"Bishop" Romney Urged Single Mother to give up Baby

[JoeB131]

Read about it here...

Bishop Romney Pressured Single Mother To Give Up Baby, Book Says

Peggie Hayes had converted to Mormonism as a teenage along with her family, and told the book’s authors, Boston Globe reporters Michael Kranish and Scott Helman, that for a long time she found comfort in the faith’s teachings. After returning to the congregation as a 23-year-old divorced single mother, she soon got pregnant with a second child. Knowing she was in need of financial assistance, the Romneys arranged for her to do odd jobs for members of the congregation.

“Mitt was really good to us,” Hayes told the authors. “He did a lot for us.”

But while Hayes considered Romney a friend, he was also her bishop—which meant it was his job to pass along sometimes-harsh church counsel. The tension between the two relationships came to the forefront one day when he came over to her apartment, and encouraged her to turn her son over to the church’s adoption agency when he was born. (The church’s position is that if a happy marriage between parents of a newborn seems unlikely, adoption is preferable to single parenting.)

Hayes was offended by the suggestion, and told Romney she would never give up her son. But, according to Hayes, Romney told her, “Well, this is what the church wants you to do, and if you don’t, then you could be excommunicated for failing to follow the leadership of the church.”

Though she was defiant, the authors write, “In that moment, she also felt intimidated. Here was Romney, who held great power as her church leader and was the head of a wealthy, prominent Belmont family, sitting in her gritty apartment making grave demands.”

This woman had the good sense to get the hell out of Mormonism after that.

At no point have I ever been more proud to not have been a member of the Republican Party. Not because Romney is a Republican but because Joe is.

Six months, when your Community Agitator is getting desperate, you'll be dredging up this story for your "War on Women" meme...

You can thank me now for digging it up for you.

 

[The T]

Read about it here...

Bishop Romney Pressured Single Mother To Give Up Baby, Book Says




This woman had the good sense to get the hell out of Mormonism after that.

At no point have I ever been more proud to not have been a member of the Republican Party. Not because Romney is a Republican but because Joe is.

Six months, when your Community Agitator is getting desperate, you'll be dredging up this story for your "War on Women" meme...

You can thank me now for digging it up for you.

Thank you for what again?

 

[JoeB131]

At no point have I ever been more proud to not have been a member of the Republican Party. Not because Romney is a Republican but because Joe is.

Six months, when your Community Agitator is getting desperate, you'll be dredging up this story for your "War on Women" meme...

You can thank me now for digging it up for you.

Thank you for what again?

I was addressing this to CC, who will be attacking Mormons more viciously than I ever will, if Obama finds himself in a fight.

You see, it's funny. You right wingers hated Romney before the Primary, are trying desperately to convice yourselves you like him now, and when he loses in Nov, you claim he wasn't conservative enough.

The left wingers liked Romney before the primaries (although they liked Huntsman better, More RINO-y), are going to be digging up all sorts of excuses not to like him now, and after the primaries, will claim it was because you guys forced him to be something he wasn't when he loses.

I on the other hand, will be as constant as the Northern Star. Disliked him before the primaries, disliked him after the primaries, will still dislike him after he loses.

 

[The T]

Six months, when your Community Agitator is getting desperate, you'll be dredging up this story for your "War on Women" meme...

You can thank me now for digging it up for you.

Thank you for what again?

I was addressing this to CC, who will be attacking Mormons more viciously than I ever will, if Obama finds himself in a fight.

You see, it's funny. You right wingers hated Romney before the Primary, are trying desperately to convice yourselves you like him now, and when he loses in Nov, you claim he wasn't conservative enough.

The left wingers liked Romney before the primaries (although they liked Huntsman better, More RINO-y), are going to be digging up all sorts of excuses not to like him now, and after the primaries, will claim it was because you guys forced him to be something he wasn't when he loses.

I on the other hand, will be as constant as the Northern Star. Disliked him before the primaries, disliked him after the primaries, will still dislike him after he loses.

'Us' rightwingers had questions about his policies as he was Governor of a Blue State...notably 'RomneyCare' and similarities with ObamaCare...and his writers colluding WITH Obama's minions to write Obama's law.

Now?

What WE address here is different...YOU have a hard on for Mormons...and that was NEVER the issue with us 'Rightwingers' at all.

Got is son?

Get your facts straight before YOU impose your thoughts in a fit of projection as I just snuffed out at YOUR expense.

 

[JoeB131]

]'Us' rightwingers had questions about his policies as he was Governor of a Blue State...notably 'RomneyCare' and similarities with ObamaCare...and his writers colluding WITH Obama's minions to write Obama's law.

Now?

What WE address here is different...YOU have a hard on for Mormons...and that was NEVER the issue with us 'Rightwingers' at all.

Got is son?

Get your facts straight before YOU impose your thoughts in a fit of projection as I just snuffed out at YOUR expense.

Guy, the point went right over your head. What reasons you have for disliking Romney are kind of irrelevent. The point is, your position did not carry the day.

Maybe you aren't as strong a force as you like to think you are, or maybe the people who really run things in the GOP rigged the game. (probalby a bit of both). But you are stuck with a guy you don't like, and you'll defend him to the hilt, including defending his somewhat whacky religious beliefs, which you don't share any more than I do.

So while some of you aren't doing the kind of mental handstands that Ann Coulter is doing ("State mandate, good, Federal mandate, bad!"), the fact is you are letting your hatred for Obama motivate you, but whine because I let my hatred of Romney motivate me in a different direction.

 

[clevergirl]

]'Us' rightwingers had questions about his policies as he was Governor of a Blue State...notably 'RomneyCare' and similarities with ObamaCare...and his writers colluding WITH Obama's minions to write Obama's law.

Now?

What WE address here is different...YOU have a hard on for Mormons...and that was NEVER the issue with us 'Rightwingers' at all.

Got is son?

Get your facts straight before YOU impose your thoughts in a fit of projection as I just snuffed out at YOUR expense.

Guy, the point went right over your head. What reasons you have for disliking Romney are kind of irrelevent. The point is, your position did not carry the day.

Maybe you aren't as strong a force as you like to think you are, or maybe the people who really run things in the GOP rigged the game. (probalby a bit of both). But you are stuck with a guy you don't like, and you'll defend him to the hilt, including defending his somewhat whacky religious beliefs, which you don't share any more than I do.

So while some of you aren't doing the kind of mental handstands that Ann Coulter is doing ("State mandate, good, Federal mandate, bad!"), the fact is you are letting your hatred for Obama motivate you, but whine because I let my hatred of Romney motivate me in a different direction.

What bunk! Why must someone "hate someone" in order to not vote for them? I have liked Romney from the beginning (search my posts back last year).

As to your ignorant statement regarding what is constitutional for a state to do VS acts of the federal government?

States' rights in U.S. politics refers to political powers reserved for the U.S. state governments rather than the federal government. Since the 1940s, it has often been considered a loaded term because of its use in opposition to federally mandated racial desegregation. In law, states' prerogatives are protected by the Tenth Amendment.
Background

The balance of federal powers and those powers held by the states as defined in the Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution was first addressed in the case of McCulloch v. Maryland (1819). The Court's decision by Chief Justice John Marshall asserted that the laws adopted by the federal government, when exercising its constitutional powers, are generally paramount over any conflicting laws adopted by state governments. After McCulloch, the primary legal issues in this area concerned the scope of Congress' constitutional powers, and whether the states possess certain powers to the exclusion of the federal government, even if the Constitution does not explicitly limit them to the states.
Text

The Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution states:

In The Federalist Papers, ratification proponent Alexander Hamilton explained the limitations this clause placed on the proposed federal government, describing that acts of the federal government were binding on the states and the people therein only if the act was in pursuance of constitutionally granted powers, and juxtaposing acts which exceeded those bounds as "void and of no force":

 

[JoeB131]

Two points.

1) I know you were one of the people who supported WMR (Willard Mitt Romney or Weird Mormon Robot, take your pick). I was specifically addressing this to the TEA party type who was behind someone else beause Romney was unacceptable.

2) The "State vs. Federal" thing is a fig leaf. The argument against ObamaCare is that it is forcing people to engage in commerce against their will, not that the State can do this, but the Feds can't. if SCOTUS strikes down ObamaCare, they strike down RomneyCare as well.

 

[clevergirl]

Two points.

1) I know you were one of the people who supported WMR (Willard Mitt Romney or Weird Mormon Robot, take your pick). I was specifically addressing this to the TEA party type who was behind someone else beause Romney was unacceptable.

2) The "State vs. Federal" thing is a fig leaf. The argument against ObamaCare is that it is forcing people to engage in commerce against their will, not that the State can do this, but the Feds can't. if SCOTUS strikes down ObamaCare, they strike down RomneyCare as well.

Fair enough on point 1. Excepting that I also liked every other candidate running against Obama You are dead wrong on point 2.

"The powers delegated by the Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite." — James Madison

The Constitution delegates to the federal government "few and defined" powers — also called enumerated powers — as set forth in Article 1 Section 8 of the Constitution. The federal government can legislate mandates, but can only do so constitutionally within the constraints of the "few and defined" powers that have been "delegated" by the Constitution.

In contrast to the federal governments limited powers, the Constitution of the United States has explicitly delegated "numerous and indefinite" powers to the States through the 10th Amendment. With State governments having numerous and indefinite powers beyond the federal government's enumerated powers, who then, will check State governments from abusing such broad powers?

 

[frazzledgear]

Read about it here...

Bishop Romney Pressured Single Mother To Give Up Baby, Book Says

Peggie Hayes had converted to Mormonism as a teenage along with her family, and told the book’s authors, Boston Globe reporters Michael Kranish and Scott Helman, that for a long time she found comfort in the faith’s teachings. After returning to the congregation as a 23-year-old divorced single mother, she soon got pregnant with a second child. Knowing she was in need of financial assistance, the Romneys arranged for her to do odd jobs for members of the congregation.

“Mitt was really good to us,” Hayes told the authors. “He did a lot for us.”

But while Hayes considered Romney a friend, he was also her bishop—which meant it was his job to pass along sometimes-harsh church counsel. The tension between the two relationships came to the forefront one day when he came over to her apartment, and encouraged her to turn her son over to the church’s adoption agency when he was born. (The church’s position is that if a happy marriage between parents of a newborn seems unlikely, adoption is preferable to single parenting.)

Hayes was offended by the suggestion, and told Romney she would never give up her son. But, according to Hayes, Romney told her, “Well, this is what the church wants you to do, and if you don’t, then you could be excommunicated for failing to follow the leadership of the church.”

Though she was defiant, the authors write, “In that moment, she also felt intimidated. Here was Romney, who held great power as her church leader and was the head of a wealthy, prominent Belmont family, sitting in her gritty apartment making grave demands.”

This woman had the good sense to get the hell out of Mormonism after that.

"a book says". I'd wait for confirmation by one of the parties; if he did so, maybe Romney felt the young woman wasn't prepared for parenting, maybe SHE expressed uncertainty or a desire to place the child up for adoption. Maybe her parents urged her to allow them to adopt. This is a report, about a report. UNCERTAIN.

WTF?? Who cares? Seriously. All religions have specific tenets followers are expected, and sometimes required, to obey and follow. You don't like them or don't feel like obeying them -you LEAVE and stop practicing that religion. It is THAT simple. It is called religious FREEDOM but not just for this woman but for all the Mormons who DO and CAN live in accordance with Mormon tenets. Mormon members who refuse to obey them are often shunned -and viewed as an immoral and unwanted influence on others who they believe must be protected from it by reducing their exposure to such a person. In order to be an accepted Mormon requires certain things in return from its followers. Mormons have strict beliefs regarding marriage and parenting which is intricately tied to their beliefs regarding the afterlife. In a big way. This is not a squishy area for them but one that is laid out in detail for all to see -and this woman refused to abide by it and as far as the Mormon church was concerned, did so for selfish reasons. Her right to do so of course -as is her right to stop being a practicing Mormon.

But what ISN'T her right -or yours or that of any anti-religion leftwing whacko -is to demand and actually expect any religion to change their tenets to suit specific members so they can justify indulging in their own selfish desires.

You don't like it and think you can't abide by the tenets of a particular religion -THEN LEAVE IT and go find another that suits you better or join none at all! It really is just that simple to uphold EVERYONE'S religious beliefs and freedoms and I am sick of the left insisting in order to uphold the religious beliefs of some requires stripping them from others when it NEVER does. Mormons have one of the lowest out of wedlock birth rate -for a reason! This woman didn't like that reason -tough shit. Sticking to their own tenets has provably benefited their own children who have a higher than average success rate in life-and that is a fact. And those who went the way of this woman are far more likely to have children with a much more difficult life and a much lower rate of success -including just graduating from high school and far more likely to end up as nonproductive members of society -also a provable fact. Why would she think it was within HER rights to expect an entire religion change its tenets to suit her own selfish desires? She doesn't LIKE those tenets and refuses to abide by them -then she can leave their church and indulge in any and all of her selfish whims to her heart's desire - and apparently did.

So again -WHO CARES? How in your twisted mind do you think is worth an entire thread when the Mormon position regarding this issue is WELL KNOWN -and isn't going to change just because a woman didn't want to live in accordance with Mormon tenets? Romney is an elder and a bishop in his church -it would be HIS job to talk to someone who refuses to obey church doctrine regarding marriage, pregnancy and child rearing tenets and present her with her choices. He laid out her choices and urged her to choose to abide by Mormon doctrine. Does THAT really surprise you that he really pushed and URGED her to follow Mormon beliefs regarding this? REALLY? After all, why would he encourage her NOT to do so when they believe any Mormon who leaves the church has significantly reduced their odds in their after life? DUH.

This is NOT a significant story WHATSOEVER and says NOTHING about Romney except he carried out his function as a church elder and bishop properly and took it seriously - urging the woman to abide by the tenets of her religion. She put her own selfish desires before the best interests of her child -and left. Big deal. Pretending one is doing their kid a BIG favor by handicapping their own child this way is considered to be an admirable thing by the left. Which is also not a new thing, is it?

Will the left start attacking welfare mothers who stay at home on OUR dime? Or is it just women who don't expect others to foot their bills in life and choose raising their own kids as their career they despise and hate?

 

[JoeB131]

Two points.

1) I know you were one of the people who supported WMR (Willard Mitt Romney or Weird Mormon Robot, take your pick). I was specifically addressing this to the TEA party type who was behind someone else beause Romney was unacceptable.

2) The "State vs. Federal" thing is a fig leaf. The argument against ObamaCare is that it is forcing people to engage in commerce against their will, not that the State can do this, but the Feds can't. if SCOTUS strikes down ObamaCare, they strike down RomneyCare as well.

Fair enough on point 1. Excepting that I also liked every other candidate running against Obama You are dead wrong on point 2.

"The powers delegated by the Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite." — James Madison

The Constitution delegates to the federal government "few and defined" powers — also called enumerated powers — as set forth in Article 1 Section 8 of the Constitution. The federal government can legislate mandates, but can only do so constitutionally within the constraints of the "few and defined" powers that have been "delegated" by the Constitution.

In contrast to the federal governments limited powers, the Constitution of the United States has explicitly delegated "numerous and indefinite" powers to the States through the 10th Amendment. With State governments having numerous and indefinite powers beyond the federal government's enumerated powers, who then, will check State governments from abusing such broad powers?

The problem with that argument is that it's fine if you want to stick the clock at 1787. Really, though, Federalism greatly expanded with the civil war amendments, the New Deal and the finally the Civil Rights movement, as well it should have.

The argument that RomneyCare good, ObamaCare bad when they are effectively the same thing to me is quite silly. I have my own problems with them, mostly that they let the insurance companies keep abusing their clients, and give the employer too much power. But it was the kind of free market solution you guys often pine for, so I'm really not seeing what your objection is, other than it has Obama's name attached to it.

 

[Sallow]

Six months, when your Community Agitator is getting desperate, you'll be dredging up this story for your "War on Women" meme...

You can thank me now for digging it up for you.

Thank you for what again?

I was addressing this to CC, who will be attacking Mormons more viciously than I ever will, if Obama finds himself in a fight.

You see, it's funny. You right wingers hated Romney before the Primary, are trying desperately to convice yourselves you like him now, and when he loses in Nov, you claim he wasn't conservative enough.

The left wingers liked Romney before the primaries (although they liked Huntsman better, More RINO-y), are going to be digging up all sorts of excuses not to like him now, and after the primaries, will claim it was because you guys forced him to be something he wasn't when he loses.

I on the other hand, will be as constant as the Northern Star. Disliked him before the primaries, disliked him after the primaries, will still dislike him after he loses.

And your wrong about that..liking the least repulsive candidate..isn't really "liking" him at all.

Romney is as radically right wing as George W. Bush. Except now, most of the rest of the right wing have gone MORE radically right then both of those guys.

 

[Sallow]

John F. Kennedy was a Catholic just like Hitler. Hummm could that mean he was going to become a Hitler had he not been assassinated? Yes, the logic of faux intellectuals are summed up well when reading your posts~

Actually..he wasn't. Much like Washington, Jefferson, Hamilton and others..he was very secular. He rarely mentioned religion and only to respond to critics.

More idiocy- Kennedy was outspoken about his Catholic faith. he defended it in the following speech bwo stating no man should be refused the presidency based on his religion. Unlike you who wish only to pick on conservative candidates who have a faith. You would do all ignorant religious bigots, such as yourself, a great deal of good by being humbled by his speech.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3p0OMJbia4s]Kennedy on his religion - YouTube[/ame]

Idiocy is posting a video like this without listening to it.

It completely supports what I posted.