Posted on 11/05/2007 7:42:06 AM PST by pissant
That may indeed have been part of the 2004 Republican party election plank, but I'll go out on a limb and predict that it will NOT remain a part of the 2008 party plank.
Expect the official Republican party plank for 2008 to be modified to something to the effect of supporting the rights of the states to decide the issue of abortion, or, perhaps no mention at all, other than that abortion is a matter of individual conscience for individuals to decide.
- John
If the right to life is a state issue, shouldn't the right to vote be, too? Shouldn't both you and Fred be supporting the repeal of the 15th amendment, which mandated that states allow all citizens, regardless of race, to vote?
After all, if state rights take priority over the right to life, certainly they take priority over the right to vote as well. Right?
I'm not saying I wouldn't vote for Fred, just that it is sad that he is the best candidate the Republicans can put forward.
You can set up the straw men all you like and wait for as long as you like. I’m not falling for it. The issue here is why Fred doesn’t support a Constitutional Amendment that will protect the unborn. His solution is to “give it back to the states”. That will make some of us feel really good in a few states,but it will have little effect on the number of the unborn murdered.
I think I posted earlier precisely my thoughts on this issue. You do what you can, when you can as hard as you can. If going to the states is what we can get, then so be it. I’m for it. But why not support a constitutional amendment as well? Why throw away an option, relinquish a weapon in the fight? Who is the real purist here? There is nothing unconstitutional about a constitutional amendment is there? Is Fred such a “states rights” purist that he will reject an alternative? It doesn’t have to be either/or, it can be both. The efforts to spin this have been nothing short of admirable, but the truth remains, you’re wrong, Fred’s wrong.
Having an actual, workable, viable plan to end a seriously effed up medical practice just ain't enough for some people...
Good, but be prepared for the frontal assault to fail.
We don’t need preaching, we need persuasion right now, and a bit of tactics....
A constitutional amendment isn’t provided for by the law? Why would you suggest I would take the law into my own hands? Did you really think that was my intent or did you throw that in for effect? Why would Fred discount another process by which to rid this country of an inherent evil? That’s the question that needs answered not some contrived question seeking to paint me as a vigilante. LOL :)
1. Overturning Roe would ALWAYS have brought the issue back to the states.
The pro-abortion movement sees roe as a way to unify imposition across the land.
2. Thompson is losing people due to his illconceived adherence to his personal perception and anachronistic view Federalism.
Um...not to change the subject...but ever hear of the Underground Railroad?
Forgive me if I give more weight to the opinion of people like Jim Bopp instead of you, ejoneie22. Romney's leading adviser, Jim Bopp, actually wrote the amendment which is in the GOP platform. He knows Mitt supports it or he would not have endorsed him.
This is what Bopp's said on the matter:
Romney advisor Jim Bopp, a leading pro-life lawyer who serves as the top attorney for National Right to Life and other pro-life groups, who wrote the amendment that appears in the Republican Party platform, said Romney "views the Human Life Amendment as an aspirational goal, which we hope and pray we eventually can achieve."
______________________
The bottomline is that Romney said he'd sign an amendment - and I believe he will fight for the cause.
He has been praised by numerous pro-life and pro-family organizations that worked with him in Massachusetts.
His conservative track record is already established. His words have matched his actions.
Prominent pro-life leaders, like Jim Bopp and others, have signed on to assist his campaign.
I don't see it as risky at all. What's risky is allowing Rudy to take the nomination by failing to unite behind the one conservative candidate who offers fiscal conservatism, national security conservatism and social conservatism all wrapped up in an electable, well-funded, expertly organized package.
there’s a reason why it was called “underground”
Because it doesn't have a chance of passing, in either the House or the Senate, or being ratified by the states, and only deflects attention from doing work that CAN be done.
In the first place, abortion was a state issue until the SCOTUS legislated from the bench. Not through the laws of the 'several states', not through the legislative process. It was by fiat.
Now, if RvW is overturned, a process in itself, then it will go back to the states, NOT the Federal legislature. Trying to do both is admirable, but Federalism is about not interfering with what should be a states rights issue.
If he made a mistake that is on him, not me.
And I am by far not the only one who feels that way.
Even Bopp says the drive to end abortion is seen as a two-step process: First, overturn Roe v. Wade, which would return abortion law to the states; and second, create consensus for a constitutional amendment outlawing abortion.
However, one cannot deny that it certainly would be preferable for the pro-life movement to elect a president who agrees to work towards passing an amendment in the first place -- even if it is seemingly futile at present. Fred's statements imply that he will not use his presidential position to further that cause. Romney will. Hunter will.
In fact, Fred has a laissez faire attitude regarding social issues in general as evidenced by his "so be it" statement regarding gay marriage as well. We don't have to settle for indifference when we can have resolve to lead the cause.
Having said that, even prominent pro-life leaders like Jim Bopp realize that the pro-life community should be sophisticated and savvy enough to understand how a pro-life politician has to advocate for the possible, and must not allow the perfect to be the enemy of the good.
the HLA is the flag of the pro-life movement. it keeps focus on the issue at a national level.
Congratulations, letter for letter, word for word that may have been the most obtuse and vacuous bit of hyperbole written on FR today. The approach isn't so realistic, but hey, an advance is an advance. Again I ask, why would Fred discount another tool that could be used in the fight? You are falsely defining the argument here and misrepresenting the facts. My argument isn't his approach but rather that he will not support another approach. Why leave options by the wayside? I can assure you I am in good standing with the Romney and Fred supporters, for the most part, and the Huckabee supporter and I have had nothing but pleasant exchanges.
I sure hope so ... but this sounds like he does NOT want abortion to be illegal ... at the federal OR state level:
"People ask me hypothetically, you know, OK, it goes back to the states," said Thompson. "Somebody comes up with a bill, and they say we're going to outlaw this, that, or the other. And my response was, I do not think it is a wise thing to criminalize young girls and perhaps their parents as aiders and abettors or perhaps their family physician."
Right all his supporters are duped, mistaken, bought off etc... Got it.
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.