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.
Are you serious?
The fact that Douglas was a virulent racist, and didn't believe in the equal protection of the laws, or support the unalienable rights to life and liberty for all?
Then your argument is with the Constitution not me, and like the liberal judges, want it to mean what suits you.
Having said that, I think the issue should only arrive at the Supreme Court level if the Local and State laws and courts fail to make murder a crime. The only example of this any time and anywhere in this country that I know of, is abortion.
“I will say then that I am not, nor ever have been in favor of bringing about in anyway the social and political equality of the white and black races - that I am not nor ever have been in favor of making voters or jurors of negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold office, nor to intermarry with white people; and I will say in addition to this that there is a physical difference between the white and black races which I believe will forever forbid the two races living together on terms of social and political equality. And inasmuch as they cannot so live, while they do remain together there must be the position of superior and inferior, and I as much as any other man am in favor of having the superior position assigned to the white race. I say upon this occasion I do not perceive that because the white man is to have the superior position the negro should be denied everything.” —Abraham Lincoln
Sorry, I don’t get it so call me “name challenged.” :) :)
“We depend on Rush. I trust him.”
That is EXACTLY what I said. So....SHOW ME where I said I was waiting to see who Rush was voting for. I listen to Rush because he gives the straight FACTS. Yes...silly you!
Thank you for that response. It was clean, factual and polite.
You know...YOU may think it is a silly statement and that is YOUR RIGHT. However it is ONLY WHAT YOU THINK! I cannot believe that he can’t get on TV on some show. Even if on a dem/talk tv show just so they could try and trip him up.
No, Rush is NOT the only forum for election news. However, he is the ONLY FORUM I TRUST!
But, in any case, the right to life IS spelled out explicitly in several places in our Constitution, most notably the Fifth and the Fourteenth Amendments.
The only way you can claim otherwise is to agree with the author of Roe that babies aren't persons until magically transformed into same by exiting the womb, or that the word posterity has some other meaning than "those who have yet to be born."
"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 old Clinton friend Septicpomusness?
Dr. Richard Land doesn’t endorse candidates, but does give his pros and cons about various candidates, and when someone called his talk show yesterday saying Huckabee was pro-life, Dr. Land said that Hunter was just as pro-life as Huckabee.
“Congrats to Hunter — that must have been nice to hear.”
Yes, it was nice to hear, & if anyone is interested in the comment, it can be found in the archives for 11/17, last half of 3rd hour.
And if anyone REALLY doesn’t have anything to do, they can listen to my call to the show (sub host that day) for 11/10, also last half of 3rd hour.
Archives here:
http://www.richardlandlive.com/archives.asp
What on earth are you talking about? He had a solid hour on Meet the Press a couple weeks ago, and was on “This Week” today.
So explain why the Founding Fathers didn’t outlaw abortion.
They did. In the Fifth Amendment. And, the Preamble explains what it means. You know, "secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity," and all that.
I'm sure if they thought Americans could become so corrupted that they would accept the "legality" of butchering babies, they'd have been more explicit for you. Not that that would matter to some folks, of course. If they can't twist simple words, they'll just ignore them.
I’m not even seeing clips of him anywhere. I dont’ sit and watch those other shows. They are too negative. However, I am always seeing clips of hillleree or rudy or Mitt or dennis (UFO)Kucinich. THAT’S what on earth I am talking about.
WE can assert all we want, but unless we can get a large enough majority of people to agree with us, there will be no movement on the HLA. YOU may not like it, and I may not like it, but that's the reality of the situation. Why keep tilting at windmills when we have the chance to actually make a REAL change?
I believe this is what the NRLC had in mind. They realized many years ago that they were going to have to work incrementally to reduce abortions if they wanted any chance to try to get rid of the practice altogether. They've tried with restrictions in Congress, and individual states have tried, but they keep running into the Roe roadblock. If that were gone, there would be a much better opportunity to start saving babies immediately!
You’re the one who keeps bringing up the HLA, not me.
That is less important than the recognition of the personhood of the unborn, and their protection under the Fourteenth Amendment. You see, if this simple part of the Republican platform is recognized, there is no need for an Amendment to the Constitution.
Go ahead and overturn Roe. But, don’t give away the very basis for every legal, moral, scientific and intellectual argument against Roe, and against abortion period, by giving up the fact that unborn babies are persons, and covered by the Fourteenth Amendment.
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.