctrine & Covenants, under Declaration 1.

This counsel continued into the 1990s:

"There is a question that each of us must deal with in a most solemn and serious way if our lives are to be what the Father of us all would have them be: 'What is our response when the living prophets declare the mind and the will of the Lord?' This is the test of mankind in every dispensation.

"I sat in this tabernacle some years ago as President Joseph Fielding Smith stood at this pulpit. It was the general priesthood meeting of April 1972, the last general conference before President Smith passed away. He said: 'There is one thing which we should have exceedingly clear in our minds. Neither the President of the Church, nor the First Presidency, nor the united voice of the First Presidency and the Twelve will ever lead the Saints astray or send forth counsel to the world that is contrary to the mind and will of the Lord.'"
Source: "The Revelations of Heaven," Elder L. Aldin Porter of the Presidency of the First Quorum of Seventies, Ensign, Nov. 1994, p. 63.  The quote by Smith was in Conference Report for April 1972, p. 99.

Here is another quote:

"Follow your leaders who have been duly ordained and have been publicly sustained, and you will not be led astray."
Source: "To Be Learned Is Good If…" organizational apostle Boyd K. Packer, Sunday Afternoon Session, 4 October 1992, found in General Conference, October 1992; Ensign, November 1992.

And the wordplay from a Mormon Conference in 2002:

"We might call this 'faith obedience.' With faith, Abraham was obedient in preparing Isaac for sacrifice; with faith, Nephi was obedient in obtaining the brass plates; with faith, a little child obediently jumps from a height into the strong arms of his father. 'Faith obedience' is a matter of trust. The question is simple: Do we trust our Heavenly Father? Do we trust our prophets?"
Source: Elder R. Conrad Schultz, "Faith Obedience," April 2002 General Conference Report, Ensign.


Wrong Equals Right

And what happens if a Mormon prophet were to ask a Mormon to do something immoral?  Mormon president Ezra Taft Benson explained this scenario in a blunt and frightening manner:

"President Marion G. Romney tells of this incident, which happened to him: I remember years ago when I was a Bishop I had President [Heber J.] Grant talk to our ward. After the meeting I drove him home... Standing by me, he put his arm over my shoulder and said: 'My boy, you always keep your eye on the President of the Church, and if he ever tells you to do anything, and it is wrong, and you do it, the Lord will bless you for it.' Then with a twinkle in his eye, he said, 'But you don't need to worry. The Lord will never let his mouthpiece lead the people astray.'"
Source: Elder Ezra Taft Benson, "Fourteen Fundamentals in Following a Prophet," given at the Marriott Center at Brigham Young University, February 6, 1980; see also Ensign Conference Report, October 1960, p. 78, bold added.

And, Heber C. Kimball, an organizational apostle in the early Mormon Church, likewise taught:

"In regard to our situation and circumstances in these valleys, brethren WAKE UP! WAKE UP, YE ELDERS OF ISRAEL, AND LIVE TO GOD and none else; and learn to do as you are told, both old and young: learn to do as you are told for the future, And when you are taking a position, if you do not know that you are right, do not take it [—] I mean independently. But if you are told by your leader to do a thing, do it. None of your business whether it is right or wrong... you and I want to live our religion and do as we are told, not questioning a word for a moment. You have got to stop that. It is enough for others to do that, without our meddling with those things. I am speaking to the Elders of Israel."
Source: Heber C. Kimball, Journal of Discourses, vol. 3, pp. 32-33, bold added.


Religious Thought Crimes

Under this can-do-no-wrong doctrine, all contrary thoughts and opinions are evil, and grounds for losing one's eternal salvation. The Mormon-owned and -operated Deseret News newspaper and Improvement Era magazine relayed the following warning:

"NO Latter-day Saint is compelled to sustain the General Authorities of the Church. When given the opportunity to vote on the proposition in any of the several conferences held throughout the Church, he may indicate his willingness to sustain them by raising his right hand; he may manifest his opposition in like manner; or he may ignore the opportunity entirely. There is no element of coercion or force in this or any other Church procedure.

"However, there is the principle of honor involved in the member's choice. When a person raises his hand to sustain Church leaders as 'prophets, seers, and revelators,' it is the same as a promise and a covenant to follow their leadership and to abide by their counsel as the living oracles of God. Consequently, any subsequent act or word of mouth which is at variance with the will of the Lord as taught by the leaders of the Church places the sincerity of such person in serious doubt. One could scarcely have claim upon complete integrity, if he raises his hand to sustain the Authorities of the Church and then proceeds in opposition to their counsel.

"Any Latter-day Saint who denounces or opposes, whether actively or otherwise, any plan or doctrine advocated by the 'prophets, seers, and revelators' of the Church is cultivating the spirit of apostasy. One cannot speak evil of the Lord's anointed and retain the Holy Spirit in his heart...

"When our leaders speak, the thinking has been done. When they propose a plan it is God's plan. When they point the way, there is no other which is safe. When they give direction, it should mark the end of controversy. God works in no other way. To think otherwise, without immediate repentance, may cost one his faith, may destroy his testimony, and leave him a stranger to the kingdom of God.

"It should be remembered that Lucifer has a very cunning way of convincing unsuspecting souls that the General Authorities of the Church are as likely to be wrong as they are to be right. This sort of game is Satan's favorite pastime, and he has practiced it on believing souls since Adam. He wins a great victory when he can get members of the Church to speak against their leaders and to 'do their own thinking.' He specializes in suggesting that our leaders are in error while he plays the blinding rays of apostasy in the eyes of those whom he thus beguiles. What cunning! And to think that some of our members are deceived by this trickery."
Source: Ward Teachers Message, Deseret News, Church Section p. 5, May 26, 1945; also included in the Improvement Era, June 1945, bold added.


Formula for Disaster

During the Dark Ages, notions like "unquestioning obedience," "faith obedience," being blessed by God even when doing wrong, and, "When our leaders speak, the thinking has been done," were associated with the "doctrine of infallibility." In essence, God granted special power to certain men to never significantly lead His people astray from His religious directives and purposes.

The "doctrine of infallibility" worked in tandem with the "divine right" for certain men (i.e. the infallible ones) to rule over the people. These twin demons became the trademarks of all oppressive religions and governments.

Applied to our day, if Mitt Romney, or any other Mormon candidate or politician, believes that Mormon leaders are inspired teachers of God, what might that say about their potential character as political office holders? How will they view their status as compared with the people who elected them, for instance? Is it reasonable to assume that they will suddenly reject the influence of their religious leaders? Can they be trusted to represent the affairs of non-Mormons?

If a Mormon political candidate only believed half-heartedly in his religion, then perhaps the concerns expressed above could be overlooked. The Catholic Church, for example, likewise teaches the doctrine of the Pope's infallibility. Yet most Catholics will prefer to follow their own beliefs when the Pope "pontificates" something they don't agree with.

Of course, half-hearted religious adherence highlights other valid concerns, such as whether such a person will be half-hearted with regard to important political matters. It is unknown whether Mitt Romney is half-hearted with regard to his religious beliefs, but we have established that he is less-than-stellar on political issues that literally mean life and death for other human beings.

There is a crucial difference between the Mormon and Catholic cultures, however. Catholics need only attend Mass a couple times a year to be saved in decent heavenly standing. In order for a Mormon to be an "active member" and "in good standing" with God, however, he or she must, among other requirements:

  • Make a sincere effort to faithfully and consistently attend church services;

  • Pay at least ten percent of his/her gross or net income to the church; and

  • Privately and publicly sustain Mormon leaders as "prophets, seers, and revelators."
    Note: The question asked during periodic temple recommend interviews for faithful Mormons is the following: "Do you sustain the President of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints as the Prophet, Seer, and Revelator and as the only person on the earth who possesses and is authorized to exercise all priesthood keys? Do you sustain members of the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles as prophets, seers, and revelators? Do you sustain the other General Authorities and local authorities of the Church?"


4. Conspiring to Weaken Freedom

King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia, an advocate for the "divine right of kings."

One typical rationalization Mormons give for their support of governmental tyranny is that the Mormon Church must walk a fine political line in order to be able to do missionary work, or even exist, globally. In other words, in order to proselyte and expand, the Mormon Church must appear very neutral with regards to the dictates of tyrannical governments.

This rationalization presupposes the notion that other Mormon teachings somehow compensate for teaching people to be subservient to oppression. It also supposes that Mormon Church neutrality is consistent, which supposition we will now confront and refute from an American perspective. Consider the following examples.


Most Favored Nation Status for China

In order to increase their influence and opportunity for growth in other countries, Mormon leaders use their political and corporate influence in America to undermine our moral ideals and national sovereignty.

During the debates over whether the U.S. government should grant permanent Most Favored Nation Status to China, a horrific abuser of human rights, Mormon Seventy Donald L. Staheli, lobbied and pressured Mormon congressmen to vote in China's favor.

When Staheli's activities were leaked to the press, Mormon church officials claimed ignorance. This plausible deniability is a key component in the Mormon Church's efforts to maintain an air of neutrality (or indifference). See "Sidestepping Accountability via Corporate Affiliates," of the article, "Identifying Political Popery: A Decade of Reflection".

Staheli had unique qualifications to involve himself in this issue. The Mormon magazine, the Ensign, glowingly portrayed him:

"In 1977 he moved to New Canaan, Connecticut, to accept a position as executive vice president and director with Continental Grain Co., a large, private multinational agribusiness and financial services firm headquartered in New York City. In 1984 he became president and chief operating officer and in 1988 was named CEO, eventually becoming chairman of the board. He has served on several corporate boards.

"He is currently chairman of the U.S.-China Business Council and a director of the National Committee on U.S.-China Relations and the U.S.-China Society. He served as chairman of an international business leaders advisory council for the mayor of Shanghai. He is a member of the council on foreign relations and is chairman of the Points of Light Foundation, a national organization that encourages volunteer activities."
Source: "News of the Church," Ensign, May 1997, p. 107. In the Advanced Search, type "Donald Staheli council foreign relations points light".
Note: The Continental Grain Co. mentioned is known by many farmers as the monopolistic, global grain cartel that has crushed many independent small farming ventures. The Council on Foreign Relations mentioned is an organization dedicated to destroying the national sovereignty of all nations, including America.  Staheli possessed the Chinese and globalist experience required to pressure LDS congressman to support tariffs that favor China over all other nations.

Was Staheli disciplined or shunned after his supposedly-unsanctioned efforts to reward communist China with exclusive trade tariff breaks were revealed? Hardly. The Mormon-owned and -operated Brigham Young University now proudly offers a Donald L. Staheli award at the Marriott School of BYU. Should Americans feel comfortable that a college on American soil emulates a politician like Staheli?


Mormon Leaders Schmooze East German Dictator

Mormon leaders also directly undermine freedom efforts in other countries.  In October 1988, more than a year before the collapse of the Berlin Wall (the following November), and during the Cold War, Mormon organizational apostle and Second Counselor in the First Presidency, Thomas Monson, organizational apostle Russell Nelson, First Quorum of the Seventy member and counselor in the Europe Area presidency, Hans Ringger, and other local Mormon officers, held meetings with Chairman Erich Honecker and other state officials of East Germany.

Current Mormon president Gordon Hinckley described Erich Honecker at the funeral of former president Ezra Benson, after praising Benson's staunch opposition to communism:

"I cannot imagine two men [Honecker and Benson] so different in the causes they espoused, in what they did for mankind, and in the philosophies by which they guided their lives.

"Erich Honecker was the iron-fisted communist ruler of East Germany, the feared and despised builder of the Berlin Wall, the practitioner of the godless dogma of oppression and slavery to the state. He died a refugee from his native land. He was able to leave his country and thus escape prosecution and possible execution because of the serious condition of his health.

"On the other hand, Ezra Taft Benson was the fearless and outspoken enemy of communism, a man who with eloquence and conviction preached the cause of human freedom, one who loved and worshipped the Prince of Peace, the Redeemer of mankind. He died in the love of people across the world, a man respected and reverenced, a man for whose well-being millions constantly prayed."
Source: "Farewell to a Prophet," Gordon B. Hinckley, Ensign, July 1994, p. 39.

It is significant to note that, at the time of the Mormon meetings with Honecker in 1988, Benson was the president of the Mormon Church (his term running from 1985 to his death in 1994). Hinckley was then an organizational apostle and Benson's First Counselor in the First Presidency. And Monson was Benson's Second Counselor in the First Presidency.

During the meeting, the Mormon Ensign reported on East German state secretary for Religious Affairs, Kurt Loeffler, as follows:

"Mr. Loeffler said that Latter-day Saints [i.e. Mormons] in the DDR have the government's respect because they are law-abiding, loyal citizens who believe in strong families, have a strong work ethic, and desire world peace."
Source: "German Democratic Republic to Welcome Missionary Work," Ensign, Jan. 1989, pp. 74–75.

Loeffler believed Mormons are "law-abiding, loyal citizens" to a communist dictatorship? And the Mormon Ensign reports this as though it were a compliment?

Years later, Monson stated in a Mormon Conference that he told Honecker the following:

"We would like to tell them that we believe in honoring and obeying and sustaining the law of the land."
Source: "Thanks Be to God," Thomas Monson, Second Counselor in the First Presidency, Ensign, May 1989, p. 50 (talk given in Sunday Session).

Honecker apparently replied:

"We know you. We trust you. We have had experience with you. Your missionary request is approved."
Source: ibid.

Mormons believe in "honoring and obeying and sustaining the law of the land" where people are imprisoned and tortured for speaking out against oppression, attempting to leave the country, etc.? Honecker, a murdering dictator, whose ruthless regime oversaw the terrorization of millions of innocent Germans, trusted the Mormons?

What did this message say to the thousands of East Germans who courageously defied Honecker's rule of terror and immoral statutes and dictates. It is an insult to all that they fought and suffered for.

Thankfully, most East Germans were not faithful Mormons and refused to be "subject to kings," or the Berlin Wall might still be standing today.  It took mass demonstrations by law-breaking, disloyal patriots to pressure Honecker to resign and to tear down that wall.

On a personal note, I had relatives on both sides of the Berlin Wall. I remember visiting the wall on many occasions, and seeing spray-painted marks on the wall supposedly representing an East German freedom-lover who had attempted to cross the wall and escape, but had been killed by Honecker's regime.

Any organization that commands human beings to be subject and loyal to injustice is dangerous to the future of freedom.


Back Door for Illegal Aliens

Immigration reformer, Congressman Tom Tancredo, more recently exposed a plot by Mormon Church paid lobbyists and Mormon Senator Bob Bennett to worm a provision into an unrelated agricultural bill that allows religious leaders to escape liability from harboring — whether knowingly or unknowingly — illegal aliens. Rather than rehash the details, see "Religious Operatives Conspiring with Politicians," as part of the article, "Identifying Political Popery: A Decade of Reflection".


Thought Crimes, Gun Control, & Political Appointments

Mormon Church leadership cleverly flexes its muscle in local politics as well. Addendum 1 and Addendum 2 of the above cited article discuss the Mormon Church's not-so-behind-the-scenes efforts to enact thought crimes legislation and gun control via the Mormon-dominated Utah legislature and press.

Consistent with the experiences documented in these addenda, a non-Mormon television news station recently revealed that:

"According to several well placed sources, the LDS Church is advising Governor Jon Huntsman [Jr.] on the appointment of state liquor commissioners. These sources tell ABC 4 News that the Church has suggested several names to the Governor and one of those has been appointed. The State Liquor Commission is made up of five members all appointed by the Governor. Among other things, these commissioners oversee state liquor stores, private clubs and alcohol enforcement. The LDS Church declined to comment on this matter."
Source: "LDS Church advises Governor on liquor commission appointments," Chris Vanocur, ABC 4, July 19, 2007.


Federal HHS Director Michael Leavitt

Mormon politicians also receive public endorsements from Mormon Leadership when they do damage to American freedom. Rejecting any political neutrality theory, Church president and organizational prophet Gordon B. Hinckley publicly lauded the former Utah governor (and Mormon), Michael O. Leavitt, on more than one occasion. For example:

"Well, the governor is a native of Utah, young man, part of the economy in the insurance business, other things, grew up there. I know his father and mother well, know him well. I regard him as a good man doing a good job."
Source: Larry King Live, "Gordon Hinckley: Distinguished Religious Leader of the Mormons," aired September 8, 1998 - 9:00 p.m. ET, bold added.

Michael O. Leavitt's era of indecency and corruption was amply documented by a local Utah watchdog organization, Accountability Utah. Among other injustices, Leavitt:

  • Aided and abetted the taxpayer-funded slaughter of unborn babies;

  • Refused to sign a pledge of support for the religious freedoms of the Falon Gong faith, who are — by the thousands — imprisoned, drugged, barbarically tortured, raped, brainwashed, and murdered by the Chinese government;

  • Promoted gun control;

  • Destroyed parental and property rights;

  • Grew government through the roof;

  • Condoned government abuse and neglect; and

  • Lied about not running for more than two terms.
    Source: "Michael O. Leavitt's Pink Slip Report," Accountability Utah.

Leavitt resigned as governor to pursue president Bush's appointment as director of the federal Health & Human Services agency. In his new position, he has failed to take any meaningful action to prevent the multi-millions in taxpayer funds the federal government annually gives out to subsidize abortions on demand.

Are these good acts that we should all emulate or appreciate? If this is a "good job," then what could possibly constitute a bad job? Despite Leavitt's abysmal record, thanks to the support of enablers like Hinckley, he remains a prominent Mormon political figure.

One typical assertion is that the Mormon church does not officially get involved in political races, and directs its members to research and prayerfully select their political leaders. This assertion falls apart under scrutiny however, based upon our previous revelations regarding the veritable infallibility of Mormon leaders. The power of even an implied endorsement of character by a leader such as Hinckley is immense under the Mormon philosophy. If the Mormon prophet thinks Leavitt, or Romney, is a good man, then perhaps "the thinking has been done."


Utah Governor Jon Huntsman, Jr.

Hinckley has also publicly praised current Utah governor and Mormon, Jon Huntsman, Jr., in the Mormon-owned and -operated Deseret News:

"King, whose wife is a member of the LDS Church, asked President Hinckley an array of questions, from life after death to how he feels about Utah Gov.-elect Jon Huntsman Jr. ('I think he's a good man,' President Hinckley said.)"
Source: "Pres. Hinckley optimistic LDS leader offers views on variety of subjects on 'Larry King Live'," Jennifer Toomer-Cook, Deseret News, 12/27/2004

Huntsman served for several years as the chair of Envision Utah, an environmental organization, funded by millions of tax dollars, that promotes unaccountable regional government and the weakening of property rights — reducing human beings to bicycles, light rail, and yard-less, cramped apartments. Huntsman does not follow the lofty goals of Envision Utah himself, as this flier demonstrates.

Huntsman's unique distinction is having the fifth-lowest score on liberty and human rights in the "2005 Legislative Performance Report" (published by the local watchdog organization Accountability Utah). In just one year, Huntsman:

  • Forced taxpayers to pay for abortions on demand;

  • Attacked innocent parents in parental rights cases;

  • Nominated a vicious, incompetent judge to the bench;

  • Expanded Soviet-style "drug courts";

  • Vetoed a bill to protect the rights of parents who refuse to subject their children to psychotropic drugs.

In summary, the Mormon Church has a track record of asserting its influence — either publicly or behind the scenes — to promote politicians and policies of the worst kind.


5. Problems Not Unique to Mitt Romney

England's Queen Elizabeth II, an advocate for the "divine right of kings" (and queens).

Do these concerns and arguments imply that no Mormon can be trusted to fill any political office? Will they all flip-flop? Are they all subject to being manipulated by the Mormon hierarchy?

Not necessarily. Some Mormons may remain consistent on some, or all, of their core political positions. Given the theological obstacles they have adopted by becoming active members in good standing, it is extremely optimistic and risky to expect them to be capable of doing so without some demonstration of character.  At the very least, we must expect them to publicly assert that many of their church's positions on government and slavery do not coincide with their personal beliefs, and to demonstrate a track record of following their convictions regardless of theological pressure to do otherwise.

It is obvious that Mitt Romney does not possess such an independent, consistent character. In assessing candidates, we would be foolish and reckless to ignore past political behavior.

There will be those who claim that not all Mormons believe in the dominant teachings expressed by the Mormon sources cited above, and are therefore immune to much (or all) of these criticisms. If they are members "in good standing," however, they must make oaths to support the expansion of the Mormon organization and must fund its policies through financial "tithes" and "offerings."

Such financial participation makes a donor fully culpable in all the political activities of the Mormon Church, and therefore the concerns described above must still apply.  If individuals ceased funding, and giving their unquestioning allegiance to, the Mormon Church, its power (and perhaps inclination) to rekindle the "divine right of kings" and the "doctrine of infallibility" would diminish.

A few will undoubtedly claim that some, or all, of the above citations were taken out of context, or in some way misinterpreted. Organized religions eagerly employ a myriad of rationalizations for every statement, fact, and scripture that might highlight the warts in their history. Let the reader judge for himself as to the meaning and context.

Some may complain that the above information is prejudiced because it singles out Mormons over other religious adherents. This complaint is valid in that the doctrines and political practices described above can apply to political candidates who profess belief in most organized religions — including Christians, Muslims, and Jews.

Nearly all organized religions proclaim, or imply, that, as George Orwell put it in Animal Farm, "All animals are equal, but some are more equal than others." They weave this doctrine under many guises, but the gist is always the same: some people are more "choice" or "special" than are others. Look and listen for loaded terms like "chosen people," "infidel," or "goyem."

Whenever a person affiliates with an organization that commands its adherents to believe that some people inherently have more rights than others, we should be alarmed. This alone constitutes sufficient grounds to distrust that candidate's ability to represent our interests and to protect the rights of the Sovereign Man.




Appendix 1: Romney on Gun Control & Taxes

Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney has also been less-than-candid about his record on gun control and taxes.  As you review the information below, ask yourself whether these kinds of representations are reasonable and worthy of your support.  You are encouraged to conduct additional research on your own, not just of Romney's track record, but of every person who desires to represent your interests.


He Likes Guns, He Likes Them Not...

In 2002, during Romney's campaign for governor, he stated:

"We do have tough gun laws in Massachusetts; I support them. I won't chip away at them; I believe they protect us and provide for our safety."
Source: "Romney vs. Romney," Scot Lehigh, The Boston Globe, January 19, 2007. Read more about Massachusetts gun laws.

Romney has repeatedly and publicly expressed his support for the 1994 federal Brady Bill, which required American citizens to, among other things, seek government permission in order to buy or sell handguns, and banned so-called "assault weapons."  This is a couched term for semi-automatic rifles (automatic rifles have long been banned or heavily regulated by federal statute) that may include features such as higher-bullet-capacity magazines, shock suppressors, and stocks with pistol grips.

Romney signed a state-version of the federal Brady Bill before it expired in 2004.  From

"[Massachusetts] State law restricts the sale of a list of semiautomatic assault weapons and their copies, based on weapons restricted by the 1994 federal assault weapon ban. State law also restricts the sale of rapid-fire ammunition magazines that hold more than 10 rounds. State law establishes a licensing system that controls who may obtain assault weapons, large capacity firearms and rapid-fire ammunition magazines...

"State law requires gun buyers to go through a state-based criminal background check to get a permit prior to buying a gun. At the time of purchasing the firearm, gun buyers go through an additional federal NICS check. This is a good system since it includes checking both state and federal records to prevent criminals and other prohibited people from buying guns."

But, oh, how tunes can change based upon the political objective!  Of late, Romney has been gallivanting to gun shows and other gun enthusiast gatherings, proclaiming his love of, and devotion for, the Second Amendment.  His public relations campaign is in full swing, as evidenced by his answer to the following question:

"Q: As governor you signed into law one of the toughest restrictions on assault weapons in the country.

"A: Let's get the record straight. First of all, there's no question that I support 2nd Amendment rights, but I also support an assault weapon ban. Look, I've been governor in a pretty tough state. You've heard of blue states. In the toughest of blue states, I made the toughest decisions and did what was right for America. I have conservative values."
Source: 2007 Republican Debate in South Carolina May 15, 2007, see

If Romney has conservative values, does this mean that conservative values incorporates the "tough gun laws in Massachusetts" that he supports and refused to "chip away" at?  Was it the color blue that rendered the governor unable to read and understand critical statutes that affect vital rights?

Romney's comprehension of the word "rights" is also indicative of our previous discussion on being "subject" to mortals and to organizations.  If we must seek government permission in order to buy or sell firearms, then owning and using firearms is not a right at all, but rather a privilege that governments grant — and therefore can take away at any time.

Contrary to government-centric proponents like Romney, we each have an inalienable right to defend ourselves.  This right is self-evident to any thinking person and existed prior to the establishment of our government.  The federal Second Amendment only reiterated that right on paper.

Were Romney a Second Amendment supporter, he would demonstrate this understanding.  He would also understand that guns are not just about sport hunting or defending ourselves from attackers (though Massachusetts statutes make that difficult to do as well).

The paramount purpose of the Second Amendment was to preserve the ability, and power, of citizens to protect themselves from governments that might become too oppressive. When British soldiers came to Lexington and Concord to confiscate weapons, the colonists did not resist them because they feared they would no longer be able to hunt for sport.  They understood that their weapons were their last means of defending themselves against the tyranny of the British government.

As we demonstrated in previous topics, however, this is something that Romney's religion would likely never condone or appreciate, and something that Romney himself does not respect.

Finally, on the lighter side of lying, consider this press report:

"Officials in the four states where Mitt Romney has lived say the Republican presidential contender, who calls himself a lifelong hunter, never took out a license. Romney says that's because he has seldom hunted where he needed one.

"Questions about his hunting activities trailed Romney this week after he remarked at a campaign stop that he has been a hunter nearly all his life. The next day, his campaign said Romney had been hunting only twice, once as a teenager in Idaho and again last year with GOP donors in Georgia.

"That was wrong, Romney said the day after that, adding that he had hunted rabbits and other small animals for many years, mainly in Utah. Hunting certain small game there doesn't require a license…

"…His staff refused Friday to provide details about his hunting history, including whose gun he used, with whom he hunted and whether he hunted in Utah as a college student or as an adult. He does not own a firearm, despite claiming to earlier this year.
Source: "Romney Shoots Self in Foot in Pandering to Gun Crowd, AP's Hunt Shows," Associated Press, April 07, 2007.

Huh? Romney has seldom hunted where he needed a hunting license?  Does this mean that he only occasionally poaches?  Is he referring to fox hunting on an elitist, private estate?  Or is this the new Republican version of Bill Clinton's, "I never inhaled"?


Taxes that Sound Better

During the May 15, 2007, Republican presidential debate, Mitt Romney made the following statement:

"I want to make it very clear that I'm not going to raise taxes. As governor of Massachusetts, I made it very clear there, and I did not raise taxes."
Source: 2007 Republican presidential nomination debate, sponsored by the Fox News Network at the University of South Carolina in Columbia, S.C., see for more information.

Let's see how clear he really is.  As Massachusetts governor, Romney signed bills raising hundreds of taxes, which brought in hundreds of millions of additional government revenues in 2003 alone.  The catch is that Romney doesn't call these additional government revenues taxes.  He refers to them as "fees."
Sources: (see "Budget Balancing" topic) and "GOP Candidates Debate, Round 2," by, May 16, 2007.

Big government politicians and bureaucrats frequently argue that government fees are not equivalent to taxes. Fortunately, their creative definitions are not yet accepted by most academic standards of proper English language usage. 

Consider the following definitions taken from The American Heritage College Dictionary, Third Edition, for example:

"Fee n. 1. A fixed sum charged, as by an institution or by law, for a privilege: tuition fees. 2. A charge for professional services: a surgeon's fee. 3. A tip; a gratuity. 4. Law. An inherited or heritable estate in land. 5.a. In feudal law, an estate in land granted by a lord to his vassal on condition of homage and service." (Bold added)

"Tax n. 1. A contribution for the support of a government required of persons, groups, or businesses within the domain of that government. 2. A fee or dues levied on the members of an organization to meet its expenses. 3. A burdensome or excessive demand; a strain." (Bold added; please note the word "fee").

Fees are taxes. Fees and taxes both raise additional funds for the operation of government. Raising a tax and calling it a "fee" is still raising taxes.  "Fees" may be appropriately referred to as "hidden taxes," because they are more difficult to recognize than more obvious taxes.  This is precisely why raising "fees" is often preferable to disingenuous, duplicitous politicians like Romney.


Appendix 2: Mormon Territorial Legislature Enacts Slavery

Mormon prophet & first Territorial Governor, Brigham Young, an advocate for the "divine right of kings."

Several persons have responded to the main article asserting that Mormons have been staunch opponents of slavery throughout their history, and were in favor of the abolition movement.

I had purposely avoided much of early Mormon history, on the basis that people, and even institutions, can change over time. I included a few early Mormon writings either because they are currently considered part of the Church's official scriptures, or because they help demonstrate the dominant historical trend with regard to current Church positions.

As this approach appears to be inadequate for some, we will consider the Mormon record on slavery during their trek West and after settling the Utah area. Quoting from the Utah State Government website:

"Slavery was legal in Utah as a result of the Compromise of 1850, which brought California into the Union as a free state while allowing Utah and New Mexico territories the option of deciding the issue by 'popular sovereignty.' Some Mormon pioneers from the South had brought African-American slaves with them when they migrated west. Some freed their slaves in Utah; others who went on to California had to emancipate them there.

"The Mormon church had no official doctrine for or against slaveholding, and leaders were ambivalent. In 1836 Joseph Smith wrote that masters should treat slaves humanely and that slaves owed their owners obedience. During his presidential campaign in 1844, however, he came out for abolition. Brigham Young tacitly supported slaveholding, declaring that although Utah was not suited for slavery the practice was ordained by God. In 1851 Apostle Orson Hyde said the church would not interfere in relations between master and slave.

"The Legislature formally sanctioned slaveholding in 1852 but cautioned against inhumane treatment and stipulated that slaves could be declared free if their masters abused them. Records document the sale of a number of slaves in Utah."
Source: "Slaver in Utah," Jeffrey D. Nichols, History Blazer, April 1995, shown at

In case it is not clear, the legislature was elected by an almost-exclusively Mormon populace.  Not mentioned in this story is that Brigham Young, the second Mormon prophet and territorial governor at the time, requested that the Mormon-dominated territorial legislature legalize slavery throughout the territory.
Source: "The Mormons and Slavery: A Closer Look," Newell G. Bringhurst, The Pacific Historical Review, Vol. 50, No. 3 (Aug., 1981), pp. 329.

Because of their actions, Utah held the unique distinction of being the only western territory that statutorily allowed blacks to be held as slaves. It was also one of few territories that allowed slavery of both blacks and Indians.
Source: "Negro Slavery in the Utah Territory," James B. Christensen, The Phylon Quarterly, Vol. 18, No. 3 (3rd Qtr., 1957), pp. 298.

On February 5, 1852, Brigham Young stated the following in a Joint Session of the territorial legislature (spelling errors included):

"I am as much oposed to the principle of slavery as any man in the present acceptation or usage of the term, it is abused. I am opposed to abuseing that which God has decreed, to take a blessing, and make a curse of it. It is a great blessing to the seed of Adam to have the seed of Cain for servants, but those they serve should use them with all the heart and feeling, as they would use their own children, and their compassion should reach over them, and round about them, and treat them as kindly, and with that humane feeling necessary to be shown to mortall beings of the human species. Under these sercumstances there blessings in life are greater in proportion than those who have to provide the bread and dinner for them
Source: Brigham Young addresses, Ms d 1234, Box 48, folder 3, dated Feb. 5, 1852, located in the LDS Church Historical Department, Salt Lake City, Utah.

A "great blessing" to "use" other human beings as slaves?  The slaves are "blessed in life" for the opportunity to be subservient to their masters?  Remember from Topic 2 that the "divine right of kings" has traditionally been accompanied by the notion that those who are not "chosen" by Deity to rule are obligated to serve as slaves to these mortals.

Here is an exchange between editor (and abolitionist proponent) Horace Greeley (HG) and Brigham Young (BY) in an interview for The New York Tribune in 1859:

HG: What is the position of your church with respect to slavery?
BY: We consider it of divine institution and not to be abolished until the curse pronounced on Ham shall have been removed from his descendants.
HG: Are there any slaves now held in this territory?
BY: There are.
HG: Do your territorial laws uphold slavery?
BY: Those laws are printed – you can read for yourself. If slaves are brought here by those who owned them in the States, we do not favor their escape from their owners.
HG: Am I to infer that Utah, if admitted as a member of the Federal Union, will be a slave state?
BY: No, she will be a free state. Slavery here would prove useless and unprofitable. I regard it generally as a curse to the master. I myself hire many laborers and pay them fair wages. I could not afford to own them. I can do better than subject myself to an obligation to feed and clothe their families, to provide and care for them in sickness and health. Utah is not adapted to slave labor.
Source: "Interview with Brigham Young," Horace Greeley, The New York Tribune, August 20, 1859.

Slavery as a "divine institution" sounds awfully close to the "divine right of kings" doesn't it?

Given this information, that some early Mormons advocated the abolishment of slavery in word, or even in deed, is interesting, but not generally persuasive. Early Mormon institutional history is full of compromises on slavery. Slavery in the Utah territory was only abolished in 1862 — by the federal government.

More importantly, current Mormon doctrines still direct individuals to be slaves, as outlined in previous topics.  With regard to candidates like Romney, voters must judge how such philosophies might affect political performance.


Appendix 3: Details of Romney's Abortion Expansion

Some have wondered whether Massachusetts' much-touted universal health care plan for Massachusetts actually increases abortion access and funding. We will discuss access and funding prior to the plan, and then after the plan was enacted.


Taxpayer-Funded Abortions Before the Plan

In 1982, the Massachusett's supreme court issued a court decision, interpreted by the federal Health & Human Services as follows:

"The State court decided its case in February 1981, finding that Massachusetts should fund all medically necessary abortions, based on the guarantee of due process in the State's constitution. (See, Mary Moe et al. v. Secretary of Administration and Finance, Mass. Adv. Sh.(1981) 464)"
Source: "GAB Decision 260: February 26, 1982 Joint Consideration - Abortion Funding."

According to the pro-choice organization, The Guttmacher Institute, Massachusetts is required by court order to fund "all or most medically necessary abortions."
Source: "State Policies in Brief," Guttmacher Institute, August 1, 2007.

"Medically-necessary" abortions have been very broadly interpreted by the Massachusett's court system, and many loopholes appear to exist that provide abortion providers and abortion-seekers much latitude in seeking state funding. Some have argued, therefore, that all, or nearly all, abortions were already being funded by taxpayers prior to Romney's universal health care bill.

In 2004, the Abortion Access Project provided the following analysis of abortion activities in Massachusetts, however:

"There is a shortage of abortion services outside of the 3 urban areas of Boston, Worcester, and Springfield, especially for low-income women. For example, women in Pittsfield who are Medicaid eligible must travel out of state or to Springfield because of the shortage of providers, let alone providers who are Medicaid eligible. Even in the urban areas, many low-income women cannot access abortion due to lack of free-care funding and long waits for the procedures at hospitals...

"HOSPITAL SERVICES: Of the 62 Massachusetts hospitals that currently have ob/gyn services, only 13 offer abortion services. Of these hospitals, only 2 have ob/gyn residency training programs and do enough abortions to train residents to competency. Of the 13 hospitals that offer abortion services, several do not allow free care funds to cover abortion…

"CLINIC SERVICES: There are currently 12 free standing health clinics that offer abortion services. Of these, only 4 accept Medicaid. None of the clinics offer sliding fee scales. The only clinics that accept Medicaid are in the 3 urban centers.

"ACCESS TO MEDICAID FUNDING: Local welfare offices have discretion in issuing Medicaid cards to eligible pregnant women that are restricted to prenatal care only. Because there are not clear uniform guidelines, Medicaid-eligible women in some parts of the state have more problems obtaining Mass Health cards that cover abortion services. Getting a Mass Health card can take 2-3 weeks, often pushing women into their second trimester."
Source: "Fact Sheet: Access to Abortion in Massachusetts," The Abortion Access Project, 2004.

In summary, though the Massachusetts state supreme court may have commanded taxpayers to pay for all "medically-necessary" abortions, many abortions were not being conducted, or paid for, by taxpayers. There was both insufficient access and insufficient funds (at the federal and state levels) to make the court's dream a reality. Both are required, whether a state government views abortion as a "constitutional right" or a mere convenience.

It is important to note that the aforementioned article does not appear to address other non-surgical abortifacents. Medications can now terminate pregnancies more than three months after conception. These abortifacents appear to be the wave of the future in terminating pregnancies. Funding and access to these abortifacents would likewise have been limited.

It may seem unnecessary to bring up this point, but some readers give too much power to the Mary Moe decision, as well as to the Massachusetts supreme court that spawned such absurd notions. It is naïve to assume that the Massachusetts legislature and governor were helpless and powerless to withstand the court's dictates.

In Massachusetts, as in other states, funding powers, and decisions, are ultimately vested in the legislature and governor. These branches hold the purse strings for the courts, as well as for other state government programs.  The power of the purse provides considerable leverage against judicial excesses of power. Courts, on the other hand, are limited in enforcing their laws and in funding such dictates — as evidenced by the fact that abortion access and funding were both lacking.

To illustrate the power of the legislative and executive branches, let's provide a hypothetical scenario.  Let's assume that Romney were, in fact, staunchly pro-life, and had vetoed, and publicly denounced, abortion and "family planning" spending. What action could the courts take against him? If, through Romney's leadership, the legislature were unable to obtain sufficient votes to override his veto, what could the courts do in response?

They could perhaps fine the state government. But what if the legislature did not then approve the funds to pay those fines? Or what if they took the fines out of the court's budget? What recourse would the court have? Would they order legislators and/or Romney to be arrested for violating their orders? Not likely.

Aside from the 2006 universal health care bill, Romney had many opportunities to resist the forced taxpayer funding of abortion. He occupied a position of enormous power, held a veto pen, and possessed vocal chords.

Regarding federal Medicaid, it is important to understand that this program does not cover every abortion for every citizen. In the 1980 Harris v. McRae, the U.S. Supreme Court upheld the "Hyde Amendment" to the Social Securities Act, which restricted Medicaid funding for abortion to cases involving danger to the life of the mother, rape, and incest. While there exists some gray area, which we will discuss later, there are obvious limitations.

Note: The rest of the aforementioned article, "GAB Decision 260: February 26, 1982 Joint Consideration - Abortion Funding," provides additional background, including Massachusett's failed attempt to force the federal Medicaid program (and thereby federal taxpayers) to foot the bill for all surgical abortions on demand.


Increased Access to Taxpayer-Funded Abortions

One public objective of the universal health care bill was to increase taxpayer-funded subsidies for abortions to additional individuals. Massachusetts Planned Parenthood, for instance, rejoiced as follows:

"Angus McQuilken, vice president for public relations and government affairs at Planned Parenthood League of Massachusetts (PPLM), also sees light at the end of the tunnel. 'One aspect of the Massachusetts plan is expansion of eligibility for MassHealth, which is our state Medicaid program,' he says. 'We have always sought to provide services to low-income women through a combination of providing services to MassHealth patients and providing a sliding scale for patients who are paying out of pocket.'"
Source: "Universal Health Care and Women," Aaron Dunn, Planned Parenthood, May 23, 2007.

Romney's own objectives were clear:

"These policies are first being offered to people who earn less than the federal poverty level -- $9,800 a year for a single person -- but do not qualify for MassHealth, the usual insurance for poor people. They are a bargain, with premiums defrayed by the state. Romney hopes to enroll 50,000 people."
Source: "Step forward on health," Boston Globe Editorial, October 3, 2006.

The phrase "premiums defrayed by the state" means "premiums defrayed by state taxpayers." Romney is talking about additional, taxpayer-induced subsidies. He is talking about expanding access (and funding) to all of the people, including those who most often seek taxpayer-funded abortion subsidies.

In the same article, Romney's allies, Brian Rossman of Health Care for All, and senator Ted Kennedy, also shared their jubilation:

"‘We're pleased,' said Brian Rossman of Health Care for All, a Boston-based consumer advocacy group. ‘They will lift the cap in the next day or two, and 10,000 people will get immediate health insurance coverage.'

"Senator Edward M. Kennedy, who worked closely with state leaders on the new health plan, said in a statement: ‘Final approval of the waiver not only allows Massachusetts to keep the Medicaid funds, but also allows us to move forward with health reform. Instead of facing health care cuts, we're well on our way to achieving our long-standing goal of health care for all.'"
Source: ibid.


Increased Taxpayer-Funding Toward Abortions

Under the universal health care bill, there are several funding routes that increase taxpayer funds toward, and access to, abortions on demand. We will discuss two of the primary routes.

First, consider the less-than-fully-insured, or the employers who have less-than-fully-insured employees, who, in order to comply with the universal bill, or help their employees comply, must now attempt to purchase insurance or additional insurance. Those who cannot afford other insurance can now purchase a state insurance plan, but each of these plans include "abortion services" and "family planning services," which includes abortifacents.

Their new or elevated participation will increase the funds available to these state insurance pools. This is a new mandate against the taxpayers, signed into effect by Romney. These additional funds can be utilized to further subsidize abortions, abortifacents, and other medical procedures involved in making abortions happen (which we will discuss in more detail later).

Second, increased federal Medicaid funding. Massachusetts received an additional $225 million in increased federal Medicaid funding as a reward for passing its universal health care bill:

"[Massachusetts] State officials said the agreement, known as a Medicaid waiver, also includes an additional $225 million annually to expand Medicaid programs for the poor."
Source: "Federal funds strengthen Mass. universal health insurance plan," Ann Marie Curling, July 27, 2006.
Additional Note: Current federal Health and Human Services Director, Michael Leavitt, was on hand for the press spectacle, and applauded both the bill and the additional federal Medicaid funding he signed into being. Leavitt is a Mormon, abortion-on-demand proponent, and former Utah governor, who rubbed shoulder-to-shoulder with Romney during the 2002 Olympic Games. Leavitt's era of indecency and corruption is discussed earlier in Topic 4: Federal HHS Director Michael Leavitt.

As we discussed previously, due to the federal Hyde Amendment, Medicaid will not directly pay for many surgical abortions. But it will pay for a host of other activities associated with abortions on demand, including:

  • Some abortifacents, again part of the "family planning" catch phrase discussed earlier. Again, abortifacents can now terminate pregnancies beyond 3 months from the time of conception.
    Source: "Does Medicaid pay for other reproductive health care?" American Civil Liberties Union.

  • Lab work and other services required to perform an abortion. This is significant because these Medicaid funds can offset other abortion costs. In other words, the insurance holder can focus personal, state, and local resources on abortion services not directly covered by Medicaid. Even if federal Medicaid funding had not dramatically increased, the additional burden placed on Massachusetts state taxpayers by the universal health care plan would have allowed more Medicaid funds to be funneled toward these services.
    Additional Note: Funding of such services can be incestuous, not only between federal Medicaid and abortion providers, but between state agencies and abortion providers. For instance, the Utah Department of Health is listed as one of Planned Parenthood of Utah's top 5 independent paid contractors in 2002, with the vague description of "LABORATORY TESTING". See "Legislative Alert: Bramble/UDOH Pronounce Taxpayer-Funded Death Sentence for Unborn!" under topic 3, "UDOH One of the Top 5 Contractors for Planned Parenthood," Accountability Utah, last updated on July 7, 2004.

  • "Education" and "counseling" that includes the promotion of abortions. This is also part of "family planning." For instance, Planned Parenthood of Utah is currently prohibited from directly performing surgical abortions in Utah (state-licensed clinics and hospitals handle them). It markets itself for federal funds, in part, as an educational organization.




Sign up!

Receive free e-mail updates and

share this information with others.


Copying Permission: Permission to reprint articles and material in whole or in part is hereby granted provided that The Helmsman Society is cited.  Feel free to share this information with others.

Disclaimer: The information on this site is for educational purposes only.  If there are mistakes, let me know so I can correct them at

Comments or questions?  Email

Copyright © 2006 The Helmsman Society.

Home | Archives

E-mail:  |  Website: