Tom Donohue signaled that the powerful U.S. Chamber of Commerce may be softening its attacks against President Obama’s signature accomplishments like the Affordable Care Act and the creation of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. Kevin Hall reports that Donohue is pledging a “wait-and-see approach” towards the new agency and has not decided if the organization will challenge the recess appointment of Richard Cordray as its director.

During his annual State of the Business address yesterday, Donohue also adopted a more moderate tone towards health care reform. “The health care law established 159 new agencies, panels, commissions, and regulatory bodies,” Donohue said, but did not echo his 2011 call for repealing the law in its entirety. Consider the contrast:

DONOHUE IN 2011: By mid-December, HHS had already granted 222 waivers to the law—a revealing acknowledgement that the law is unworkable. And, with key provisions under challenge in the courts by states and others, it’s time to go back to the drawing board.

Last year, while strongly advocating health care reform, the Chamber was a leader in the fight against this particular bill—and thus we support legislation in the House to repeal it. We see the upcoming House vote as an opportunity for everyone to take a fresh look at health care reform—and to replace unworkable approaches with more effective measures that will lower costs, expand access, and improve quality.

Indeed, the Chamber of Commerce spent millions opposing the legislation in 2010 and its rather light criticism of the measure may signal a growing acceptance of reform among the health care industry. The Obama administration has worked hard to accomodate the concerns of health care stakeholders in the implementation process and the industry has partnered with the government in developing some of the law’s regulatory structure.

Health care groups may also be opposed to the politics of repeal. While the GOP presidential candidates have pledged to eliminate the law “on day one,” unless Republicans win a 60 seat majority in the Senate, a president will not be able to get rid of the measure in its entirety. The Senate could pursue repeal through the reconciliation process, but that piecemeal approach would likely create great uncertainty for the industry and is unlikely to attract significant support.

Before converting to his present anti-choice position in 2005, Mitt Romney touted his mother’s strong choice credentials as proof of his own commitment to preserving women’s access to abortion. “I believe that abortion should be safe and legal in this country; I have since the time that my mom took that position when she ran in 1970 as a U.S. Senate candidate,” Romney said during his bid for the Senate in 1994. He reiterated the comparison in 2002: “There was a woman who was running for political office, U.S. Senate. She took a very bold and courageous stand in 1970, and that was in a conservative state. That was that a woman should have the right to make her own choice as to whether or not to have an abortion. Her name was Lenore Romney, she was my mom. Even though she lost, she established a record of courage in that regard.” Watch the remarks starting at 2:40:

Since Romney publicly changed his stance on abortion before running for president in 2008, several reporters have questioned the story and Lenore’s alleged commitment on the issue. Now, Salon’s Justin Elliot discovers that a new biography The Real Romney “provides evidence that Mitt Romney has repeatedly mischaracterized his mother’s position on abortion rights“:

“The Real Romney” authors Michael Kranish and Scott Helman found a May 1970 story from a Owosso, Michigan, newspaper in which Lenore Romney says of the abortion issue:

“I think we need to reevaluate this, but do not feel it is simple as having an appendectomy. … I’m so tired of hearing the argument that a woman should have the final word on what happens to her own body. This is a life.”

As Elliott concludes, “If anything that statement — with its emphasis on women not having the final word — would most accurately be characterized as anti-choice. The irony is that Mitt Romney is now arguably closer to his mother’s actual 1970 position than he was when he ran as a pro-choice Senate candidate in 1994.”