Chris Jepson: Romney the flexible

What I saw I no longer see.

I changed my mind in other words. Bad idea if you’re a Republican. To change your mind. Why is that? Why is it a bad idea to reconsider an “issue,” and based on new information, to change your mind? Why is changing your opinion so repugnant, so threatening to Republicans?

Core principles it is argued. If one has core principles, one doesn’t change one’s mind. Mitt Romney is worrisome to Republicans because, it is feared, he has too flexible a backbone. That he has few core principles. Some Republicans are concerned that Romney is really a moderate posing as a conservative and that he affects such a hard-nosed pose only to secure the Republican Party nomination. I believe that is essentially accurate, that Romney is flexible, that he is a relativist (realist) passing as one of the faithful.

Consider the question of abortion. Abortion rights are one of those “litmus” issues for conservatives, as it is for liberals, such as myself. I would not consider voting for an individual who would restrict a woman’s fundamental right to control her own body. It is such an essential right, more inherent, more basic than even the right to vote. Ask yourself this: Which would you give up last? Your right to vote? Or, your right to control your own body? The irony abounds.

It is immensely laughable in liberal circles that the Republican Party espouses freedom from government intrusion and regulatory oversight yet thinks nothing of injecting the state (image intentional) into America’s uteruses. And why is that? Because you are female. Because the government knows best what is good for you, girl. Fertile? Pregnant? Have babies. Birth control? You trollop! The government knows what you’re good for. You’re the vehicle of life, metaphorically/literally speaking, and regardless where “you” are at the moment (impoverished, sick, in school, alone, etc.), you will deliver. Or else.

Perhaps if American women incorporated their uteruses Republicans would then leave them alone. Corporations, to Republicans, have more rights than America’s daughters.

You know what? I, personally, am not going to have an abortion. Men by nature of their anatomy should take the backbench and butt-out of this conversation. It is our daughters who will make such decisions. Republicans salivate before the capitalistic myth of the self-correcting marketplace — that if we would only leave it alone — yet, perversely, they think nothing of instituting regulatory oversight over our daughter’s sexuality. Is that hypocrisy? Irony?

Why do we think so little of America’s women that we do not trust them, at an individual, private level, to make decisions that are good (appropriate) for them? Male legislators in Tallahassee or Washington know what is best for America’s daughters? Is that possible? Or, is it tyranny?

Less than 20 years ago Mitt Romney supported a woman’s right to reproductive choice. He was a middle-aged, pro-choice advocate. Fast forward to 2012, and he cannot spit out his anti-abortion bona fides fast enough. Why is that? What changed? Romney wants more (the White House) than he is willing to risk (lose) over principle. Or, perhaps, no principle was involved. Yes.

You can argue when life begins (I believe at conception) but it is the next step where the real debate begins. And I place my vote with America’s daughters to get it right. For herself. By herself.

Jepson is a 24-year resident of Florida. He’s fiscally conservative, socially liberal, likes art and embraces diversity of opinion. Reach him at [email protected]