I found the story originally on the WaPo:
Former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney said this week that as president he would allow individual states to keep abortion legal, two weeks after telling a national television audience that he supports a constitutional amendment to ban the procedure nationwide.
In an interview with a Nevada television station on Tuesday, Romney said Roe. v. Wade should be abolished and vowed to “let states make their own decision in this regard.” On Aug. 6, he told ABC’s George Stephanopoulos that he supports a human life amendment to the Constitution that would protect the unborn.
My first thought was that WaPo took 9 words out of context from an entire interview.
Here is the account from ABCNews:
Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney said Tuesday in a Nevada television interview that he supports letting states “make their own decision” about whether to keep abortion legal.
“My view is that the Supreme Court has made an error in saying at the national level one size fits all for the whole nation,” Romney told Nevada political columnist Jon Ralston in a televised interview. “Instead, I would let states make their choices.”
However, putting in more context still yields Romney no wiggle room.
Unfortunately for Romney, it’s a long way from “let states make their own decision in this regard” to “telling a national television audience that he supports a constitutional amendment to ban the procedure nationwide”.
He was talking about abortion in the context of casino gaming on which he said states should decide. He followed saying that states should decide abortion as well. It’s more of an inconsistency with his support for overturning Roe v. Wade and amending the constitution to outlaw the murdering of babies.
The bottom line question is: Which do you support Governor? States’ rights or a constitutional amendment?