Posted on 11/14/2007 11:47:49 AM PST by shrinkermd
but an anti-abortion law would not be overturned by the SC. we would not need to wait for an amendment or for the states to pass their own laws to do something about abortion.
the primary reason for the HLA was for congress to overturn Roe by itself without depending on the SC. A president fred may not even get the chance to nominate any judges and even if he does, they may end up like Anthony Kennedy.
Boy, the liberal MSM sure seems upset that Fred got the NRTL endorsement.
If Roe v Wade is overturned, it would end this nonsense of abortion being a “fundamental” right found in the constitution, it would end the Federal law against protesting within a certain distance of abortion clinics, it would allow states to inspect abortion clinics in the same way that veterinarian clinics and beauty parlors are inspected, and a whole host of other issues that Roe v Wade has spawned.
The right to life is the bottom line for me, but I have no problem supporting Fed Thompson. All the efforts to undermine his pro-life position have been bogus.
He differs from some pro-lifers on tactics. I happen to agree with him that for a number of reasons a constitutional amendment is not the way to go. Notice that although it has been a Republican plank for many years, not much has been done to implement it—because it would predictably fail, and be counterproductive.
Fred DID mispeak about not wanting to “criminalizing” abortion, and he has said so. I would not view this as a flip flop but as a mistaken comment, which he has since rectified.
Let me try this again how is being for over turning Row V Wade Pro life. Do we really think Pro Choice could not get a few state to pass a Pro Abortion Law. Just one would be all they need.
How can you be Pro life and not be for an amendment.
I think most Republicans are pro-life in many of the same ways that Fred Thompson is:
1. Abortion is morally wrong - it is the taking of a life (human life begins at conception).
2. Roe-v-Wade was a wrong decision, not just (a) on moral grounds as pro-abortion, but (b) as a judicial dictate whereby the Supreme Court gave “Constitutional law” a “right” that is without Constitutional foundation, and (c) it created a federal mandate over a matter states traditionally, and constitutionally, had the power to decide for themselves.
3. The best way forward must go to the process error, in order to resolve the Constitutional error that Roe is but a symptom of - the Supreme Court cannot manufacture “rights” the Constitution neither identifies, directly, or implies to exist without qualification indirectly. The best way forward is either a Supreme Court decision that sets Roe aside or, with that decision not forthcoming, an amendment that corrects the Constitutional error of Roe - resets “abortion” to a matter that is determined by the states and the states alone. The error of Roe was that there was no “pro-abortion” national public mandate either for a majority of states to have pro-abortion laws or for a pro-abortion federal Constitutional amendment. So the pro-abortion forces went around the people and the Constitution and got friendly judges to dictate something that had no mandate from the people. Were that in fact NOT the case, the stark divisions in the nation over abortion would not continue as they do today.
4. With all that said, and with the many hopes contained therein, many pro-life conservatives, I am sure, join Fred Thompson with concern about criminalization of young women who, regardless of the circumstances, come to make what we feel is the error of choosing an abortion. I think most people hope for some other way forward for the mother who chooses it.
. Liberal pro-abortionists often use the “back alley”, “dirty coat hanger” image of where young women seeking an abortion will land, if the law chases the doctors who perform it underground. One could say that modern methods and technology have made sterile surgical procedures easier to perform outside of a licensed medical clinic. No one should rely on that as an answer. Laws that chase the doctor away from many abortions should at the same time include language that supports and advances the proposition and the means, including support, for the mother to carry the child to term and allow it to be adopted. Why? Because such laws should not be blind to the consequences of the fact that, with or without the law, some women will, somewhere at some time seek an abortion. When all else has failed, just be sure that the law itself extended every hand of charity to help them to another solution. I think that feeling of compassion for the mother who finds herself faced with this moral decision is one of the places Thompson finds himself and wrestles, as most people do, with a perfect solution and cannot find one that would deny charity to the fallen mother.
Does this really make legal sense? How is it possible for abortion to be murder when the person seeking to murder is not prosecuted but her hired killer is?
And what about this statistic? .."The poll found 55 percent of Americans want abortion legal in all or most cases while 43 percent want it illegal in all or most cases..." Source for the statistic is: HERE.
I have no ready answer or explanation as to why we should prosecute abortionists while not prosecuting those seeking an abortion. It probably makes little difference since, opinions to the contrary, abortion will not be a deciding issue in the upcoming election.
FT like RG and all other candidates will try their best to speak to both sides of the issue, and, then, once they are the candidate do their best to avoid discussing, let alone doing anything, about the whole matter. If nothing else we have 34 years proving this point.
America never voted on the issue, we were just given a ruling by men in black robes. Sure, California might vote for abortion, but Mississippi wher I live would surely ban it. Also it would take the money machine of the Pro abort crowd from the DNC.
“Yes, now I truly understand. The woman seeking the abortion is thought of as a victim while the person doing the abortion is thought of as a criminal.”.........”Does this really make legal sense? How is it possible for abortion to be murder when the person seeking to murder is not prosecuted but her hired killer is?”
You could say, many of us could say, she is a victim of erroneous or misplaced moral sentiments she has obtained. The question society grapples with is, that moral dilema not withstanding, what is our legal solution. If your solution is we lock her up, I don’t think you will find a majority among even social conservatives that will agree with you.
The dilema she faces is one that society grapples with for a perfect solution. I don’t think there is a perfect solution. I don’t think there is a solution that will satisfy the totality of the error against the child and the extent of the compassion we feel toward the mother, with both values respected 100%. Society seeks a compromise, while the compromises leave those who are unsatisfied, on both sides and satisfying one view, completely unfettered abortions or another view, locking-up the young women who haver sought one will not obtain favor with enough people either.
I don’t think there is a realizable, compromise free, legal remedy. The only real remedy is the remedy that will change the young mother-to-be, in her heart.
Here’s the real reason the National Right to Life Committee didn’t endorse Mitt Romney...
They remember what happened to the last pro-life group that tried to endorse him, the last time he ran for public office.
Massachusetts Gubernatorial Debate
November 2, 2002
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P_w9pquznG4
Watch the whole amazing thing, or for the endorsement discussion in particular, fast forward to 3:45 of the video.
One way to slow abortions in this country is to overturn Roe v Wade. We're a supreme court justice or two from probably being able to do that.
Some states will still choose to allow abortions, and some states will choose the opposite. Total abortions in the country would be less than today, in all likelihood.
Or, another path is to pass a constitutional amendment banning abortion. It could be written to ban ALL abortions, or it might be written to have several exceptions (rape, incest, life of the mother, etc.) I've seen several proposed versions.
I think it takes a 3/4 percentage of legislators to get this out of Congress - maybe 2/3, dang senility is hell on older people. Depending on which version (wording) is in the actual proposal we might add or lose a few people who would support the implementation of this amendment. Frankly, I'm no spring chicken, and I can't think of a congress in the past 50 years that you could get this amendment through. Certainly I can't think of a congress in the post-Roe era that you could get this amendment through.
I don't own a crystal ball, but I surely can't see one in the next 10 years that would pass this amendment out, either.
Then, 2/3 or 3/4 of the state congresses have to vote for approval before the Constitution is actually amended (dang senility again). Even if we get some amendment out of the US congress, we only have about 10 years for adoption by enough states - otherwise it's considered a dead letter. Like the ERA amendment that could never get enough states to pass it in the 70's / 80's.
So, in the next 10 years, or 20, or 25, or 40 years, which option is realistically MOST LIKELY to occur? It seems clear to me that getting one or two more supreme court justices is far, and I mean FAR, more likely. Now 50 states do their various things. Perhaps you then choose to fight this battle on 50 fronts simultaneously. Perhaps you still continue to push for the amendment to the Constitution. Perhaps you do both.
Since the NRLC endorsed him, I’d say they didn’t have any difficulties with his position.
Actually, he has.
The Reagan GOP pro-life platform has since 1984 recognized the personhood of the unborn, and their resultant protection by the provisions of the Fourteenth Amendment.
Thompson, and most of this pathetic field, claim that the states have the right to decide the abortion question.
These two things are mutually exclusive. You can't claim one and believe the other. It's impossible.
The courts don’t answer to the voters. Representatives do, and in most states most abortions would be outlawed.
So, in your view, unalienable God-given rights can be alienated by majority vote?
So, in your view, unalienable God-given rights can be alienated by majority vote?
He didn’t really “reject” the platform. He won’t make HLA a priority because it’s unattainable for the forseeable future and a waste of political capital and resources that could be better spent on getting Roe v Wade overturned via another constructionist Justice on SCOTUS. HLA will remain part of the GOP platform.
Many women, especially young girls, are under tremendous pressure from boyfriends, parents and just the society in general to kill their children. Their hormones are all screwed up, and they are just not thinking clearly. Fred knows that the majority of people in this country are not willing to throw young women in jail, because they've probably known young women in that position, and feel compassion for them.
Well they’ve certainly achieved that over the last several years.
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.