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.
You are a total liar.
Once again you are calling people who want to use different tactics than you do “abortion supporters”.
Gutting the Reagan pro-life platform may be "different tactics," but it's not tactics I'll have any part of.
How precious.
And supporting a Personhood at Conception bill, which does not equire a Const. Am.-DNA evidence is clear-distinct human life exists in the womb.
If the candidate you prefer isn't nominated by the Republicans, will you sit the election out? If so, how do you expect that to further the pro-life message along?
Principle is fine, but if it doesn’t produce results, what good does it do? There are over a million babies murdered each year by abortion. The NRLC has determined that it’s possible to actually SAVE some of those babies, rather than just spout off high minded TALK about saving them. I’ll take that strategy any day. You can keep talking about it, if you prefer.
The Republican/Reagan pro-life plank is all well and good, but it isn't practical to expect it to become reality anytime soon. I'm talking about what could possibly be done in the real world to make a positive start toward the ultimate goal of banning abortion nationwide while greatly reducing the number of abortions in the process, not what should be done under the 14th amendment. AFAIK the 14th has not been held by any high court to protect the right to life of the unborn, and in practical terms it won't be unless and until a solid majority of pro-life USSC Justices takes control of the court.
If Giuliani or any Democrat is elected next year there won't be that solid majority for a long time to come, if ever. But I believe that either Fred, Hunter, or Huckabee would appoint Justices of that caliber if given the opportunity. I'm not sure about McCain, even though I think that he has always run for the Senate on a pro-life position.
That may be true, but as I said before AFAIK no court has made that determination. I would like very much for the USSC to reverse Roe by interpreting those amendments as protection for the right to life of the unborn, but that may never happen. In the meantime I am willing to take whatever step we can get in the right direction while we wait for a pro-life court that might rule abortion to be a denial of the right to life of all human beings, including those as yet unborn.
It is the compromises that are killing us...or more to the point, killing the babies.
When it comes to matters of life and death, compromise is like a step onto a slippery slope. One leads to another, until you’re falling headlong down the hill with no way back to the top.
The compromisers are giving away the very reasons to oppose abortion, morally, legally, scientifically, and intellectually, and that will not lead anywhere good.
As for me, I’ll keep yelling at people, “Don’t go that way!”
Then you may as well prepare for the funeral, because there are at least 13 states which will NOT ratify a HLA anytime soon, if ever, even if it managed to get through 2/3 of Congress. That's reality, something you appear unwilling to acknowledge. While you're waiting for a perfect solution to materialize millions more babies will be murdered in their mother's womb, and that doesn't have to be.
You could not be any more opposed to the legalized murder of the unborn than I am. But I am willing to accept an achievable but imperfect partial remedy for the obscene situation that now exists while I pray, wait, and hope for the perfect remedy that is not achievable at this point in time unless God performs a miracle. How many millions of unborn lives will be snuffed out while we wait for a supermajority of the American people and their representatives in government to come around to our POV? Given the sad state of morals and personal integrity of the American people today I don't expect that supermajority to materialize within my lifetime. But I do believe it is possible to dramatically reduce the number of abortions by electing people who will work toward achieving that end instead of people who talk great on the issue but would be politically unable to implement their proposed remedies if elected.
I find it interesting that folks like yourself have felt the compulsion to bring up the HLA in post after post after post all day, when I haven’t even been arguing for one.
If anyone needs to meet the high bar of passing a constitutional amendment, it should be those who ignore the clear provisions of the Preamble and the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments. Let them convince the American people that we don’t need those protections anymore.
Now, that’s not to say that I wouldn’t support one, if offered, with the right language. After all, obviously there are many who can’t read plain English and could benefit from the clarification.
But, the Constitution is what it is. It states that its purpose is to secure the Blessings liberty to ourselves AND OUR POSTERITY. It says that you can’t take the life of the innocent, and that states must protect the right to life. Already. As is.
What is needed first of all is for pro-lifers, and conservatives, and Republicans, to establish that fact firmly in their minds, and act as if it were so.
Anyone who misunderstands this is unfit for any office in the United States, and completely incapable of fulfilling their sworn oath.
It’s high time we begin to back this up with our franchise, our money, and our actions. Hit the politicians where it hurts, in the pocketbook and in the voting booth, and you’ll be shocked at how quick they learn to read.
That said, a HLA is inline with our Declaration of Independence, and our Constitution, esp. the very 14th Amendment used to justify abortion, and outside the purview of Federalism for the simple reason that the right to life preempts it in that it is prerequisite to all all other rights. A baby conceived in Massachusetts has the same right to life as a baby conceived in Louisiana, or indeed as any other human being born or unborn. There is no sudden "jump" in the dynamic process of organic development to justify the sudden bestowal of rights at any point other than the beginning, i.e. conception.
I also will be voting for Hunter because of a record of action on behalf of the unborn, and because he is the superior candidate, and for other reasons (see tagline), but do understand and respect the incremental approach on life as well.
I’m supporting the most strenous friend the unborn has in this field, Dr. Alan Keyes, who, by the way, despite his late entry, is already polling ahead of Duncan Hunter and Ron Paul in Florida in the latest Mason-Dixon poll, and who is also ahead of Congressman Hunter in Iowa.
Hunter is the whole package though: rock solid on pro-life, rock solid on trade, rock solid on immigration, rock solid on national security, and rock solid on second amendment. Hunter is more than talk on pro-life, having faithfully introduced the Right to Life act year after year - which is why I was one of the first to climb aboard his campaign over a year ago.
I have never made a false statement about Fred. I have said over and over that these are MY observations and opinions when Fred was MY senator for 8 years.
Actually, the proper way to look at it is to find justices who simply believe the Constitution means what it says. That will put them on the "right" side of the abortion, RKBA, search and seizure, and pretty much any other issue you want to throw out there.
***************
That would be fantastic. Fred in '08!
All the Directors are now in the process of canvasing their respective areas. The discussion was lively, when he mentioned Rudy, I almost fell on the floor with laughter. He was not being serious.
The NRA is going to get in early and big. not like the last few times when they waitied. It's just a matter of picking the most viable, winning candidate.
Excellent.
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.