Posted on 11/05/2007 7:42:06 AM PST by pissant
Each state can be targeted more effectively, than trying to lobby the Federal congresscritter to do the right thing.
In the first place, they won't have enough money.
In the second, they will be seen as radical as the global warmists.
Each time the Feds have been wrong on legislation it has taken longer to eliminate it or a complete societal breakdown(Prohibition vs gang activity) to repair the damage.
I think it is really funny to blame everyone’s failures on Hunter supporters!
Either that or the majority of folks at FreeRepublic, including the boss, are ididots...
Excuse me, idiots...
Too many threads open.
Hey, Pistol ... I hear you. But it sounds to me like Fred would be AGAINST our state-by-state campaign to make abortion illegal.
There may be another way to interpret his words, but it sure sounds like Fred not only thinks it's a state decision, but he is also against banning abortion state by state.
His words may have another reasonable interpretation, but no one has taken a stab at one yet.
I don’t know any gop candidate, including rudy, who is against overturning roe v wade. Rudy said he supports a federal ban on partial birth. But if you say “state’s rights! state’s rights!” you don’t even get that because that’s federal law.
You make an impressive presentation. I suppose our disagreement is on the efficacy and the question as to why throw away another tool in the fight.
If the framers thought abortion or Same sex marriages were going to come up they would, no doubt written the constitution with less ambiguity. Such things were likely unimaginable in their epoch. I am sure that they could not even envision the world in which we live. The law provides for amendments so why discard it as a tool? Quite simply, we aren’t going to defeat this inherent evil by throwing away options, parsing words and rationalizing that abortion is anything other than evil.
Now, will every state follow the same pattern? Of course not, BUT it will be easier to garner support and effectiveness in those states that allow abortion to change their law.
Fred is being the Federalist he is.
ari, partial birth abortion is barbaric in the extreme. IT deserved to be Federaly legislated out, and without the amendment process. There were still those who voted to keep it, and they should be targetted at their next re-election, that's the other avenue to getting to the Amendment that the platform calls for, but again, it will be a lengthier process than working at the state level.
well, we can’t stop until there’s no abortion in all 50 states. It has to be a national issue...how do you bring everyone together if it is brought to the states?
That is not how it would work... but I also know that you have reasons for seeing things the way that you want to see them. I can’t change that any more than some Amendment will change people’s hearts. I do know that our Nation has been screwed up everytime we go against the Founder’s intent (and GOD’s intent through the Founders).
LLS
Now you know that we are not to use logic in arguments... 15 yard penalty! ;-)
LLS
Yes, but Fred seems to say that he does NOT want abortion to be illegal at the federal OR state level.
Isn't that what this says? That Fred WANTS ABORTION TO REMAIN LEGAL at both the federal AND state level?
Someone either give me an alternate interpretation of Fred's words, or tell me how this is consistent with being pro-life at all:
"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."
One state at a time if we have to, but I believe the number will be less than 10 to have to change. Regardless, it will be a process that goes on year by year until we have all 50 states.
sounds like you are making a new religion out of the founding fathers
It is a sad time when people think it is totally unneccesary to be completely honest and forthright. Instead, I assume, you would rather hear a candidate pay lip service to ideas he will not and cannot implement. I think 90% of the people who saw Fred's performance thought it was good. The criticism you hear is from the Hunter, Huckabee, and Romney supporters in denial.
yes, work on one state at a time on the one hand but still keep a national push for HLA on the other.
That is what read from this.
I think that the states ought to be free to make their own abortion laws, but it would take a constitutional amendment that specifically overturns Casey to make that work. What’s to keep a federal court from voiding a state law? That explains the language of the platform. American abortion law is so extreme it effectively nullifies the right of the state to make law in this area.
You will repeal Roe and outlaw abortion quicker if you take a state by state federalist approach. Pushing a Constitutional Amendment which has no chance of passage will delay progress on the issue and kill more babies in the long run.
Fred sees a realistic approach to stopping infanticide. It is easier to pander with pie in the sky illusions than to offer workable solutions.
I guess a fair question would be does the Federal government have laws against any other type of murder? If they leave the traditional crime of murder to be adjucated by the states, it would make sense for murder by abortion to be handled by them as well.
BTW, I'm a Duncan Hunter supporter too, but Senator Thompson does have a point.
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.