Posted on 08/28/2007 11:38:07 AM PDT by WalterSkinner
The bottom line is this. If Americans want a leader who does not attempt to hide behind the skirt of federalism, does not have to explain why he flipped and flopped like a beached cutthroat trout, and who has always understood that the unalienable right to life comes from our creator and not state politicians or courts, then Duncan Hunter is the only choice...
(Excerpt) Read more at newswhichcannotlose.blogspot.com ...
Gotta buy the article if you want the original. But some enterprising freeper did that a while ago.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1865389/posts?page=173#173
Fred Thompson is pro-life, he opposes Roe v Wade as the law of the land and its provision for legalizing abortion on demand. Fred had a 100% pro-life voting record while in the Senate and was endorsed by the National Right to Life organization twice, in his election in 1994, and in his reelection in 1996.
>>>>>“Thompson’s other mistake is that he is still trying to stick with a federalist argument.
The federalist reasoning on the abortion issue is the most logical and rational at this point in time. Overturning Roe v Wade is what all pro-lifers want. Once Roe v Wade is finally struck down, the issue returns to the purview of the states by default. Exactly where it was for almost 200 years, prior to the 1973 Supreme Court decision of Roe v Wade. A decision that all pro-life conservatives believe was done by judicial fiat. What J.White called, "an act of raw judicial power". Before Roe, abortion on demand didn't exist.
The chances of a Reagan style Human Rights amendment to the Constitution passing into law anytime soon, is about slim to none. Reducing abortions is the objective of every pro-lifer I know.
Fabricating falsehoods about Fred Thompson`s solid pro-life record is an outrage and a sign of desperation by YOU Duncanista's.
Gotta pay $2.95 to view the whole thing though.
And FYI, Duncan Hunter announced that he would resign from his seat long before his son even announced intentions to run.
Where is the falsehood?
see #22
Those attacking Fred over his not supporting an amendment banning abortion also tend to support candidates who have no chance of winning, and apparently for the same reason.
A Constitutional Amendment banning abortion sounds fine and dandy until you try to line up the 3/4s of the states to ratify it.
Meanwhile, overturning Roe would allow those states who ARE willing to ban abortion to do such. And if the number of states banning abortion approaches 3/4s, THEN you look at an amendment to force a ban on the other states.
Until then, such talk accomplishes little. Meanwhile, overturning Roe would re-establish basic tenets of federalism and judicial restraint. Those tenets mean that sometimes government doesn't do what you want it to do. But in the long run re-establishing federalism is just as vital as ending abortion. Legal abortion has killed tens of millions. So has too much government. You have to address both issues.
Unfortunately, a few folks would rather maintain a stance of moral superiority even if it accomplishes nothing.
Another non-starter story, but thanks for the link.
There is an interesting foible to this line of thinking though. Although a federalist approach to abortion is the way things went prior to Roe vs. Wade, the ideas on abortion on demand have changed immensely since then; I wouldn’t be surprised if many states would continue to allow abortion on demand, with the exception of a few like South Dakota, Alabama, South Carolina, Arizona, etc. Considering the whole “right to life” issue at hand here with regards to abortion, I don’t see it all going with just Roe vs. Wade being overturned (though that would be nice).
I agree with Fred’s and Ron Paul’s line of reasoning on the topic, in that Roe vs. Wade was an affront to federalism. But approaching this entire issue of ‘abortion on demand’ from a purely federalist point of view isn’t quite the same as approaching it from a pro-life point of view, which not only would call for Roe v. Wade to be overturned, but for the unborn to be LEGALLY RECOGNIZED as the humans they are.
So if that is the case, how can a Constitutional Amendment banning abortion be ratified?
but for the unborn to be LEGALLY RECOGNIZED as the humans they are.
By what means? The Supremes?
That means personhood is what SCOTUS deems it to mean. And that just perpetuates their power.
I'd rather see Roe overturned. I think a lot more states would ban abortion than you'd think. And that would slowly move the public opinion to a point strongly opposing abortion. This will be a gradual process.
..evolving maybe--solid, come on now...
If you read what I posted, I did say passage of a Reagan style Human Rights amendment is slim to none. That is very true. I’d love to see it happen, but I’m not gonna refuse any opportunity to cut overall abotions across America. That would be stupid.
The fact that some states would totally outlaw abortions, while some would limit abortions to the three exceptions and still others would limit abortions to the first first trimeister, is exactly the way federalism works.
After 34 years and almost 50 million abortions, doing something is better than doing nothing. Attacking a good conservative like Fred Thompson for his pro-life stance in calling for a federalist approach to overturning Roe v Wade and ending abortion on demand as a national policy of the federal government, is defeatism.
I’ve only heard one guy out there talking about federalism:
Fred. Which is why he is my FIRST choice.
Where in his voting record is his pro-life stance not solid?
When you choose to get serious about discussing issues and who is best to lead our country through what will be some very rough times, and forget about useless poll numbers, get back to me.
Read Hunter’s legislation. He has 74 cosponsors. The fight for life should be on all fronts. Getting the Supreme’s to overturn R.v W. cannot be the only strategy, becuase it cannot be certain it will ever be overturned. Hunter has been proposing the Right to Life bill since 1996, getting more and more cosponsors. He is the real deal. And speaking of the courts, who do you trust would unequivocally put pro-lifers on the bench?
There should be no argument--except for whether or not statements made X number of years ago are relevant--eye of the beholder...
Wrong.
Fred, IMO, held off until September for three reasons.
1) To try and restore some sanity to presidential campaigning, by entering at a much more traditional time period, after Labor Day,
2) Because no one pays much attention to news in July and August, and
3)It pushed Newt's possible entry into October when it would probably be too late for him - Newt had initially planned to enter in September if he ended up doing such.
Most sane people will accept Fred being anti-Roe and having a solid voting record as sufficient pro-life bona fides.
Until Roe is overturned, Hunter's bill would probably be a clay target in the courts.
Hunter has been proposing the Right to Life bill since 1996, getting more and more cosponsors. He is the real deal. And speaking of the courts, who do you trust would unequivocally put pro-lifers on the bench?
I want federalists on the bench. Such persons would overturn Roe. And help trim down the size of federal government by looking to the 10th.
I don't want activists of ANY stripe on SCOTUS. They will be tempted to uphold political agendas that come before them, instead of just upholding the law.
I’m probably more conservative than Fred Thompson, but like Duncan Hunter, I have absolutely 0% chance of being the next president of the United States (unless they scrap the primaries and install a lottery system).
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.