Kathleen Geier found this at TMZ:
Oh my. I was not aware of this: in 2011, Mitt Romney’s son Tagg and Tagg’s wife Jen, who earlier this year had twins through a surrogate, signed a contract with the surrogate giving themselves and her the right to abort a pregnancy, even in non-life-threatening situations. And on top of that, Mitt himself subsidized the arrangement, since he helped pay for the surrogate’s services. Oopsy!
It’s unfortunate that Tagg and Jen’s personal life is campaign fodder, but Tagg is already heavily involved in the campaign as a surrogate, so this is fair game. More importantly, and as much as they want us to forget it, the whole infertility area is a minefield for anti-abortion candidates like Romney. In addition to the surrogacy issue, IVF is an embryo holocaust. If the anti-abortionists “life begins at conception” wet dreams came true, infertility clinics would be treated like baby abattoirs, and shut down immediately.
(BTW, I use the term “wet dream” metaphorically here, since everyone knows that anti-abortionists like Romney would never emit a gush of potential personhood in something as frivilous as a dream.)
Chris
Yeah, if his family wants to get involved in politics, they’re fair game. ESPECIALLY his goddamn wife, but that’s another story.
Captain Howdy
A seminal post, misterm.
The Dangerman
I call it out of bounds. Both feet.
Hopefully, TMZ isn’t tracking down the surrogate (which would be the logical next step for them).
cyntax
I think it’s revealing of how inadequate concepts like the personhood amendment are when confronted with the quickly evolving world of fertility science and research. But at least it provides the illusion of certainty to people who don’t want to confront those changes.
hells littlest angel
…Romney would never emit a gush of potential personhood in a dream.
He might, but he’d be busy with post-mortem baptisms for a loooooong time.
And all of Romney’s kids are fair game. They’re Republican operatives just like any other Republican operatives.
c u n d gulag
Young children, and children in their teens are, and should be, off limits.
Adult children, especially when they act as a proxy for the candidate, are fair game.
And the only consistent thing you can find in any of Mitt’s positions, is their inconsistency.
MattF
This sort of hypocrisy is so common among Republican politicians that I’ve come to suspect that it’s a sort of dogwhistle. As in, “We’re opposed to abortion to the degree that we get the support of the rabid ‘every sperm is sacred’ crowd but when it comes to family, it’s OK to do what you have to.”
Schlemizel
Unfortunately the crowd for whom this tidbit would sound the Rmoney death knell get all their news from outlets that will not mention anything of this sort. FAUX news and talk radio will forget to mention this ever.
Brachiator
It seems like it was only yesterday that some wingnut writer was singing the praises of Romney’s fertility and his manly ability to spawn manly children.
Apparently, the uberfertility only had a one generation guarantee.
And now we have another example of Romney intimating that there is one set of rules for people with money, and another set of rules for everyone else.
The surrogate story has been around for a while, and possible contradictions in being pro life and pro IVF but too complex for lazy reporters and lazier voters. But the abortion codicil is easy to understand.
Another error for Mitt.
piratedan
with all of the freebies that the Romney campaign is offering up, I wonder if the Obama campaign will just let this pitch sail by and wait for the next one. I’m guessing Obama will do his best to leave the family stuff alone.
Jim, Foolish Literalist and Fact Checker
@Chris: Why “especially”? I seem to remember something about Tagg and his wife being very active in trying to get a ‘personhood’ amendment in MA. Is that what you mean?
Also, too, a big part of the Romney/Ryan platform is about legislating other people’s personal lives, so my sympathy is almost non-existent.
amk
@piratedan: Yup. Obama is not gonna touch this. He is classier.
ed
Mittens is on record as supporting the Personhood Amendment. People should be reminded of this. A lot.
Smiling Mortician
@Jim, Foolish Literalist and Fact Checker: My read is that Chris was talking about Mitt’s wife, not Tagg’s.
Or something like that.Suffern Ace
@piratedan: This is one of those that the campaign won’t touch but will let simmer on their side. We know that they are hypocrites on this issue. It’s a wedge for Romneys core voters, not ours.
Villago Delenda Est
@hells littlest angel:
Exactly. Especially after Mittens, when asked why none of his sons were in uniform risking their pasty white asses and perfect teeth in Afghanistan or Iraq, said they were serving their country by campaigning for Mittens.
The entire family is made up of cowardly shit. If being cowardly shit were a capital crime in this country (obviously not, as the previous president and vice president were both loathsome sacks of cowardly shit) the entire family would be before a death panel faster than you can say Captain Jack Sparrow. Or in a New York minute, you pick the metaphor.
pete
The surrogacy was in the New York Times in May. The same piece mentioned that some of Romney’s sons “have sought solutions that are seemingly inconsistent with their father’s views on abortion.”
So, not news; not wrong; who cares?
Hypocritical but we have plenty else to ding Mitty on.
Mark S.
@Jim, Foolish Literalist and Fact Checker:
Really? Then fuck them, they’re total fucking hypocrites.
Villago Delenda Est
@piratedan:
I’m sure Obama will. He’s one classy dude, frankly the 27% are unworthy of such a man as President of this county, just as they repeatedly dishonor the memories of those who fought, bled, and died for the freedom they claim to love so much.
Won’t stop us from pointing out what rancid hypocrites the Rmoney clan consists of.
dr. bloor
@The Dangerman: Disagree. The issue isn’t the son and his wife; the issue is Mitt subsidizing the deal, if that proves to be true.
Speaks to the credibility of the witness, your honor.
Villago Delenda Est
@ed:
Mittens is on record supporting a lot of things. Doesn’t mean he won’t be on record supporting its polar opposite before his next campaign rally.
And then back again at the next.
fergie
I’m trying not to make a blanket statement but… you have to have “some” money to do IVF. In other words, IVF users are not primarily poor people, white, brown or black. So, if the zygote is a person, and the leftover fertilized eggs are (mostly) discarded… destroyed… killed… aborted before implantation…
Hell what Im trying to say is IVF is monied people’s Abortion. Many white, christian, yuppie types are the users of IVF.
It is only logical to me that if the anti-abortion crowd, the christian churches, catholic priests etc are against physical abortion… killing of a implanted-zygote-person, then they should be equally as vocal about the killing of a test-tube-zygote-person. They should be screaming to have the IVF clinics shut down. But they aren’t because they have the money to use the services of these clinics when they want or need too.
But really how is this not the same thing? the destruction of the zygote-people?
fergie
Amir Khalid
I agree with The Dangerman. This is a Romney family matter, and therefore Obama and his campaign will treat it as out of bounds. When Obama was invited to comment on Bristol Palin’s out-of-wedlock pregnancy four years ago, he refused to do it because families were out of bounds. He won’t comment about Tagg Romney’s personal stuff now, either. Mitt presents other and better targets, so why go for this one when there’s no real need?
Jim, Foolish Literalist and Fact Checker
@Villago Delenda Est: and when asked in a WaPo chat (I wonder if DougJ trolled that one) why he and his brothers weren’t serving in the war they supported, said “I’m glad you asked” and proceeded to give some stupid answer how he couldn’t serve in an army that had Bill Clenis as CIC. It was a stupid answer to a question he could have avoided, but he’s a smug, spoiled little punk who’s heard all his life that his shit smells like roses, so I’m sure he thought his answer was quite clever and unanswerable.
Violet
Why aren’t female Democrats proposing bills declaring male masturbation and ejaculation outside a vagina as “killing potential babies”. These bills should be proposed at every level off government all across the country.
Schlemizel
@The Dangerman:
Normally I would agree that family should be out of bounds. The Bush girls drunken partying was not germane for instance. But this crosses two lines that puts it in play.
Tagg is an adult who is active in the campaign & pretends to believe the same crap Willard pretends to believe. Thefore he is part of the campaign.
The current iteration of Willards deeply held belief of the moment is that abortion is murder and never permissible. Therefore his willingness to agree to this and the Marquis willingness to back it is indicative of the level of hypocrisy rampant in the Marquis political history. Its Willards role, not Tagg’s that is the key to this part.
gnomedad
@Villago Delenda Est:
He’s classier than me, then. I would find a way to work in something along the lines of “We just want all women to have the same choices Mitt’s sons and their families had.”
Schlemizel
@amk:
Thats why he needs people like us 8-{D
Violet
@gnomedad: If Obama is asked a question about it, that sort of answer is perfect. If he’s not asked a question about it, it’s not smart of him to bring it up. If it were Mitt and Ann who had gone that route, it might be relevant, but questioning Romney’s son’s choice isn’t a great tactic and he has so many other things to criticize.
Brachiator
@Violet:
Already covered by some sodomy laws.
And fortunately, Democrats are not as stupid as the Republicans.
gnomedad
@Violet:
Agreed; good point. And I chose the phrase “Mitt’s sons and their families” deliberately; I would avoid naming individuals. If someone challenged this or asked a follow-up question, well …
piratedan
@Villago Delenda Est: agreed, the “man in the chair” continues to behave like he takes the job seriously, as if he can make the world a better place and get stuff done that has been neglected in the great partisan pie throwing of our times.
@Or something like that.Suffern Ace: and if anyone chooses to point this out, it won’t be the Obama campaign…. they’ll let others wield the long knives although in my estimation, I’m not sure showing one more hypocrisy isn’t going to make much of a difference as far as the R spear carriers are concerned, they appear to be impervious to facts like RainX is to precipitation.
Jim, Foolish Literalist and Fact Checker
@Violet: @Violet: Obama and his campaign shouldn’t touch it, given the media realities, but outside groups, PP, can go for it, IMHO. I don’t see why the Romney family’s multiple hypocrisies on this issue are out of bounds.
Villago Delenda Est
@fergie:
It was never about the actual “pre-born” humans. It’s about punishing the sluts, by forcing birth.
gnomedad
@Brachiator:
You don’t know the power of the dark side of the Stupid.
Schlemizel
@Violet:
But it wasn’t just Trudge or Truffle or whatever’s choice. The Marquis du Mittens financed the deal & it ws with his approval.
Is it something the President should bring up? Only in response to any stupid drivel coming out of the Marquis on the choice issue. Then he should hit him with the exact phrase genomedad had above”
“We just want all women to have the same choices Mitt’s sons and their families had.”
I would change it a bit to “. . . the same choices Mitt gave his sons . . .”
22over7
@Amir Khalid:
Family planning is ALWAYS a family matter. It SHOULD be a private matter. But no, we have legislatures everywhere determined to stick their perverted noses up American womens’ uteri, trying to gain access to personal medical files, using freedom of religion clauses to deny women access to said family planning.
Being courteous and deferent to these monsters has led us to the spot we’re in right now. No more.
I’m sure you’re right that the President will not engage at this level. Doesn’t mean we shouldn’t.
Rich people will always have access to any kind of family planning and procedures they want. But it gets them (some) votes when they try to deny it to everyone else.
They should be ashamed of themselves, and this is the only way to make that happen.
Violet
OT – Did anyone watch Meet the Press this morning? The entire roundtable discussion was about just how bad Romney is, “Is he this bad? No, he’s bad in this way. His campaign is terrible. He should be talking about this and that, but he’s not he’s running an awful campaign.” It was hilarious. Only Bay Buchannan, in increasingly shrill and desperate decibels, was defending Romney. EVERYONE else, including Bobo and Morning Joe, was just destroying Romney.
Kasim Reed, the Mayor of Atlanta, killed it. That idiot shrill white lady, Bay Buchanan, tried to interrupt him, and he told her, “I let you have your say, ma’am, now let me have mine.” Hilarious.
JPL
I’m not sure about the laws and surrogacy. Is this just a standard statement to protect both sides.
Also, too… iokiyr
Brachiator
@fergie: Hell what Im trying to say is IVF is monied people’s Abortion. Many white, christian, yuppie types are the users of IVF.
Brachiator
Apologize for the funky formatting in the prior post. Can’t edit it from my iPad.
trollhattan
If I were a fiction author, I’d have to summon every creative fiber to conjure a character as vile as Bay Buchannan. She’s like her brother after a humorectomy, which must itself violate several immutable laws of physics and decency.
Sarah, Proud and Tall
@The Dangerman:
I agree with this. This is none of anyone’s business (particularly if we believe in every woman’s right to choose), and a stupid political point for us to boot.
The contract read:
“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.”
and
“Any decision to abort because of potential harm to the child, or to reduce the number of fetuses, is to be made by the intended parents.”
That wording gives the Romneys the right to permit or not permit a termination – pretty much what you would expect and hope for in a contract like this, although if I were the surrogate I’d be having my lawyer put all sorts of “health of the mother” clauses in there.
cyntax
@fergie:
Well that’s why the upper-middle class types aren’t screaming about it, but much of the anti-abortionism comes from the Republican base that is Evangelical and from deep red states, not necessarily those who are waiting till their late thirties, early forties to have kids and with ~20K a pop to throw at the IVF process. So this is another case, much like their positions on tax law, where the Republicans need to keep various factions from thinking too hard about what the others are doing.
Jim, Foolish Literalist and Fact Checker
@Violet: For months, I’ve been shaking my head over their use of John Sununu, and unloved, disgraced and obnoxious relic from twenty years ago, as a surrogate. Then they trotted out Bay Buchanan. WTF? I guess Chris Christie is just too gracious and charming (and too busy getting to know county chairs in Iowa) and Mary Matalin is just too warm and endearing a media presence.
PeterJ
Back to the actual agreement.
Tagg would have been able to force the surrogate to have an abortion, even in non-life-threating situations.
Think about that.
Have you ever heard a couple signing a contract giving the man the right to force the woman to have an abortion? Or a man having his mistress sign a contract that would give him this kind of power?
Beyond the pale.
Villago Delenda Est
@trollhattan:
Like Ann Coulter, Bay Buchanan’s greatest regret is she was born decades too late and in the wrong country to be the Bitch of Buchenwald.
Tractarian
@amk:
Agreed. However, Romney’s 1981 arrest for disorderly conduct could certainly be fodder for a late October commercial or two.
PeterJ
Shouldn’t Palin chime in on this? Tagg getting the right to abort if he gets a Trig?
Violet
@Jim, Foolish Literalist and Fact Checker: Agree that outside groups could tackle it, but I still think it’s better if it’s done in the “Mitt paid for his son to have a surrogate to expand his family. We think it’s great Mitt’s son had so many choices. We want all families to have the same choices, unlike what Mitt claims he believes when someone asks him about it. [clip of Mitt being anti-abortion]”
Still think it has to be done carefully otherwise it comes across like attacking Mitt’s kid and that doesn’t win points.
Christian Sieber
Whether or not this is out of bounds, the story lacks the context that gives the lie to the “hypocrisy” charges. Tagg’s family used the same surrogate a couple years prior to this instance, and in that case they specifically had the “right to abort” language removed from the contract. The language we’re talking about is standard boilerplate in most IVF and surrogacy agreements, and based on Tagg and Jen’s actions the first time they used IVF, it seems like they actually ARE trying to keep with their personal/religious views on the subject.
Edit: If it wasn’t clear, what I mean is that this language probably got into the 2nd contract through oversight rather than by the choice of Tagg and Jen Romney.
TL;DR — You have to ignore some very salient facts to make a story out of this and I’m disappointed to see this story on Balloon Juice in light of that.
suzanne
@Jim, Foolish Literalist and Fact Checker: Concur. Obama has no reason to get his hands dirty by engaging in this discussion. It will not gain him anything.
However, pro-choice orgs can and should should this from the rooftops. And they should talk about how infertility medicine could be very much imperiled by a Romney administration. The number of couples I know who are in- or sub-fertile is really astounding. And that list includes lots and LOTS of Mormons who get a lot of shit from their fellow church-goers, who encourage them to start popping kids out ASAP. No matter how one feels about abortion, pointing out to infertile couples that they may conceivably never have children at all due to personhood amendments has quite the potential to win many converts to our side.
Violet
@Schlemizel:
Love this.
@Brachiator:
So male masturbation is outlawed in sodomy laws? I thought it was about where men put their p3nis, not where the ejaculate went. Those issues are not the same.
I know some Dem women have proposed anti-male-masturbation laws. I think they should be proposed everywhere. If necessary, an addendum could be added that only makes them active if women’s control over their own uterus is affected. So, any attempt to limit abortion causes male masturbation to become illegal.
M31
An Oklahoma state senator named Constance Johnson did introduce a motion to interpret male masturbation as “an action against an unborn child.”
She meant it satirically, though, and offered it as an amendment to a typical repellent Republican ‘life begins at fertilization’ law.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cifamerica/2012/feb/09/spilled-semen-amendment-oklahoma-personhood-bill
WereBear
Things like this, and there are many, undercut their claim of moral high ground.
Supposedly, they are willing to risk women’s actual lives and futures because to do otherwise is babykilling. For liberals to protest this means they are babykillers. It’s difficult to mount a pro-babykiller argument; it just is.
But if they are simply full of crap; that advantage evaporates.
quannlace
Eh, bringing this up seems kind of sleazy.
*******
I’d prefer the fact that this pro-war candidate has five strapping sons that managed to avoid any kind of military service. And Mitt had the gall to say that working on his campaign was their way to show their patriotism.
Todd
An odd query, if you will, on the mechanics of sex among candyassed exurbanites.
There seems to be a real disconnect. The genuinely productive agricultural regions of the country, while conservative, appear to be sex-positive in a heteronormative way. They work with animals doing it, they get along with their partners sexually, they don’t appear to get twisted up about biology. He’ll, even redneck hill jacks seem to enjoys their sex lives.
In contrast, you have exurbanites (which Ann-Toinette and the Romnotron 2012 clearly are) who simply appear to think of sex as something icky or to be observed in secret shame, by the flickering light of a computer monitor showing Bukkake porn. In the environment of the candyassed where nobody curses, nobody shouts, nobody demands that something be done in a harsher, more sensuous manner or that something go in some other orifice, how does that all work? Does he finish and roll over? Why do we insist that the whole dialogue on sex be dominated by the voices of those who don’t appear to like it?
Roger Moore
@amk:
And he doesn’t want to get sucked into the culture war vortex. Maybe he could make some political hay about how hypocritical Mitt is, but more likely it would get abortion and birth control back to center stage and energize the culture warriors of the right. Obama would much rather the campaign focus on Mitt Romney, tax cheat and enemy of the 99%.
RSA
I don’t have much to say about artificial insemination or surrogate motherhood, but the Mormon church does:
and
I wouldn’t ask Tagg and his wife about their decision, but I think it would be interesting to hear Mitt explain how he can be supportive of activities that are “strongly discouraged” by his church.
Jim, Foolish Literalist and Fact Checker
@quannlace: I agree, but the country has collectively decided that the Iraq War is just something that kind of happened, and a long time ago, so let’s move on. 76% of the country supported that war, and admitting it was wrong means admitting they were wrong, and we don’t like to do that.
But just to keep us hippies riled up:
Tagg was 31 when the Afghan War started, 33 when we invaded Iraq, and 37 when he made that statement (and what he said in the WaPo was, I swear, worse, but I can’t find it). His country was calling, and the military would never have turned him away. And he’s the oldest.
Violet
@Brachiator:
Do not know the source of the quote you have in your post that I am quoting here (a search of page didn’t pull it up, so it’s not in the rest of the comments), but this is less accurate than you think. Many Americans go abroad for IVF treatments, especially donor egg treatments. It’s significantly less expensive. The Czech Republic, Romania, South Africa, Brazil (until the US economy tanked and Brazil became expensive), Argentina, etc. Many European patients go to those places as well because their own access is so limited by their governments and they have more options abroad. Including airfare, accommodation and medical treatment, many times it’s still cheaper to go abroad for IVF than to have it done in the US. Surrogacy is another area where it’s much cheaper to go abroad, as the many TV stories about surrogacy in India can attest.
Jewish Steel
@Roger Moore: The Mitt Campaign Misstep Express runs all day. If you don’t like the look of one bus, you can just wait 5 minutes for the next one to come along.
Phil Perspective
@Villago Delenda Est: I don’t know what the five Willard boys are up to now, but remember their infamous bus trip in Iowa back in ’08? They were stumping for daddy then.
? Martin
@The Dangerman: I’m conflicted. Mitts insistence that his tax returns and even policies stay private has basically told the media “we’re not going to honor this public/private agreement”. Mitt himself tore up the contract. He can’t really complain the media is also ignoring the contract.
Violet
@Brachiator:
Do not know the source of the quote you have in your post that I am quoting here (a search of page didn’t pull it up, so it’s not in the rest of the comments), but this is less accurate than you think. Many Americans go abroad for IVF treatments, especially donor egg treatments. It’s significantly less expensive. The Czech Republic, Romania, South Africa, Brazil (until the US economy tanked and Brazil became expensive), Argentina, etc. Many European patients go to those places as well because their own access is so limited by their governments and they have more options abroad. Including airfare, accommodation and medical treatment, many times it’s still cheaper to go abroad for IVF than to have it done in the US. Surrogacy is another area where it’s much cheaper to go abroad, as the many TV stories about surrogacy in India can attest.
scav
Another nagging thing about the forcing the surrogate into having an abortion is the attitude of, well, if WE don’t want it, no-one can have it ownership thing over the fetus. Theme repeats in the contract where they can seemingly force the surrogate into carrying the child, whether it endangers her life or not. Again, power of life and death, enforced by contract. Nasty whiff in these contracts — hope others are less pungent and more flexible.
Phil Perspective
@Villago Delenda Est: I don’t know what the five Willard boys are up to now, but remember their infamous bus trip in Iowa back in ’08? They were stumping for daddy then.
kc
Wait. The contract gave Tagg and wifey the right to force the surrogate to have an abortion?
Damn.
Jim, Foolish Literalist and Fact Checker
@quannlace: I agree, but the country has collectively decided that the Iraq War is just something that kind of happened, and a long time ago, so let’s move on. 76% of the country supported that war, and admitting it was wrong means admitting they were wrong, and we don’t like to do that.
But just to keep us hippies riled up:
Tagg was 31 when the Afghan War started, 33 when we invaded Iraq, and 37 when he made that statement (and what he said in the WaPo was, I swear, worse, but I can’t find it). His country was calling, and the military would never have turned him away. And he’s the oldest.
LD50
‘Tagg’? Isn’t that the kind of name Palin gives to *her* kids?
Is this some bizarre child-naming fad among Republicans that I missed?
amk
@Roger Moore: Yup. That’s why where he is now.
Also, tt’s more of his personal trait than any political calculations behind it.
LD50
‘Tagg’? Isn’t that the kind of name Palin gives to *her* kids?
Is this some bizarre child-naming fad among Republicans that I missed?
amk
@Roger Moore: Yup. That’s why where he is now.
Also, tt’s more of his personal trait than any political calculations behind it.
amk
@Roger Moore: Yup. That’s why where he is now.
Also, it’s more of his personal trait than any political calculations behind it.
amk
@Roger Moore: Yup. That’s why where he is now.
Also, it’s more of his personal trait than any political calculations behind it.
quannlace
This was the latest Romney campaign’s Google post:
” We’ve got just 45 days left until Election Day. Donate $45 today and receive your limited edition “Make Mitt #45″ bumper sticker! ”
*************
Wow, only 45 bucks for a piece of adhesive plastic. Anybody can afford that!
kc
@Christian Sieber:
Yeah, you can’t expect poor Tagg to be able to read a contract before he signs it, or to afford a lawyer who could do that.
Sarah, Proud and Tall
@Sarah, Proud and Tall:
Most of that was probably gibberish. Note: Must not post in threads when drunk composing another front page post.
amk
I know nuthin’. I know nuthin’.
Violet
@scav: Surrogacy contracts are decided by both sides. There is traditional surrogacy, where the eggs of the surrogate are used to create the embryo. This is kind of like if the man had sex with another woman, except all the sex is happening in a petri dish. There is also gestational surrogacy, where the eggs are either from the Intended Mother or from a third party, and the sp3rm is from either the Intended Father or another male donor. In this case, the surrogate is just the uterus for hire.
The contracts can be created in any number of ways so that the termination of multiples (selective reduction is the term) or termination of the entire pregnancy is decided either by the Intended Parents or the surrogate.
The contracts are boilerplate in some ways, but these specifics are key to the discussion. I’m surprised the Romney’s lawyer didn’t catch this clause. Maybe because they sued the same surrogate as for their first round they figured it would all work out. But there can be some very difficult situations where one side wants to terminate and the other does not.
Violet
@scav: Surrogacy contracts are decided by both sides. There is traditional surrogacy, where the eggs of the surrogate are used to create the embryo. This is kind of like if the man had sex with another woman, except all the sex is happening in a petri dish. There is also gestational surrogacy, where the eggs are either from the Intended Mother or from a third party, and the sp3rm is from either the Intended Father or another male donor. In this case, the surrogate is just the uterus for hire.
The contracts can be created in any number of ways so that the termination of multiples (selective reduction is the term) or termination of the entire pregnancy is decided either by the Intended Parents or the surrogate.
The contracts are boilerplate in some ways, but these specifics are key to the discussion. I’m surprised the Romney’s lawyer didn’t catch this clause. Maybe because they sued the same surrogate as for their first round they figured it would all work out. But there can be some very difficult situations where one side wants to terminate and the other does not.
Michael G
Should they choose to push it, this is a loser for the Dems.
There is no way they could gain more votes (perceived hypocrisy from Romney) than the votes they lose (perceived ‘going after the family’ from Obama).
Or something like that.Suffern Ace
@quannlace: 45 dollars 45 days 45th president. 45 45 45. 4+5 is 9. 9+9+9 is 27. And it reaches the Cain voters. 45 is magic.
Smiling Mortician
@Or something like that.Suffern Ace: Whoa.
Roger Moore
@Violet:
If it’s going to be done at all, I think the best approach is with a carefully written false flag chain email. Not only would that have the potential to keep Obama’s fingerprints off the thing, it’s likely to be more effective as an attack from people further to the right who genuinely believe in the sanctity of zygote life than a cynical attack from the left.
amk
@quannlace:
Why ? They are not gonna sell. Just like mittbot ?
Brachiator
@Violet:
Not so much masturbation, but sodomy laws, especially in the South, often prohibited both oral sex and anal sex involving a man and a woman because, you know, there is supposed to be only one natural receptacle for a man’s precious bodily fluids.
In any event, all this stuff is ridiculous and I cannot imagine a sane Democrat, especially at the national level, wasting time with these nuisance laws to score cheap political points. Worse case would see Republicans happily signing on and calling the Democrats’ bluff.
RE: Race and religion are not as big an issue when you consider that people from all over the world use US based resources
In Los Angeles, KFI talk radio host Bill Handel has a little side job. He runs a center for surrogate parenting, and is one of the pioneers in the field.
He can be outrageously wrong about a lot of stuff, especially politics. But he knows his shit when it comes to IVF and surrogate parenting. In more than a couple of cases he predicted lgal problems and scandals that would envelope grifters and dishonest people in the industry, which reinforces my confidence in his judgments in this area. Others may reach different conclusions.
Also, after veils of confidentiality were breeched by celebrity reporters, turns out that Handel was involved with some high profile cases. And yeah, there is an international market here, but there are people of means who want reliability and reduced risk of legal and medical complications. And success tends to generate recommendations.
Jim, Foolish Literalist and Fact Checker
I hate to be one of those “You should run your blog the way I’d run my blog if I had a blog” people, but I’d put this, and Booman’s concise observation, on the front page
“Why is Mitt Romney losing? Because he’s a dick”
Teaser: “I didn’t ask you a question”.
Smiling Mortician
@Jim, Foolish Literalist and Fact Checker: Holy shit. What a dick. Romney, I mean, just in case it’s not clear.
Violet
@Brachiator: Absolutely, rich and famous people will go where they are assured the highest combination of security, privacy and success. I’m not surprised those people come to the US because as we all know the medical system is very good here if you can afford it. And our Assisted Reproduction laws are among the most open and liberal in the world. In other words, rich and famous people can get what they want here with the best guarantee of success and privacy.
Less well off people, however, consider price as part of the equation. And that’s why many of them go to other countries. Because the success rates are just as good, if not higher, and the cost is significantly cheaper. Not everyone has the flexibility to leave their job for weeks at a time, but if they can or if they’re not working at that time, it can be a very attractive option.
Chris
@Jim, Foolish Literalist and Fact Checker:
Oh, no. I’m sorry, I was actually talking about Ann Romney. Not the subject of this article, but another relative I consider almost as worthy of being attacked as Romney himself.
slag
Anyone who runs around the country vocally advocating for making abortion illegal and who also signs a contract like this is fair game. Regardless of whether or not he’s associated with a presidential campaign.
PeterJ
@Christian Sieber:
How do you know?
Maybe their first child wasn’t as perfect as they had wanted?
Maybe they have friends who used a surrogate mother, didn’t include this language, and the baby wasn’t perfect?
Maybe Tagg likes to fire people too? Or fetuses?
WereBear
@Christian Sieber: I call BS. The only source for this scenario you outline is themselves; and it’s not like they haven’t lied before.
Santorum and his wife had a problematic pregnancy terminated; they didn’t white-knuckle it and risk the wife’s life. They’re hypocritical and so are the Romneys.
Hypocrisy is always pertinent.
Midnight Marauder
Bingo. It’s kind of depressing that so much of this conversation is centered on whether the Obama campaign should touch this issue. Of course they’re not going to do anything with this. But Democratic surrogates, on the other hand? They should be having a field day with this news. And the fact that so many people keep lamenting that an attack of this nature seems out of bounds is why Republicans keep kicking our ass in elections. When they get a potent piece of information that can destroy the narrative their opposition has created for themselves, they don’t wring their hands wondering if it’s going to be sleazy. The find the appropriate person to carry out the attack and then they go to work building on the results.
We are still fighting The Civil War. It would help if we actually behaved in such a fashion.
Geeno
@Christian Sieber: I agree, the only issue raised is the discussion of fertility issues vs. a life-at-conception law. The names involved are not the issue.
WereBear
Cripes, so true. Smacking one of the grandkids is out of bounds.
Observing their behavior and commenting on it? They freakin’ asked for it.
Mnemosyne
@Christian Sieber:
“Personhood” amendments — which Romney and Ryan both support — would effectively ban IVF and surrogacy because the zygote would be considered a “person” from the moment the egg meets the sperm.
Sorry, but the hypocrisy was baked in from the moment Tagg Romney and his wife decided that it was okay for them to use IVF and a surrogate, but it should be banned for everyone else because zygotes are people, too.
WWStBreitbartD
Hypocrites
STFU about Granite Countertops!!!
Mnemosyne
@WWStBreitbartD:
So which presidential candidate was Graeme Frost the son of?
Citizen_X
@Mnemosyne:
That, too.
Yutsano
@WWStBreitbartD: LOLWUT??
Kyle
@Sarah, Proud and Tall:
Hell, yes. Seeing Willard and Queen Ann’s attitude toward “the help” (i.e. anyone non-Mormon with a bank balance under $10m), I wouldn’t put it past any Rmoney to demand actions that would risk the surrogate’s health if it meant a better chance they would get a healthy kid.
Christian Sieber
@Mnemosyne: That’s a valid argument (about how IVF and personhood amendments aren’t compatible) and it is also far more generally applicable than trying to pull a sleazy, unreliable “gotcha” about abortion language in Tagg Romney’s surrogacy contract. This is especially true given that Tagg had had that language removed during a previous surrogacy process — this article is a weak thing to hang an argument on, especially since that kind of language is apparently standard for surrogacy contracts.
JoeK
@piratedan:
I haven’t read the whole thread, so sorry if this has been said a lot, but I think leaving it alone is the best move. After all, we’re the “Abortion is sometimes necessary and ought always to be legal” camp, so the worst thing this lets us say about Romney (coherently) is “Hypocrite!” And there are already lots of opportunities for that.