Mitt Romney Anti-Abortion Position Under Fire GOP Presidential hopeful Mitt Romney might talk that talk about being against abortion, but it turns out that he’s not telling “the American people” the whole truth about his position. TMZ is reporting that although Money Mitt claims to be against the controversial procedure unless it is a case of rape, incest, or life-threatening health issues, he partially funded a surrogate procedure for his son and daughter-in-law which involved a clearly stated clause that the parents had the right to have the surrogate abort their fetus even if it did not involved any of the aforementioned conditions. In other words, under the arrangement, they had the right to have the surrogate abort the baby if they felt he/she would not be born “healthy” or without birth defects…..and daddy Mitt covered a portion of the expenses for the arrangement. We might want the truth….but ol’ money bags Mitt seems to think we can’t handle the truth.
Mitt Romney’s son Tagg signed a surrogacy agreement that gave the surrogate, Tagg and his wife the right to abort her recent pregnancy, according to TMZ. Tagg, the oldest of Mitt’s five sons, had twins this year through a surrogate, and Mitt Romney covered some of the expenses connected with the arrangement. The twin boys, David Mitt and William Ryder, were born on May 4, 2012. Tagg and his wife Jen, along with the surrogate and her husband, signed a Gestational Carrier Agreement dated July 28, 2011. Paragraph 13 of it reads: “If in the opinion of the [physician or obstetrician] there is potential physical harm to the surrogate, the decision to abort or not abort is to be made by the surrogate.” “In the event the child is determined to be physiologically, genetically or chromosomally abnormal, the decision 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.” “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.” In other words, Tagg and Jen Romney gave the surrogate the right to abort the fetuses even if her life wasn’t in danger. Only “potential physical harm” was needed. The Romneys had the right to abort the fetuses if they felt they would not be healthy. Mitt Romney was involved in the surrogate arrangement because he paid some of the expenses, but it is unclear if he read the contract or knew the terms. The Republican presidential candidate has said he is in favor of abortion being legal in the case of rape and incest and the health and life of the mother. Otherwise, Romney says he’s against abortion, a position he didn’t always hold. Interestingly, Tagg used the same surrogate in 2009, and there was no Paragraph 13 providing for abortion at that time because Tagg and his wife didn’t want it. In 2011, when the second contract was being drafted, it was in there.
Jessica Espinoza is only 22 years old. She’s unemployed. She grew up in difficult, poor circumstances on the south side of San Antonio. In other words: this hopeful definitely possessed the sort of sympathetic backstory producers look for on The X Factor . But could she provide the vocals that would take her to the next round? You tell us, THG readers: Watch Espinoza belt out a version of Pink’s “Nobody Knows” and decide if you’d want to see more of her on the Fox competition…
The Real Housewives of New York City comes back from vacation and “What Happens in St. Barths Doesn’t Stay in St. Barths.” We’ll recap the self righteous ranting and why Karma’s a bitch in our THG +/- review. The ladies make their way back to the city where their trip to St. Barths is rehashed until I thought I’d be nauseous if I heard about it one more time. Minus 12 . But the one thing no one is talking about…Luann and Tomas.
It’s a big week for the filmmaking Paul Andersons. Paul Thomas Anderson’s The Master opened in a handful of cinemas in New York and Los Angeles, and Paul W.S. Anderson’s Resident Evil: Retribution in theaters everywhere (in 3D and otherwise). While The Master offers up a immersive, abstract look at an unstable man being courted by the head of a cult-like movement, Resident Evil: Retribution in its own way also departs from the usual narrative confines of moviemaking. It’s the closest thing you’ll find yet to a recreation of a video game sensibility on the big screen — which is in line with the franchise’s source material — and makes for a memorably unsettling if not particularly satisfying viewing experience. Resident Evil: Retribution finds action star (and Anderson spouse) Milla Jovovich returning to play Alice, a former employee turned sworn enemy of the evil Umbrella Corporation. Considering how crazily far and, frankly, nonsensical the story has gotten from its start as the story of a weaponized virus infecting a secret genetic research facility, the film pays surprising attention to the basic premise before skimming over the developments of the more recent installments in an intro sequence. The series’ ability to shuck off its own history is put on display in the initial action scene, which picks up where the last film left off: a slow-motion sequence of explosions and gunfire that runs backwards before lurching forward at full speed to neatly do away with the Arcadia and any other surviving characters on board. Then again, who cares about those guys? The Resident Evil films have clearly become a continuing discombobulated nightmare belonging to Alice and Alice alone. Again and again, she seems to find safety, only to wake up in some new, terrible scenario in which she has to fight for her life. Resident Evil: Retribution takes this idea to its end point by being set in an underwater Umbrella-run base in which different test stages have been built for the company to demonstrate its bioweapons. All-white hallways string together life-size recreations of Times Square, downtown Tokyo, central Moscow and a suburban street. Each houses a scenario in which, at the bidding of the central A.I., swarms of infected humans, ax-wielding mutants or zombie soldiers will be released to attack. Resident Evil: Retribution , in other words, has taken great pains to find a way to have real-life game stages. This sensibility extends to the way the film explains its mission — rendezvous with a rescue team and find a way out — and the way it provides weapons for its characters: armories rise out of the ground, or, in a sequence that demonstrates definite game logic, Alice looks in an abandoned cop car, heads to a nearby bike to take its chain, smashes in the window and adds both her new tool and a gun from the vehicle to her inventory. This is even the case in the way actors from earlier installments in the franchise — Michelle Rodriguez and Oded Fehr — are folded into the film, thanks to Umbrella’s fondness for cloning. A glimpse of multiple versions of Alice in storage also reinforces the idea that if she were to die, she could just respawn and start over. Video games and movies have an uneasy partnership. The first Resident Evil is one of the best of a shaky history of adaptations from console to big screen, but the franchise has skewed toward the sensibility of the former medium rather than the latter in a way that’s unique but tiresome. At its best, Resident Evil: Retribution feels like a series of elaborate cut scenes strung together, but much of the time it’s a reminder of how incredibly unfun it can be to sit around watching someone else play without getting a chance yourself. The film’s extravagant action scenes have not a whiff of consequence to them, and other than Alice, the foremost quality of all of the characters is their disposability. A sequence like the one in which clones of familiar characters are put through an impossible test scenario is genuinely disconcerting in how it shakes up our perceptions of the reality of what’s on screen. But even that becomes a reminder that bringing one of the traditional qualities of a video game protagonist — his or her qualified immortality — to a movie further strips any sense of human investment in the character. Any consistency on screen is entirely stylistic: there are no rules in this universe other than that Alice will battle on, defying gravity and physics and looking fabulous despite the world eternally ending all around her. Follow Alison Willmore on Twitter. Follow Movieline on Twitter.
Adrianne Curry is not a friend of DrunkenStepfather.com or me, Jesus Martinez, and I am not just saying that cuz the erotica she produces is on some low grade, mall photographer, the kind who takes nudes of wives for husbands as 20th Anniversary gifts….this lingerie shit she’s posting to twitter, cuz the half naked shit gets her follows, even if no one prior to her getting half naked remembered her from such low level reality shows as the first Season of Next Top Model…something she’s parlayed into such legendary things as marrying and divorcing a 60 year old from the Brady Bunch and ending up dressed up as Star Wars characters at conventions cuz it is all the work she can get…. I am saying it cuz she tried to tell me off on twitter once a long time ago, before blocking me and propelling to this rock bottom self produced lingerie pics….
Joanna Krupa is pretty fucking jobbing….she’s hurting…she’s fallen off…she’s struggling…she’s rock bottom coasting…and that’s because she decided to use dancing with the stars as a platform to finally become a star…since they needed a hot chick and prior to her being on it she was just a Maxim girl…hardly a fucking star….before realizing that if they didn’t care about her before the shit, they won’t care about her after the shit, even if it put her in front of millions of people who never heard of her again….it was some bad strategy or advice…that has left her washing cars in a bikini for publicity on some low level, obvious, people will notice, but why are you subjecting yourself to this, do you need money this bad kick. Seriously, I like watching, but I can see the sadness in her vagina definition as she degrades herself like a fucking whore that I guess she’s telling us she is…through her actions not her words…and I kinda love it. TO SEE THE REST OF THE PICS FOLLOW THIS LINK
They took the words right out of our mouths. In an interview that hits home for many of us, Kim K explains her branding and gives us a lesson in Hip-Hop. Love or Hate Kim and her ‘brand’, is it wrong to accept that she’s not going away any time soon? For those few who haven’t yet had the pleasure, Kardashian is a 31-year-old US reality TV star, lately prominent in Britain, who has, since becoming famous in 2007, ascended to the level of a symptom in the culture. Keeping Up With The Kardashians, currently in its seventh season, is contrived, sensationalist, repetitive and witless, but no more so than a lot of things one enjoys without accusing them of spiritual corruption. The difference in this case is reach. Twitter is an unreliable measure of influence, but Kardashian has nearly 16 million followers, putting her ninth in the world, three places behind President Obama. (Lady Gaga is number one; Taylor Swift number eight.) With her two sisters, Khloé and Kourtney, she runs a chain of clothing stores called Dash, has a Las Vegas-based outlet called Kardashian Khaos, promotes makeup and fashion lines under the label Kardashian Kollection, all of which act as window dressing for the business, merely, of being Kim Kardashian: a woman of above average looks, seemingly rather nice, who along with the rest of her family – emotionally speaking – strips on TV for tips. After the shoot, we sit in a courtyard at the back of the studio and Kardashian tries to explain what the fuss is about. “When I hear people say [what are you famous for?], I want to say, what are you talking about?” she says slowly, her eyes wide as a bushbaby’s. “I have a hit TV show. We’ve shot more episodes than I Love Lucy! We’ve been on the air longer than The Andy Griffith Show! I mean, these are iconic shows, so it blows my mind when people say that.” But you’re not performing; you’re just being followed around by cameras… “But to be able to open up your life like that and to be so… if everyone could do it, everyone would. It doesn’t make sense to me.” The day before the interview, I go to Dash in Beverly Hills, the flagship store aimed at Kardashian’s teen fan base. A bouncer stands outside letting teenagers in one by one, although the store is almost empty. “There’s a line!” he calls out to baffled passers-by, and the teenagers snigger. Inside, the clothes are very nice; soft T-shirts, cute shorts and dresses, but that isn’t why people are here. Kardashian says that since the show started airing, the store has become a “tourist attraction” and the stock is angled accordingly. After taking photos of themselves in front of a giant Kardashian family montage, the adolescents buy one of several items within their price-range; a $20 compact mirror; pencils for a few dollars; or a $10 bottle of water with the Kardashian sisters’ photo on one side. “Our water sells out all the time,” Kardashian says. “People collect them because each store has a different picture on the bottle.” That’s amazing. “It’s really crazy,” she says. “I mean, a water bottle? It’s crazy.” She blinks slowly at the wonder of effortless profiteering. Kardashian characterizes her typical fan as “a younger girl, like 15 or 16, who loves fashion, loves to be a girly girl, loves beauty, glam”, and whom she respects as a backwards projection of herself. If you can overlook the vacant materialism, she is in some ways not a bad role model. She points out that she is not “your stick-skinny typical model”; that she doesn’t go out on benders; that she tries not to swear too much. “I remember this one time when I used the F-word – and everyone was like, I can’t believe you said that! You never say that! I am really cautious about what I say and do. If I look at the message I’m portraying, I think it definitely is be who you are, but be your best you.” And yet she makes people incredibly angry. “Yeah. I have no idea why. I work really hard – I have seven appointments tomorrow before 10am. I’m constantly on the go. I have a successful clothing line. A fragrance. I mean, acting and singing aren’t the only ways to be talented. It’s a skill to get people to really like you for you, instead of a character written for you by somebody else.” She is currently dating Kanye West, who might have had a hand in the following analogy. “When rap music first started,” Kardashian says, “rappers were not respected and people thought it was just a fad. And people thought reality shows were going to come and go. They have taken over the soap operas. So it’s a modern version of a soap opera.” For the record then, what is Kardashian’s talent? “What is my talent?” She cocks her head to one side. “Well, a bear can juggle and stand on a ball and he’s talented, but he’s not famous. Do you know what I mean?” Yeah Kim…we know what you mean. Source Images via WENN/Twitter
They took the words right out of our mouths. In an interview that hits home for many of us, Kim K explains her branding and gives us a lesson in Hip-Hop. Love or Hate Kim and her ‘brand’, is it wrong to accept that she’s not going away any time soon? For those few who haven’t yet had the pleasure, Kardashian is a 31-year-old US reality TV star, lately prominent in Britain, who has, since becoming famous in 2007, ascended to the level of a symptom in the culture. Keeping Up With The Kardashians, currently in its seventh season, is contrived, sensationalist, repetitive and witless, but no more so than a lot of things one enjoys without accusing them of spiritual corruption. The difference in this case is reach. Twitter is an unreliable measure of influence, but Kardashian has nearly 16 million followers, putting her ninth in the world, three places behind President Obama. (Lady Gaga is number one; Taylor Swift number eight.) With her two sisters, Khloé and Kourtney, she runs a chain of clothing stores called Dash, has a Las Vegas-based outlet called Kardashian Khaos, promotes makeup and fashion lines under the label Kardashian Kollection, all of which act as window dressing for the business, merely, of being Kim Kardashian: a woman of above average looks, seemingly rather nice, who along with the rest of her family – emotionally speaking – strips on TV for tips. After the shoot, we sit in a courtyard at the back of the studio and Kardashian tries to explain what the fuss is about. “When I hear people say [what are you famous for?], I want to say, what are you talking about?” she says slowly, her eyes wide as a bushbaby’s. “I have a hit TV show. We’ve shot more episodes than I Love Lucy! We’ve been on the air longer than The Andy Griffith Show! I mean, these are iconic shows, so it blows my mind when people say that.” But you’re not performing; you’re just being followed around by cameras… “But to be able to open up your life like that and to be so… if everyone could do it, everyone would. It doesn’t make sense to me.” The day before the interview, I go to Dash in Beverly Hills, the flagship store aimed at Kardashian’s teen fan base. A bouncer stands outside letting teenagers in one by one, although the store is almost empty. “There’s a line!” he calls out to baffled passers-by, and the teenagers snigger. Inside, the clothes are very nice; soft T-shirts, cute shorts and dresses, but that isn’t why people are here. Kardashian says that since the show started airing, the store has become a “tourist attraction” and the stock is angled accordingly. After taking photos of themselves in front of a giant Kardashian family montage, the adolescents buy one of several items within their price-range; a $20 compact mirror; pencils for a few dollars; or a $10 bottle of water with the Kardashian sisters’ photo on one side. “Our water sells out all the time,” Kardashian says. “People collect them because each store has a different picture on the bottle.” That’s amazing. “It’s really crazy,” she says. “I mean, a water bottle? It’s crazy.” She blinks slowly at the wonder of effortless profiteering. Kardashian characterizes her typical fan as “a younger girl, like 15 or 16, who loves fashion, loves to be a girly girl, loves beauty, glam”, and whom she respects as a backwards projection of herself. If you can overlook the vacant materialism, she is in some ways not a bad role model. She points out that she is not “your stick-skinny typical model”; that she doesn’t go out on benders; that she tries not to swear too much. “I remember this one time when I used the F-word – and everyone was like, I can’t believe you said that! You never say that! I am really cautious about what I say and do. If I look at the message I’m portraying, I think it definitely is be who you are, but be your best you.” And yet she makes people incredibly angry. “Yeah. I have no idea why. I work really hard – I have seven appointments tomorrow before 10am. I’m constantly on the go. I have a successful clothing line. A fragrance. I mean, acting and singing aren’t the only ways to be talented. It’s a skill to get people to really like you for you, instead of a character written for you by somebody else.” She is currently dating Kanye West, who might have had a hand in the following analogy. “When rap music first started,” Kardashian says, “rappers were not respected and people thought it was just a fad. And people thought reality shows were going to come and go. They have taken over the soap operas. So it’s a modern version of a soap opera.” For the record then, what is Kardashian’s talent? “What is my talent?” She cocks her head to one side. “Well, a bear can juggle and stand on a ball and he’s talented, but he’s not famous. Do you know what I mean?” Yeah Kim…we know what you mean. Source Images via WENN/Twitter
Kristen Stewart fans may have been disappointed that the Twilight superstar did not make an appearance at last week’s MTV Video Music Awards, but crowds here in Toronto had the chance to see the actress on the red carpet for the North American premiere of Walter Salles ‘ On The Road along with fellow cast members Garrett Hedlund , Kirsten Dunst , Amy Adams and Sam Riley . Stewart spoke with ML about the part she had actually landed before she filmed her first Twilight installment. Stewart shared her thoughts on the steamy relationship between her character Marylou and Hedlund’s Dean Moriarty — a life-long relationship that was rife with affairs, drugs and a wild ride on the road. [ PHOTOS: Kristen Stewart, Garrett Hedlund, and Kirsten Dunst at the Toronto premiere of On The Road ] “They really are ‘simpatico.’ It was a tumultuous relationship. And it’s hard to love like that, but they were so in love with each other and you don’t know this from reading the book, but they stayed lovers until the end of his life,” Stewart said during a conversation with ML at a Toronto hotel over the weekend. Stewart first read On The Road as a high school freshman. A short time afterward, she was approached by director Walter Salles who had been told to consider Stewart for the part of Marylou after fellow filmmakers saw her in Sean Penn’s Into The Wild and suggested that he consider the young actress. The project took a number of years before the actual shoot commenced and in the meantime, Stewart began doing the enormously popular Twilight series, propelling her fame into the stratosphere. “I got the [ On The Road ] job on the spot and I drove away vibrating,” Stewart said. In the film version of the book written by Jack Kerouac, Stewart plays the unconventional free-spirit Marylou, the former wife and still frequent lover of Dean Moriarty, a fast-talking charismatic with an insatiable libido. Dean and best friend Sal (Sam Riley), a young writer whose life is shaken after Dean’s arrival take to the road. Marylou frequently accompanies Sal and Dean’s travels across the country in adventures fueled by sex, drugs and the pursuit of the “It” – a quest for understanding and personal fulfillment. “He kind of raised her and she always had a place in his heart, even though there were a lot of spots in that heart, but she was definitely one in the center and the same goes the other way around,” Stewart said of Marylou and Dean, the On The Road names of the real-life individuals described by Kerouac. “They both helped each other grow up.” One of the seminal works of literature of post-war America, On The Road took decades to be made into a film, even after Francis Ford Coppola acquired the filmmaking rights to the story. Stewart said she believes that society may have not been ready to see On The Road in theaters in the immediate years after the book was published, acknowledging that the film, which has not yet been rated, is racy. “I think it’s a good time to see this story visually because we are not shocked by some of the things that we were so shocked by before and it would have veiled it,” said Stewart. “It would have been so shocking seeing people doing drugs and having sex that you wouldn’t have seen the spirit of [ On the Road ]. You wouldn’t have seen the message behind it. Maybe it would have been good because it would have forced people to look, but maybe they weren’t able to do it then.” She also expressed the need for young people to have dreams and a zest for life, similarly to the characters in the film, even if those dreams are not fully comprehended. “At that stage of your life there’s so much ahead of you, at least it feels that way. At that age you need to have a faith and feelings you can’t articulate yet because at some point you need to hold onto them and you’ll find the words to describe them.” [ Movieline will have more from our interviews with Kristen Stewart, Garrett Hedlund, and Walter Salles this week. ] Read more from the Toronto Film Festival. Follow Brian Brooks on Twitter . Follow Movieline on Twitter .
