“In the event the child is determined to be physiologically, genetically or chromosomally abnormal, the decision to abort or not to abort is to be made by the intended parents. In such a case the surrogate agrees to abort, or not to abort, in accordance with the intended parents’ decision.”
That is the clause inserted into Tagg Romney’s surrogacy clause paid for by Mitt Romney. A few things:
- I am pro-life.
- I believe in surrogacy.
- I am pro-choice.
What bothers me the most about this is the constant “mistakes” the Romney’s are making. They blame everyone else for them – from the tax filer to the attorney.
This clause is really, really troublesome for a variety of reasons, none of which I need to explain to you.
But honestly, if Romney is so solidly pro-life today, then why was this allowed in? Why was this even considered? If you are so solidly pro-life (not only would you not invest in companies making a killing off of aborted fetuses) you would not approach a surrogacy company with such practices, right?
My money and my time are precious to me. If I do not support a certain viewpoint, I will not support a company who does (Zondervan and Thomas Nelson, I’m looking at you).
- Romney’s son signed abortion clause in surrogacy contract (americablog.com)
- Why it Matters that Tagg Romney’s Surrogacy Agreement Was Pro-Choice [That's So Romney] (jezebel.com)
- Surrogacy issue still controversial despite increased acceptance (chinapost.com.tw)