This is a sensitive post, but also what Harnu is all about. So before I respond I should make two disclaimers. First, I am not a Romney supporter; am currently undecided. Second, I am not a woman, so cannot identify emotionally with this issue in the same way that a woman might.

With those things said, I offer these thoughts:

1. You can bet that the simple answer to the question is plain-old political calculation. Romney has weighed the positives versus the negatives (in terms of voter fallout) of removing support and figured out that he should stay the course. I doubt that it says much about his personal convictions, as he is in the middle of an election and has shown the willingness to waffle.

2. The best possible reason why Romney will not lose support from votes is that there are actually quite a few women that agree with at least some version of what Mourdock said. The idea, for example, that everything that happens is either caused or allowed by God (whether it's good, bad, or awful) is a fairly essential part of mainstream Christianity, and is also pretty central to Islam and Judaism. Moreover, many people who would not claim a belief in God will attest to believing that "everything happens for a reason" and apply that to both good events in life and terrible ones. This is obviously a very challenging belief, particularly when applied to specific events in life, but it is one that many, many people hold quite dear; it has also helped me personally in dealing with a number of difficult things over the years.

Those were my reactions when I read your post. Completely understand your "scary" sentiment. I am sure that it is shared by many, especially those who do not see a role for religious beliefs in the government conversation about policy. To a very large degree, I am one of those people.

It is reasonable to let people have the freedom of speech and this is Mourdock's soul felt belief. Romney would have to ask the campain to shush a lot of supporters out there expressing their beliefs. Why would Romney want to limit the Lord's will?? People do have a choice to not like Mourdock or go along with it. We all know Mitt would not pull the messanger support for political rteasons...this is America!

What I believe is that personal religious views should not be an issue in a political campaign. My vote is influenced by how I think the candidate will lead the country and the policies they will support, not an endorsement of their religious views.

Unfortunately in the US we (Candidates and voters) seem to to think these two should be intertwined.

Interesting replies to my question. Political expediency I certainly understand--in this case, as one reply said, the pros and cons of supporting another politician were undoubtedly weighed by Romney and his staff, as, incidentally, they would be by any politician. So goes politics. The term "Lord's Will" is quite another matter. It kind of makes me shudder when I think of the horrendous things that humankind has done under that banner. Granted, there are many good outcomes of the justification as well, but it seems all so convenient at times.

For my part, I would like to think that a God of goodness would never condone violence against women.