Join the Meeting Place for Moms!
Talk to other moms, share advice, and have fun!

(minimum 6 characters)

Current Events & Hot Topics Current Events & Hot Topics

Mitt Romney paid for son's surrogate 'abortion contract', right to kill fetus

Posted by on Sep. 23, 2012 at 12:57 AM
  • 47 Replies

Mitt Romney's son, Tagg Romney, has been discovered to have engaged in a contract with a surrogate mother with the stipulations that if the child being carried was not up to the Romney's specifications, that the Romney family would have the final say if the child would be aborted or not.

In other words the Romney family used their money to buy the power to end a human life, something that Mitt Romney has spoken out against vehemently in the past.

Apparently money changes everything.

According to TMZ.com the leaked documents include a contract, known as a 'Gestational Carrier Agreement', which was signed between Tagg Romney, and an unnamed surrogate mother on July 28, 2011.

The section of the contract which gave the Romney's abortion power over the child reads as follows:

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.

The Romney campaign, naturally, has an explanation for this. It seems the family used this same surrogate in 2009, and in the previous contract the Romney family specifically wanted that part of the contract removed, and it was. This time however, Attorney Bill Handel, an expert on surrogacy law, said it was a simple oversight that the clause was left in the contract.

A lawyer for a family worth a quarter-of-a-billion dollars says it was an oversight? During an election year? Personally I find that to be a tough pill to swallow. Draw your own conclusions.


http://www.examiner.com/article/mitt-romney-paid-for-son-s-surrogate-abortion-contract-right-to-kill-fetus

by on Sep. 23, 2012 at 12:57 AM
Add your quick reply below:
You must be a member to reply to this post.
Replies (1-10):
brookiecookie87
by Platinum Member on Sep. 23, 2012 at 1:01 AM
3 moms liked this

I would not hold this against him. For all we know he included that clause to stop the mother from aborting the baby.

This is a bit reaching. Especially since there are so many things he is doing/saying that are worth focusing on.

viv212
by Gold Member on Sep. 23, 2012 at 1:01 AM
2 moms liked this
Lol!! Oh my gosh this family is just too much. I'm assuming if the baby had any special needs or wasn't developing properly they would abort it?

Wow for someone that does not agree with abortion unless in situations of rape or invert, he sure does like to bend the rules with his money.
Posted on CafeMom Mobile
viv212
by Gold Member on Sep. 23, 2012 at 1:03 AM
*incest, rape or incest.

Quoting viv212:

Lol!! Oh my gosh this family is just too much. I'm assuming if the baby had any special needs or wasn't developing properly they would abort it?



Wow for someone that does not agree with abortion unless in situations of rape or invert, he sure does like to bend the rules with his money.
Posted on CafeMom Mobile
glitterteaz
by Ruby Member on Sep. 23, 2012 at 1:04 AM

Oh wow!!!

wissotamum
by Member on Sep. 23, 2012 at 1:10 AM
3 moms liked this
Tagg isn't running for office. This contract is between Tagg, his wife, and the surrogate. This should be off limits information.
Mitt should lose the election because he should lose the election, not because his adult son has a legal contract to potentially have a legal procedure performed during a legal surrogacy.
Posted on CafeMom Mobile
kailu1835
by Ruby Member on Sep. 23, 2012 at 1:12 AM

Wow, now we are SERIOUSLY grasping at straws here.  I happen to be pretty knowledable about surrogacy, since I have a friend with 3, about to be 4 surrogate children, and she introduced me to her world.  A TON of contracts between intended parents and surrogates have that clause in there.  In fact, I would be so bold as to say it is the typical generic contract... that it is up to the intended parents to decide.  My friend specifically puts into her contracts that if the parents decide to terminate for any reason whatsoever, she will not terminate, and will take over rights to the baby, to decide with as she will.  She has had many more than 4 contracts signed this way.  A few parents backed out, one family she wasn't able to conceive with.  All families she worked with signed the contract.  However, I know of multiple surrogates who did not have that clause put into their contract, and the intended parents decided to terminate. 

PeachySweet2007
by Member on Sep. 23, 2012 at 1:16 AM
I'm a dem, but I'd still say this is reaching. Sounds like a standard clause, and besides, its not like it says if there is a problem the pregnancy WILL be aborted. It says all decisions will be left up to the intended parents. Which is as it should be, in my opinion.
Posted on CafeMom Mobile
grandmab125
by Gold Member on Sep. 23, 2012 at 1:18 AM


Quoting kailu1835:

Wow, now we are SERIOUSLY grasping at straws here.  I happen to be pretty knowledable about surrogacy, since I have a friend with 3, about to be 4 surrogate children, and she introduced me to her world.  A TON of contracts between intended parents and surrogates have that clause in there.  In fact, I would be so bold as to say it is the typical generic contract... that it is up to the intended parents to decide.  My friend specifically puts into her contracts that if the parents decide to terminate for any reason whatsoever, she will not terminate, and will take over rights to the baby, to decide with as she will.  She has had many more than 4 contracts signed this way.  A few parents backed out, one family she wasn't able to conceive with.  All families she worked with signed the contract.  However, I know of multiple surrogates who did not have that clause put into their contract, and the intended parents decided to terminate. 

Of course they are grasping at straws....and an article from TMZ..ha.ha.ha.  They've gone at Romney from every angle they can think of, and it hasn't sunk him yet....so now they go after his son and wife's private affairs.  It's disgusting.  Remember, when Obama made the press back off of his family?  His girls were off limit.  But it's OK to go after Sara Palin's family, and now, apparently Mitt's too.

grandma B

brookiecookie87
by Platinum Member on Sep. 23, 2012 at 1:18 AM


Quoting kailu1835:

Wow, now we are SERIOUSLY grasping at straws here.  I happen to be pretty knowledable about surrogacy, since I have a friend with 3, about to be 4 surrogate children, and she introduced me to her world.  A TON of contracts between intended parents and surrogates have that clause in there.  In fact, I would be so bold as to say it is the typical generic contract... that it is up to the intended parents to decide.  My friend specifically puts into her contracts that if the parents decide to terminate for any reason whatsoever, she will not terminate, and will take over rights to the baby, to decide with as she will.  She has had many more than 4 contracts signed this way.  A few parents backed out, one family she wasn't able to conceive with.  All families she worked with signed the contract.  However, I know of multiple surrogates who did not have that clause put into their contract, and the intended parents decided to terminate. 

I agree that this Issue isn't one that really needs to be brought up. There are many reasons they could argue for why it is there, and many reasons why it shouldn't even matter.

I would disagree with your grasping at straws comments. Unless you are implying there are so many straws to choose from that occasionally someone accidentally grabs a short one.

If someone wanted to make Romney look bad there are plenty of Quotes directly from Romney to use, and plenty events directly from Romney to pick from-Without needing to do any spinning, or reaching.

But I do agree this one is definitely reaching.

Join us on the 99% Moms group!
The Ninety-Nine Percent Moms   

If they enforced bank regulations like they do park rules, we wouldn't be in this mess

brookiecookie87
by Platinum Member on Sep. 23, 2012 at 1:19 AM
3 moms liked this


Quoting grandmab125:

Of course they are grasping at straws....and an article from TMZ..ha.ha.ha.  They've gone at Romney from every angle they can think of, and it hasn't sunk him yet....so now they go after his son and wife's private affairs.  It's disgusting.  Remember, when Obama made the press back off of his family?  His girls were off limit.  But it's OK to go after Sara Palin's family, and now, apparently Mitt's too.

I agree that this Issue isn't one that really needs to be brought up. There are many reasons they could argue for why it is there, and many reasons why it shouldn't even matter.

I would disagree with your grasping at straws comments. Unless you are implying there are so many straws to choose from that occasionally someone accidentally grabs a short one.

If someone wanted to make Romney look bad there are plenty of Quotes directly from Romney to use, and plenty events directly from Romney to pick from-Without needing to do any spinning, or reaching.

But I do agree this one is definitely reaching.

Join us on the 99% Moms group!
The Ninety-Nine Percent Moms   

If they enforced bank regulations like they do park rules, we wouldn't be in this mess

Add your quick reply below:
You must be a member to reply to this post.
Join the Meeting Place for Moms!
Talk to other moms, share advice, and have fun!

(minimum 6 characters)

close Join now to connect to
other members!
Connect with Facebook or Sign Up Using Email

Already Joined? LOG IN