Romney As Defender Of Religious Liberty Clashes With His Record

Last night in his speech after winning the Nevada caucus, Mitt Romney said "President Obama orders religious organizations to violate their conscience; I will defend religious liberty and overturn regulations that trample on our first freedom." Romney was of course referring to the new Obama administration policy that universities, hospitals, and charities that provide health insurance to employees must have plans that cover contraception, regardless of their religious affiliation.  Despite the fact that 95% of Catholic women use contraception and 85% support expanding access to birth control, Romney and many other Republicans have jumped on the issue.  Romney, however, is a particularly ineffective spokesperson as a defender of religious exemptions for contraceptive coverage, and his record shows that he has a startling disregard for religious liberty in general.

In 2002, the year before he became Governor of Massachusetts, Romney's predecessor, Republican Governor Jane Swift, signed into law a bill that would mandate contraception coverage in health care plans offered by employers in Massachusetts, including Catholic universities and hospitals.  One would think that this policy, so similar to the one he is now criticizing that was put in place by President Obama, would have outraged Romney and he must have immediately attempted to overturn it when he became Governor months later. The truth of course is that he didn't, nor did he ever even speak out against the 2002 law.  In fact, in 2005 Romney's administration mandated that Catholic hospitals provide emergency contraception to victims of rape, with Romney himself saying that in his "heart of hearts" he believed that all rape victims should have access to emergency contraception. I guess now Romney believes that his "heart of hearts" carries a deep anti-first amendment bias. 

The other problem with Romney's new-found attempt to be the self-appointed defender-of-religious- liberty is that he has repeatedly supported and proposed policies that would legitimately impede the free exercise of religion.  In 2005, for instance, Romney raised the ire of civil libertarians when he suggested that the federal government should wiretap mosques.  You would think that Federal government intrusion of this magnitude into places of worship would be a far greater example of a policy that would "trample on our first freedom" than requiring Georgetown University to offer health care plans that cover the birth control pill.

Romney's enthusiastic support for religious liberty also did not extend to Park51, a planned mosque and community center in New York City.  After weeks of conservative outrage from Sarah Palin and Newt Gingrich, and a poll showing that the construction of the Islamic center was unpopular, Romney, true to form, did the politically expedient thing and came out against it.  It seems Romney's pronouncement last night that he would "defend religious liberty" applies only when doing so would be politically popular, and just as importantly, have the requisite tea-party approval. 

Romney's lack of regard for religious tolerance also became an issue during his previous presidential run.  In 2007, an attendee at a Romney fundraiser reported that Romney ruled out the possibility of appointing a qualified Muslim to a cabinet position, saying that people who practice Islam would only be considered for positions "at lower levels of my administration."  Romney's reported statement that a person's religious beliefs would automatically disqualify them from serving in a top administration post is not only outrageous on its face, but certainly violates the tenets of religious freedom that he professes to support. 

In the coming weeks I expect Romney to continue his line of attack that President Obama has shown a blatant disregard for the first amendment and its guarantees of free expression of religion.  If history has shown us anything, its that Romney is particularly adept at latching on to and speaking passionately about the issue dejeur, regardless of his own previous just-as-passionate statements on the other side of the issue.  But if Romney is going to speak out in favor of a broader religious exemption on contraception, he should at least have to explain his own broad exemptions to the ideals of religious liberty and tolerance he now professes to be defending.