Pro-Life Group Backs Thompson Despite Rejection of GOP Platform

Cybercast News ^ | 14 November 2007 | Fred Lucas

[shrinkermd]

Citing a pro-life voting record and electability, the nation's largest pro-life organization endorsed Republican Fred Thompson for president Tuesday.

The endorsement by the National Right to Life Committee (NRLC) comes just weeks after Thompson said on NBC's "Meet the Press" that he opposes "criminalizing" abortion and that he does not support the call for a pro-life amendment to the Constitution in the Republican Party platform. Thompson campaign spokesman Darrell Ng told Cybercast News Service that Thompson has since clarified his remarks and does not favor changing the platform.

Thompson has had a 100 percent pro-life voting record during his eight years in the U.S. Senate on issues concerning federal funding to abortion providers, parental notification and partial-birth abortion.

"Since announcing his candidacy in September, Fred Thompson has run second only to pro-abortion candidate Rudy Giuliani for the Republican nomination in the overwhelming majority of national polls," NRLC President Wanda Franz said Tuesday in announcing the group's endorsement.

"As pro-lifers throughout the nation begin to unite behind his candidacy, he will be well positioned to win the nomination and the presidency," she said.

[Bailee]

Just overturning(setting aside) Row v Wade would probably slow abortions. But we have not solved anything if we stop there? Yes we have returned the decision back to the states. But what keep the activist judges from clogging the courts at all levels of the judicial system with new Row v Wade like cases.

[MrB]

No, the “majority” probably won’t.

How many states is abortion outlawed or restricted in now?

ZERO.

How many states would it be restricted in following overturning RvW - MORE THAN ZERO.

Do you understand this math?

Also, the laws would once again be in the hands of elected reps at the state level, or even in the hands of the people themselves in states with initiative in their Constitutions. I think you’d be surprised at the true sentiment out there - the pro-aborts are lying.

Get 3/4 of the states with restrictions, THEN go for the amendment.

[MrB]

Nope, just those found in the “emanations of the penumbra” of various and combined articles of the bill of rights,

ie, the hallucinations of tyrants in robes seeking a certain social outcome can be overturned by the will of the people.

[HoustonTech]

No, that’s not my view. My view is that abortion is indefensible, and if abortionists were put where they had to defend it, they would lose, and their party would suffer horribly.

Having abortion decided in the courts the way it has been since 1973 has hampered the debate. Abortionists have had their way without having to defend death, so they haven’t paid the cost that their view would most definitely cost them. If R v W were overturned, the matter would go back to the polititians. If they wanted to kill babies, they would have to defend it. IMO after a while, abortion would become so repugnant, it would be easy to amend the constitution to outlaw it if that was needed. But also IMO it wouldn’t be needed. Current laws against killing innocent human beings would be interpreted in favor of the unborn just as surely as they apply to those who have been born.

[SuziQ]

The NRLC has been fighting this fight for almost 35 years. They've seen the chances of a HLA wax and wane. I guess when they saw that when it didn't even have a chance when the Republicans, with their pro-life plank, held the Congress AND the White House, they started thinking about other possibilities. Seeing that we're only one or two Supreme Court Justices away from having the opportunity to overturn Roe v Wade, I guess the NRLC finally sees a chance to obtain a REAL reduction in the number of abortions each year, and is taking the opportunity to support the one candidate they can trust to do just that.

After Roe is overturned, and the matter goes back to the states, there will be the opportunity to bring this issue directly to the people for as many restrictions as they care to apply. There will be some states that will allow it, but even in places like CA, NY and NJ, there will likely be restrictions placed on it, because voters and legislatures won't have to worry about them being overturned under the auspices of the 'precedent' of Roe. When it becomes front and center with voters, that will be the perfect time to work on winning hearts and minds to help save as many babies as possible. Who knows, within a generation, we may even have enough hearts and minds to get that HLA.

[SuziQ]

The biggest problem we have is that many don't look upon the unborn child as possessing an inalienable right to life, because it is NOT born. They don't see it, they only see the mother in dire straits, and want to do something to help her. WE all agree that the baby should be protected, but we're under a society of laws, which are based on the Constitution, and in order to change that Constitution, we have to convince an overwhelming majority in this country that the baby's rights are as important as its mother's.

Seeing as how this issue has been so divisive over the last 35 years, but most people haven't ever been given a chance to vote on it, just having them do that will at least force them to give it some real thought. Now, they may still make the calculation to allow abortions in the first trimester, but many won't. Either way, the result will be FAR fewer abortions than are performed today, and the regular guy on the street will have to think about it whereas now, since it's completely out of his hands, he doesn't.

[SuziQ]

But what keep the activist judges from clogging the courts at all levels of the judicial system with new Row v Wade like cases.

The legislation that Fred wants passed to keep Judges from thwarting the will of the people. Works in the case of abortion, AND homosexual 'marriage'.

[Bailee]

Totally agree RvW has got to be taken out of the courts and let the American public decide once and for all where we stand. IMO Abortion would be a no longer be a campaign issue.

[Gondring]

How does overturning Roe Vs Wade help? If we give this power back to the states wont the majority of them reinstate this policy at the state level.

This would mean that the focus of the fight would change, too....actually having to change peoples' hearts and minds about this instead of just playing legal games. To me, that's a win.