This past May, Mitt Romney’s son and daughter-in-law welcomed twins via surrogate birth. Today, TMZ is reporting that the Gestational Carrier Agreement they signed in July 2011 contained a provision for the surrogate to abort if she felt her health or well-being was at risk. Additionally, TMZ reports that the relevant clause contains provisions for the biological parents choosing to abort:
Paragraph 13 goes on:”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 there’s another relevant provision in Paragraph 13: “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.”
Now for the stupid mistake. We’ve learned Tagg chose the same surrogate in 2009, who gave birth to a boy. Attorney Bill Handel — a nationally-known expert in surrogacy law who put the deal together between Tagg and the surrogate — tells TMZ when the 2009 contract was drafted there was no Paragraph 13 providing for abortion because Tagg and his wife didn’t want it.Handel says in 2011, when the second contract was being drafted, everyone involved “just forgot” to remove Paragraph 13. Handel says, “No one noticed. What can I say?”
TMZ also asserts that “sources connected with Mitt Romney” said that Romney covered some of the costs associated with the contract. The geniuses at TMZ put two and two together and came to the bombshell conclusion that Romney, in spite of his pro-life stance, secretly favors abortion.
Now that the story has broken, pro-abortion lefties and Romney-haters couldn’t be happier:
Lest you think everyone resorted to their basest behavior, one charming Twitterer managed to elevate the discourse: