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.
Do you truly want to save ANY babies, or do you just want to whine that the candidates, and the premier Right to Life organization in this country are not living up to your vaunted ideals?
Classic definition of insanity.
I want to preserve and enforce the Republican platform.
How about you?
We’ve gone through this before. Abortion WAS legal. Laws against it didn’t appear until the 1820’s and those were NOT against early abortion.
Laws banning abortion were in effect in every state by 1965, until the Federal Government struck them down.
So you want to hand the reins to the group that is responsible for millions of deaths, and you call those of us with different strategies names.
That would define following the "stategy" of NRTL, who have had all the money and power in this movement now for decades, and who are now so thoroughly compromised that they are worse than useless. They're almost totally unmoored from principle.
Correction: “strategy.”
If you believe that, then why are you so ticked off when Fred doesn't push for it, preferring an alternative that will actually WORK?
I have no idea what that means. The states began to erode away the rights of the innocent unborn, and instead of upholding the Constitution as their oath obligated them to do, the SCOTUS swept away thousands of years of civilization’s morays against killing children.
And now you want a situation in which the equal protection of the laws no longer applies in this country. You want a situation in which Utah babies have a right to live, but California babies do not.
This is the destruction of our Union.
If the United States is not united around the principle that our rights to life and liberty come from the One Who created us, and are therefore unalienable, this formerly free republic is dead. All we’re waiting for is the funeral.
Again, you’re the one using the HLA as an excuse to do nothing. I’m focusing on the real issue: the Fourteenth Amendment personhood of the unborn as described in the Republican platform.
Giving up the primary reason for opposing abortion in the first place cannot be described as something that "will work."
Once you give away the Constitutional personhood argument, you have nothing left with which to even oppose Roe, much less end the practice of abortion in the states.
You people have everything backwards.
I’m not wrong. If you’re truly ‘following’ all the candidates, then you KNOW that Fred isn’t assuming he’ll be nominated. He’s out there meeting primary voters and building support. Again, if you don’t support him that’s fine, but I WILL challenge you if you make statements that are false.
You are delusional. “Thousands of years of morays(It’s mores.) against killing children” was for the BORN.
You lie about what historical views on abortion actually were, and what the actual timeline of abortion laws was, and expect us to listen to you.
So, you think abortion was acceptable in this country, or throughout Western Civilization, before the nineteen sixties?
*I* don’t think it is acceptable.
It WAS NOT ILLEGAL in the U.S. until the 1820s, and even then was not illegal in the first four months.
Then don't offer it any support.
I could give a rat’s rear end about the Republican platform, because political ideas come and go. You keep mentioning the 14th Amendment, but unless there is a majority of people to agree that the unborn child should be protected under it, it is just another academic exercise.
In this case, because of the portion of the platform we're discussing, which deals with the provisions of the Fourteenth Amendment's protections for the innocent unborn, you're saying that you could care less about the Constitution, or the very founding principle of America as found in the Declaration of Independence.
Why do you think it's been in the platform since 1984?
Because the Republicans wanted to differentiate themselves from the Democrats. Been there, done that. Everyone knows that most Democrats are for abortion, and most Republicans are not. Now that that has been established, and we've seen that we STILL don't have a majority to either recognize the unborn under the 14th Amendment OR pass the HLA, let's see what we can actually do, in TODAY'S political climate to reduce abortions.
Just smiling here friend. Thanks again. Twas not my intent at all to convert you to becoming a Fred Dalton Thompson supporter. And I still appreciate your passion.
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.