DiscussMormonism.com

Then in 1994, when Romney was running for the Senate, he came out in favor of choice for women -- which was surprising to me. I was pleased and called, asking to see him. I told him I suspected that we had our differences, but that maybe I could work with him if he’d come to a really good position on women and childbirth.

And he said – Yes, come to my office.

I went to his office and I congratulated him on taking a pro-choice position. And his response was – Well they told me in Salt Lake City I could take this position, and in fact I probably had to in order to win in a liberal state like Massachusetts.

Suzan Mazur: Who’s “THEY”?

Judy Dushku: I asked him the same question. And he said “the Brethren” in Salt Lake City.

And I said, Mitt, it doesn’t make me happy to hear that. What you’re suggesting is that you’re not genuinely pro-choice. It’s a position of convenience.

He said – Oh no, I actually had an aunt who died of a botched abortion. So I have some positive feelings about choice, but basically I know that I have to take that position.

So I said – How do you feel about choice for poor women and state funding of abortion for poor women?

He said, I’m against that. The state has no right or responsibility to fund abortions for poor women.

And I said – Well Mitt, I thought there was possibly some kind of room for mutual agreement on this issue but it appears there’s really not. I think we’re quite far apart on the issue of choice. It’s nice meeting with you here and talking with you. Good luck with your campaign, however, I can’t support you.

Mister Scratch wrote:On a sidenote: Has this interview been posted on MAD? I would be interested in seeing how the Mopologists (predictably) go about smearing Sister Dushku.

The Nehor wrote:Anyone else finding this hard to swallow after reading the whole interview?

It seems she and Mitt had had strong differences for some time. Why would Mitt confess in a private meeting that the Brethren gave permission for him to flop on an issue with someone he disliked as strongly as SHE indicates in this article? They seem to have been on the outs before this.

The Nehor wrote:Anyone else finding this hard to swallow after reading the whole interview?

Trevor wrote:The following comes from an interview with Judy Dushku, mother of actress Eliza Dushku, by Suzan Mazur of Scoop:

Then in 1994, when Romney was running for the Senate, he came out in favor of choice for women -- which was surprising to me. I was pleased and called, asking to see him. I told him I suspected that we had our differences, but that maybe I could work with him if he’d come to a really good position on women and childbirth.

And he said – Yes, come to my office.

I went to his office and I congratulated him on taking a pro-choice position. And his response was – Well they told me in Salt Lake City I could take this position, and in fact I probably had to in order to win in a liberal state like Massachusetts.

Suzan Mazur: Who’s “THEY”?

Judy Dushku: I asked him the same question. And he said “the Brethren” in Salt Lake City.

And I said, Mitt, it doesn’t make me happy to hear that. What you’re suggesting is that you’re not genuinely pro-choice. It’s a position of convenience.

He said – Oh no, I actually had an aunt who died of a botched abortion. So I have some positive feelings about choice, but basically I know that I have to take that position.

So I said – How do you feel about choice for poor women and state funding of abortion for poor women?

He said, I’m against that. The state has no right or responsibility to fund abortions for poor women.

And I said – Well Mitt, I thought there was possibly some kind of room for mutual agreement on this issue but it appears there’s really not. I think we’re quite far apart on the issue of choice. It’s nice meeting with you here and talking with you. Good luck with your campaign, however, I can’t support you.

So, can we really believe the LDS Church, when they claim not to involve themselves in politics? If Dushku is telling the truth, then it seems to me they're giving Mitt political direction, which he feels he needs to follow. Why would non-LDS folks vote for Mitt, when that is at least partly a vote for the LDS Church (unless, of course, they like the idea of a minority religious group having undue influence over the president of the United States)?

See: http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/HL0706/S00066.htm

Wow... What a stunning anecdote! TBMs have long been trying to claim that the Brethren do not dictate politics, and yet here we have a pretty clear indication that they not only do involve themselves in pretty sneaky ways, but that they endorse doctrinally hypocritical politics to boot

Many people, both LDS and non-LDS, ought to seriously question just how much of an individual Mitt actually is as a politician. That he would feel the need to ask permission to hold certain views is very, very troubling.

Jason Bourne wrote:I find this highly dubious. Who is this person and why should I trust her?

Wow... What a stunning anecdote! TBMs have long been trying to claim that the Brethren do not dictate politics, and yet here we have a pretty clear indication that they not only do involve themselves in pretty sneaky ways, but that they endorse doctrinally hypocritical politics to boot

Many people, both LDS and non-LDS, ought to seriously question just how much of an individual Mitt actually is as a politician. That he would feel the need to ask permission to hold certain views is very, very troubling.

On a sidenote: Has this interview been posted on MAD? I would be interested in seeing how the Mopologists (predictably) go about smearing Sister Dushku.