You're saying that Hawkins is correct on opposition to the Human Life Amendment.
Personally, I think that I'll go with Ronald Reagan's support for the Human Life Amendment before I go with something some apologist for Thompson has to say to try to soften Thompson's opposition to the pro-life plank of the Republican Party Platform:
"Well now, we come to a family issue that we must have the courage to confront. Tonight, I call America – a good nation, a moral people – to charitable but realistic consideration of the terrible cost of abortion on demand. To those who say this violates a woman's right to control of her own body – can they deny that now medical evidence confirms the unborn child is a living human being entitled to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness? Let us unite as a nation and protect the unborn with legislation that would stop all federal funding for abortion – and with a human life amendment making, of course, an exception where the unborn child threatens the life of the mother. Our Judeo-Christian tradition recognizes the right of taking a life in self-defense." - Ronald Reagan, January 25, 1988
Thompson is being pragmatic. Abortion is more easily defeated on a state by state scale than on the national scale that a constitutional amendment requires.
I would prefer to see abortion outlawed in any number of states than for it to be allowed in all states.
I agree. A Human Life amendment may seem like an impossibility, but it is the only solution that shows a commitment to protect the unborn.
With abortion it has to be an all or nothing thing. Allowing some states to make abortion legal, effectively allows all people to have legal abortions. They just need to travel to obtain one. One who truly believes that abortion is the taking of innocent life has to find this solution unacceptable. We do not allow states to make murder legal. Abortion is murder, and should fall under the same legal and constitutional framework.
From 1970 to 2005 Massachusetts Mitt supported the liberal position on abortion. For 35 years Romney publicly supported Roe v Wade as the law of the land and believed abortion on demand was a woman's Constitutional right.
In 2005 Romney decided to run for POTUS in the next general election cycle. Romney realized his pro-Roe/pro-choice position would be a problem. So he told the world he had a political epiphany and was now pro-life. How convenient. Sounds more like Mitt decided to engage in some political expediency that would paper over his long time pro-abortion position.
Fred Thompson`s position has always been consistent and in line with his support for federalism. Fred's always been a pro-life conservative. He's always opposed Roe v Wade and abortion on demand. Fred wants to see RvW overturned and the issue sent back to the purview of the states. Where is resided for 200 years. Fred also believes life begins at conception and abortion is the taking of a human life.
Btw, John Hawkins is a Duncan Hunter supporter and worked for several months on the Hunter campaign. Hawkins also wrote that fine article on Rudy Giuliani from August 2006, The Conservative Case Against Rudy Giuliani. Hawkins is a good conservative and his right about this issue.
Now a fred supporter will claim you are attacking Reagan by quoting him. :-)