I agree with you. Just apply the 14th Amendment to the unborn. The problem with this is there is not a single sitting Supreme Court Justice who takes this position, not even Scalia. In other words, it ain’t happening regardless of how much you and I would like to see it happen.
On the issue of overturning Roe and returning the matter to the states, in order for a Constitutional Amendment to pass it needs ratification by Three-fourths of the State legislatures.
In other words, it is going back to the states, whether via state by state bans or proposed constitutional amendments. Thompson’s position is an honest one. The Constitutional Amendment is never going to happen. If three fourths of the states ban abortion, you already have a national consensus and probably have enough of the Supreme Court disposed to properly construe the 14th Amendment so that the Human Life Amendment would be unnecessary.
Thompson is sticking to his federalist principles. He is refusing to pander using a completely impossible Amendment as eye candy to gain votes. Had these federalist principles been applied in the selection of Supreme Court Justices over the last 30 years, the High Court would have long since consigned Roe to the dustbin of history. And a lot of other bad jurisprudence would have been averted in the bargain.
The reason I favor Thompson is that I trust him to select judges who are federalists, as opposed to those who claim to be prolife during the confirmation process. Anthony Kennedy, who reassured Reagan and Jesse Helms that he was a practicing Catholic when asked about Roe comes to mind as an example; he should have been quizzed and examined on his views concerning federal judicial power vis a vis the states in other contexts. That might have smoked him out. I think Thompson will do the necessary probing of philosophy because he alone among the candidates is serious about the Constitution and its proper interpretation.
The only thing I disagree with is the idea that an HLA will "never happen." It could, well into the future (how many of us in, say, 1968 thought the Soviet Union would ever fall?), but the idea that the next president, or the next three, will have a chance to do anything about it is far fetched.
Finally, an accurate comment.
In order for any of the political goals expressed in this thread to come about, the people have to change their minds about this issue.
The largest number of minds have to be changed to allow a Constitutional amendment to pass.