Posted on 11/18/2007 6:55:13 AM PST by 2ndDivisionVet
Make no mistake about it - when the nation's largest pro-life group endorsed Fred Thompson on Tuesday its goal was to shake up the Republican contest for the presidency. The National Right to Life's endorsement is the gold standard coveted by those Republicans seeking the White House because it bestows a legitimacy and authenticity on the candidate who receives it as the standard-bearer for those who want to end abortion on demand.
The Thompson endorsement not only signals how the organization representing 3,000 pro-life groups has grown up, but it shows just how close the country is to seeing Roe vs. Wade ended. In recent days former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee, who for some was the most logical choice to receive the NRTL endorsement, had become increasingly critical of Thompson's position on abortion.
Thompson, who had a 100 percent pro-life record in the Senate, said he favored ending Roe vs. Wade because in his estimation, it was wrongly decided. When asked, he said that he did not favor pursuing a federal constitutional amendment banning abortion because it was largely impractical. Thompson is a federalist and for him, ending Roe is the next step. Roe took abortion out of the democratic process and to end it would take it away from the Supreme Court and return abortion policymaking to the states.
In response, Huckabee said Thompson was soft on abortion for not supporting the constitutional amendment banning the procedure, an amendment that has been part of the Republican Party platform since 1980. The thought was that Huckabee's criticism and forceful advocacy for a "life" amendment would be a marker for those primary voters who care deeply about ending abortion and would show the NRTL that he - not Thompson, not Romney, not McCain - was the most pro-life candidate.
It didn't work. The endorsement of Thompson over the other pro-life candidates is a reflection of where the movement is in 2007 and how much the country has changed.
Throughout the 1980s, NRTL's advocacy for a constitutional amendment banning abortion was a necessary step for drawing the line in the sand. Even then, the thought of receiving the supermajorities in the U.S. Senate and the state legislatures would discourage the fiercest pro-life advocates.
But in the late 1980s and 1990s the movement began to get smart, politically. The movement refocused its efforts and began to take on abortion incrementally. It started with pushing for parental notification laws, arguing that if a 14-year old girl needed her parent's permission to take an aspirin at school, she most certainly needed their permission to receive an abortion.
During that time, the country came to terms with infanticide by way of partial-birth abortion. State after state began banning the gruesome procedure. By 1997, around 70 to 80 percent of the American public opposed it. Planned Parenthood, the National Organization for Women, NARAL and other so-called abortion rights groups were in retreat, left defending unpopular policies because they didn't want any restrictions placed on abortion.
But the country's leadership wasn't in line with its citizens. President Bill Clinton vetoed a federal ban on partial-birth abortion. The U.S. Supreme Court struck down state partial-birth abortion laws and other limits on abortion. These events signaled that abortion on demand had taken the country somewhere a majority of Americans didn't want it to go.
In 2000, George W. Bush was elected. He'd promised to appoint Supreme Court justices in the mold of those on the court who effectively disagreed with Roe.
Some of the common-sense limits on abortion became law. A ban on partial-birth abortion stood, states passed legislation on parental consent and informed consent, and when there were vacancies on the high court, Bush appointed solid conservative jurists.
So now in 2007, it is widely believed that the country is one or two retirements away from being able to determine the Supreme Court's next step on Roe. This is something the NRTL realized and its leadership said it thinks Fred Thompson gives the country the best opportunity to see abortion on demand ended.
God bless you too, Greg.
But, Mr. Thompson is on the wrong side of the one issue that this election is really about: The personhood of the unborn...the question of whether our national character is one that builds its entire understanding of the purpose of government around the Declaration principle of protecting the God-given, unalienable rights of all...or if we as a nation are going to continue to be of the same spirit as the terrorists we are fighting in our utter disregard for the rights and prerogatives of ALL of those who are made in the image of the One Who created us.
To that end, it's time to change what can be changed to influence change. That means constructionist judges on the SCOTUS to make that change begin.
The objective of overturning RvW is not going to happen with an Amendment, it WILL happen by sending it back to the states where eliminating or writing law that will work for everyone can be instituted.
We want abortion on demand stopped. You and I see different ways to get to that point.
The way through the SCOTUS and ultimately the ballot box will be the winner.
Securing the nomination is more important, at this stage, than taking on the beast.
FRed is making a LOT of appearances, and having a LOT of meetings to shore up support and gain momentum against the RumpRanger from NYC!
My advice to you is don't wait for the MSM do introduce you to Fred Thompson, cause it ain't gonna happen. Like I did with Hunter months before, I went to Thompson's website. Additionally, I read all the Thompson posts here. If you can stomach FNC's adoration for Rudy G, you can see Thompson's commercials there, but I find YouTube easier to take.
I too am sick of all the ugliness that has darkened FreeRepublic. Hillary couldn't do a better job herself.
“Are you saying the trauma of the rape should continue for the unwilling woman who was raped?”
Killing a child who is the very rare result of a rape traumatizes the woman a second time.
This, time, though, you make her a party to the crime.
The closest thing to us is our state houses....
I can do no more than take the man at his word.
All things considered, he is my choice. Thank fully we still have the right to make "our own choices". I respect yours, and in no way will diminish you or your right/ability to make that choice.
Nice to have a pleasant, albeit, disagreeing exchange with you.
/;-)
Then why complain that Thompson hasn't made himself known to you if you are waiting to see who Rush is voting for? I saw you believed a ridiculous lie posted here about Thompson thinking he didn't have to campaign cause he already had it sewn up. lol
Silly me, I thought you were seriously looking for info.
Something I wrote a couple of days ago:
What this election is about - The ring-bolt to the chain of your nation’s destiny
No matter how things may look outwardly, we have no choice but to do whatever it takes to assure that America’s Revival succeeds, with God’s help.
On July 5, 1852, Frederick Douglass, who perhaps more than any other man re-lit the fires of liberty, and provided the moral impetus for ending slavery in this country, said:
“The Declaration of Independence is the ring-bolt to the chain of your nation’s destiny...the principles contained in that instrument are saving principles. Stand by those principles, be true to them on all occasions, in all places, against all foes, and at whatever cost.”
Do you understand that our nation’s destiny depends on our adherence to the words of our Founders in the Declaration of Independence?
Here are those principles, written down for us in the founding paragraph of America:
“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed...”
All men are created equal before God.
Our rights to life and liberty come from the One Who made us, not from any man.
Those rights are unalienable. In other words, incapable of being taken or given away.
The very purpose of government is to secure those rights.
And, the people are sovereign, under God.
It’s up to us. To whatever extent these principles are being eroded, no one bears the ultimate responsibility for that except “We the People.”
The founding generation risked everything to implement these timeless truths:
“And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes, and our sacred Honor.”
Can we do any less?
The media-anointed so-called “frontrunners” in the current presidential field are completely unchained from the “saving principles” found in the Declaration, for which so many men and women over the centuries sacrificed, even to the point of giving up their own lives.
Overwhelmingly, this current crop of craven politicians has adopted a false “federalism” that claims that states’ rights trump unalienable rights.
The Preamble to our Constitution explains its purpose:
“We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.”
The practice of abortion violates every clause, every underlying principle, that is contained in our Constitution.
Our children and grandchildren have an equal claim to the Blessings of Liberty.
Are we willing to pay the price required to give it to them? Are we going to allow the pundits, the pollsters, the political consultants, the party gatekeepers, and the Democrat Media to only allow us choices that deny and destroy the very premise of America and of liberty?
No. We cannot.
It’s time for us to take our sovereign power back from the elites and to restore government of, by, and for the people — government that is firmly set on the foundation of reliance upon God, respect for His Laws, and to the principles of the unalienable rights to life and liberty that America was built upon.
EternalVigilance
dittos!
So does John Kerry.
"I oppose abortion, personally. I don't like abortion. I believe life does begin at conception." - John F. Kerry
Even Blackmun, the author of Roe, admitted that if the child in the womb were a person, it would therefore be protected by the Fourteenth Amendment.
Admitting that the child is a person, and still saying that any individual or state has a right to destroy that person, is worse than Blackmun, actually.
It means that the Constitution, and the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments, are meaningless, and that NONE of us is safe.
Apparently, you didn’t actually read post 103.
To make sure we understand each other, answer this:
Do you oppose a Human Life Amendment, as Fred does?
Or do you simply believe it’s currently unachievable?
There’s a difference.
Once again, why falsely paint it as an either-or choice.
The truly pro-life position is to support both repeal of Roe AND, eventually, a universal guarantee of the Right to Life in all 50 states.
Nothing about being pro-life requires you to pick one or the other.
Only trying to justify Thompson’s position requires you to pick one and dis the other.
Willard. I took the name less trammeled.
The US Constitution takes "abortion rights" out of federal and states hands in the 5th and 14th Amendments, stating no person shall be...deprived of life without due process of law. The Constitution needs to be upheld or else America's sunk no matter what happens.
So then you advocate that the Federal government handle all murder cases.
Sounds ridiculous to me.
No. But if a state is allowing American citizens to be murdered willy-nilly, the national government has a sworn duty, in all three branches, to exercise the power to stop such an abrogation of the Bill of Rights.
Do you believe that the Bill of Rights, the protection of the unalienable rights of all Americans, applies everywhere on American territory, or not?
The Constitution either protects all persons, or, in the end, it will protect none.
Great post.
The best path, and the one that will cost the leat amount of lives yet unborn is to return the issue BACK to the states where the voters through the process of decision at the ballot bbox decide what should and should not be allowable.
And Fred doesn't oppose it, he feel it is an unreachable goal....as I do.
We elected the wrong man in 1860, from what I can see.
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.