Are Mitt Romney’s Lies Supported by Mormon Church Leaders?

Mormon temple in Belmont, MA, completed in 2000

I realize that’s a provocative title, but please stay with me. I’ll get to the point after some background.

I’ve been reading the new biography of Mitt Romney, The Real Romney by Michael Kranish and Scott Helman. I bought the book after reading a lengthy excerpt published by Vanity Fair, which focused heavily on Romney’s treatment of women when he was a powerful leader in the Boston Mormon church. I wrote about this in a Morning news post at the time.

I was disappointed to discover that the book itself is somewhat of a fluff piece–Boston Globe reporters Kranish and Helman put as positive a spin as possible on Romney’s history and his activities as a church and business leader. However, by reading between the lines and googling names, places, and incidents from the book, I’m still getting some useful information about “the real Romney.”

One prominent Mormon woman quoted in the book is Judith Dushku, associate professor of government at Suffolk University in Boston, and incidentally the mother of actress Eliza Dushku, who played Faith in the TV shows Buffy the Vampire Slayer and Angel and has appeared in a number of popular Hollywood movies.

Judith Dushku with daughter Eliza

Judith Dushku is a self-described feminist and a long-time contributor to the Mormon feminist magazine Exponent II. It was in this magazine that an anonymous author published the story of the Bishop Romney’s cruel treatment of her over a life-saving abortion. From the Vanity Fair article:

In the fall of 1990, Exponent II published in its journal an unsigned essay by a married woman who, having already borne five children, had found herself some years earlier [the late 1970s] facing an unplanned sixth pregnancy. She couldn’t bear the thought of another child and was contemplating abortion. But the Mormon Church makes few exceptions to permit women to end a pregnancy. Church leaders have said that abortion can be justified in cases of rape or incest, when the health of the mother is seriously threatened, or when the fetus will surely not survive beyond birth. And even those circumstances “do not automatically justify an abortion,” according to church policy.

Then the woman’s doctors discovered she had a serious blood clot in her pelvis. She thought initially that would be her way out—of course she would have to get an abortion. But the doctors, she said, ultimately told her that, with some risk to her life, she might be able to deliver a full-term baby, whose chance of survival they put at 50 percent. One day in the hospital, her bishop—later identified as Romney, though she did not name him in the piece—paid her a visit. He told her about his nephew who had Down syndrome and what a blessing it had turned out to be for their family. “As your bishop,” she said he told her, “my concern is with the child.” The woman wrote, “Here I—a baptized, endowed, dedicated worker, and tithe-payer in the church—lay helpless, hurt, and frightened, trying to maintain my psychological equilibrium, and his concern was for the eight-week possibility in my uterus—not for me!”

Romney would later contend that he couldn’t recall the incident, saying, “I don’t have any memory of what she is referring to, although I certainly can’t say it could not have been me.” Romney acknowledged having counseled Mormon women not to have abortions except in exceptional cases, in accordance with church rules. The woman told Romney, she wrote, that her stake president, a doctor, had already told her, “Of course, you should have this abortion and then recover from the blood clot and take care of the healthy children you already have.” Romney, she said, fired back, “I don’t believe you. He wouldn’t say that. I’m going to call him.” And then he left. The woman said that she went on to have the abortion and never regretted it. “What I do feel bad about,” she wrote, “is that at a time when I would have appreciated nurturing and support from spiritual leaders and friends, I got judgment, criticism, prejudicial advice, and rejection.”

Judith Dushku had a number of run-ins with Mitt Romney during his years as Stake President and Bishop in the Boston Mormon community. In fact, Dushku confronted Romney over the incident described above, after which he “broke off their friendship.”

The Vanity Fair article also includes Dushku’s description of the way Romney treated her when she wanted his permission [!] to visit the Mormon temple near Washington DC.

At one point while Romney was stake president, Dushku wanted to visit the temple outside Washington to take out endowments, a sacred rite that commits Mormons to a lifetime of faithfulness to the church. She had never entered a temple before and was thrilled at the chance to affirm her dedication to a faith she’d grown up with and grown to love. Earlier in her life, temples had been off limits to Mormons who, like Dushku, were married to non-Mormons. Now that rule had changed, and she was eager to go. But first she needed permission from her bishop and stake president.

After what she described as a “lovely interview” with her bishop and after speaking with one of Romney’s counselors, she went to see Romney. She wasn’t sure what to expect. Despite Romney’s willingness to allow some changes in 1993, he and Dushku had clashed over the church’s treatment of women. “He says something like ‘I suspect, if you’ve gotten through both of the interviews, there’s nothing I can do to keep you from going to the temple,’ ” Dushku recalled. “I said, ‘Well, why would you want to keep me from going to the temple?’ ” Romney’s answer, Dushku said, was biting. “He said, ‘Well, Judy, I just don’t understand why you stay in the church.’ ” She asked him whether he wanted her to really answer that question. “And he said, ‘No, actually. I don’t understand it, but I also don’t care. I don’t care why you do. But I can tell you one thing: you’re not my kind of Mormon.’ ” With that, Dushku said, he dismissively signed her recommendation to visit the temple and let her go. Dushku was deeply hurt. Though she and Romney had had their differences, he was still her spiritual leader. She had hoped he would be excited at her yearning to visit the temple. “I’m coming to you as a member of the church, essentially expecting you to say, ‘I’m happy for you,’ ” Dushku said. Instead, “I just felt kicked in the stomach.”

In the biography I’m currently reading, Kranish and Helman provide a several anecdotes which show Romney in a different light–times when he went out of his way to help members of his Mormon community. Admittedly, I haven’t finished the book yet, but so far I have found no examples of Romney being supportive of girls or women in this way–the beneficiaries of his largess and concern have all been male, unless you count the female relatives of his kindness, who may have incidentally benefited.

I googled Judith Dusku, and found this 2007 article at Scoop, a New Zealand site. Some bloggers noted the article at the time, but I had never seen before. The piece is an interview with Dushku by Suzan Mazur, who has written a number of investigative pieces about polygamous cults in the U.S. In the interview, Dushku discusses her relationship with Mitt Romney.

And here–finally–is the point of my title: A few years after the friendship ended, Romney ran for the Senate in 1994 against Ted Kennedy. Dushku was very surprised to learn that Romney was running as a pro-choice candidate. Dushku:

I was pleased and called, asking to see him. I told him I suspected that we had our differences, but that maybe I could work with him if he’d come to a really good position on women and childbirth.

And he said – Yes, come to my office.

I went to his office and I congratulated him on taking a pro-choice position. And his response was – Well they told me in Salt Lake City I could take this position, and in fact I probably had to in order to win in a liberal state like Massachusetts.

Suzan Mazur: Who’s “THEY”?

Judy Dushku: I asked him the same question. And he said “the Brethren” in Salt Lake City.

In other words, Romney was consulting with his church elders before deciding his positions on the issues, and they told him to lie! After Romney lost the election, Dushku congratulated him on making a “respectable showing” in the race. Here is Dushku’s description of the interaction.

I did go up to Mitt after his 1994 Senatorial race to congratulate him for making a respectable showing against Ted Kennedy, whom I had actively supported.

Suzan Mazur: And what did he say?

Judy Dushku: He said I’m so angry at you. I don’t ever want to talk about this again. And I don’t want to talk to you.

And I said, I’m sorry about that Mitt because I thought we could have our political differences and remain at least cordial.

He said – No. That’s not possible.

Now we know that over the years Romney has given millions to the Mormon Church–even in excess of the 10 percent he is required to give in order to remain a member in good standing. While he was at Bain, the company turned millions over to the church. From ABC News:

Romney has always been a major donor to the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, which requires that members “tithe,” or give 10 percent of their income to the church. His family charity, called the Tyler Foundation, has given more than $4 million to the church in the past five years, including $1.8 million in 2008 and $600,000 in 2009. But because Romney, whose fortune has been estimated at $250 million, has never released his personal tax returns, the full extent of his giving has never been public.

Newly uncovered stock contributions made during Romney’s Bain days suggest there is another dimension to Romney’s support for the church — one that could involve millions more than has been previously disclosed.

As part of just one Bain transaction in 2008, involving its investment in Burger King Holdings, filings with the Securities and Exchange Commission reveal that an unnamed Bain partner donated 65,326 shares of Burger King stock to the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, holdings then worth nearly $1.9 million. And there were numerous others, giving the church a stake in other Bain properties, such as Domino’s Pizza, the electronics manufacturer DDi, the phosphates company Innophos Holdings, and Marquee Holdings, the parent to AMC Theaters.

The Republican presidential candidate’s campaign staff confirmed that some of the stock transactions were at Romney’s direction, but they would not say which ones.

Clearly, Romney’s relationship with his church is not equivalent to Jack Kennedy’s Catholicism. In 1960, when he was running for president, Kennedy famously spoke to Protestant ministers about his religion. He explained that he would be completely independent as President and that his decisions would not be influenced by the Vatican or local church leaders.

Frankly, Kennedy wasn’t a particularly devoted Catholic–he had been reared in a Catholic family just like I was, but there was little likelihood that his religion would influence his presidency. Nevertheless he had to respond to the anti-Catholic bigotry of the time.

Romney, on the other hand, has been deeply involved with his church as has his family for many generations. His great great grandfather Miles Romney was an early follower of Joseph Smith the founder of the Mormon church. (Frankly, Joseph Smith was delusional–perhaps schizophrenic, certainly certifiable–but that’s a story for another post.) Romney’s father was extremely active in the church and Mitt followed in his footsteps, taking a powerful leadership role in the Boston church.

Is he still taking “suggestions” from “the brethren” in Salt Lake City? Are they supportive of the many bald face lies he has been telling on the campaign trail about President Obama and about the economic crisis? How can we possibly be sure that any of his policies are his own and not handed to him by church leaders.

I’m sorry, I realize this may sound bigoted, but I feel the same way about robo-Catholic candidates like Rick Santorum. I don’t want political leaders who are beholden to their religious elders or who might base their decisions while in office on the basis of their religious beliefs or “suggestions” from religious leaders.