Shaking up the Republican primary abortion-style (MUST READ!)

Arkansas News Bureau ^ | November 18, 2007 | David Sanders

[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.

[EternalVigilance]

I know Duncan personally. He’s a good man. Rock solid, as you say.

He did shock me when he said he would support the nominee, no matter what, though.

[fetal heart beats by 21st day]

I’m with you, EV. NRTL has been undermining the fforts to save babies for years-opting for incrementalism even when there was no excusable justification for it.

[EternalVigilance]

They sure have. I’ve watched it happen up close and personal, all over the country.

[fetal heart beats by 21st day]

I think most people feel that way. I used to. Not this election, though.

[epow]

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.

I understand all that and agree in principle with what you are saying. But what you apparently have trouble coming to grips with is that in practical 21st century real world terms the Constitution means what the USSC says it means.

That may not be what the authors intended, I personally believe it's not, but nevertheless that's how it has been in practice since Marbury v Madison became the catalyst for transforming the USCC into the final arbiter of the Constitution. If you can find a way to overturn the judiciary branch's assumption of powers that were not intentionally, specifically granted to it by the authors the American people will be eternally in your debt.

[EternalVigilance]

But what you apparently have trouble coming to grips with is that in practical 21st century real world terms the Constitution means what the USSC says it means.

Two other co-equal branches swear an oath to protect and defend the Constitution. I always ask folks who think that only the SCOTUS can interpret the document how in the world a President or a Congressman can possibly keep their sworn oath if they're not allowed to interpret the document they've sworn to defend? Never had a good answer yet.

Marbury is regularly cited as the justification for the judicial supremacist heresy, but in fact, Justice Marshall, in that decision makes it clear that THE CONSTITUTION IS SUPREME, NOT THE COURTS, AND THAT ALL THREE BRANCHES ARE BOUND BY ITS PROVISIONS.

In fact, that's the summation of his arguments.

Here are the closing paragraphs of Marbury vs. Madison:

From these, and many other selections which might be made, it is apparent, that the framers of the constitution contemplated that instrument as a rule for the government of courts, as well as of the legislature. Why otherwise does it direct the judges to take an oath to support it? This oath certainly applies, in an especial manner, to their conduct in their official character. How immoral to impose it on them, if they were to be used as the instruments, and the knowing instruments, for violating what they swear to support!

The oath of office, too, imposed by the legislature, is completely demonstrative of the legislative opinion on this subject. It is in these words: "I do solemnly swear that I will administer justice without respect to persons, and do equal right to the poor and to the rich; and that I will faithfully and impartially discharge all the duties incumbent on me as _____, according to the best of my abilities and understanding, agreeably to the constitution, and laws of the United States." Why does a Judge swear to discharge his duties agreeably the constitution of the United States, if that constitution forms no rule for his government? If it is closed upon him, and cannot be inspected by him?

If such be the real state of things, this is worse than solemn mockery. To prescribe, or to take this oath, becomes equally a crime.

It is also not entirely unworthy of observation that in declaring what shall be the supreme law of the land, the constitution itself is first mentioned; and not the laws of the United States generally, but those only which shall be made in pursuance of the constitution, have that rank.

Thus, the particular phraseology of the constitution of the United States confirms and strengthens the principle, supposed to be essential to all written constitutions, that a law repugnant to the constitution is void; and that courts, as well as other departments, are bound by that instrument.

---

That may not be what the authors intended, I personally believe it's not, but nevertheless that's how it has been in practice since Marbury v Madison became the catalyst for transforming the USCC into the final arbiter of the Constitution. If you can find a way to overturn the judiciary branch's assumption of powers that were not intentionally, specifically granted to it by the authors the American people will be eternally in your debt.

It's very simple. Elect a President, and Congressmen and Senators, who understand what's actually going on...how out of whack the balance of powers truly is...and who have the courage to expend their political capital to confront this head on.

There is no other way to accomplish what you say.

Again, that's one of the reasons I support Alan Keyes for President in 2008. He's the only one who understands this, and who has the proven courage to act in this important regard.

[scarface367]

Again, that's one of the reasons I support Alan Keyes for President in 2008. He's the only one who understands this, and who has the proven courage to act in this important regard.

And he has less of a chance of being elected president next year than I do.

[HANG THE EXPENSE]

Thank you,nice to see I’m not the only one that won’t buy their bs.

[ellery]

If you put poison in a cup of wine "incrementally," the result is a cup of poison. If you put wine in a cup of deadly poison, even incrementally, you never end up with a cup of wine...it is and remains a cup of poison.

Is this really true, though? At some point in both examples the wine-to-poison ratio is the same (assuming a big enough cup). So, if the first cup isn't poison until x number of units has been added incrementally, then the second cup eventually becomes wine once you dilute the poison with a great enough volume of wine.

I don't mean to be pedantic. I do believe good people can be convinced to do wrong by increments more easily than evil people can be convinced to do right. But in the case of abortion, we're dealing with vast numbers of basically undecided people who may superficially buy into leftist arguments but don't really think about it that much. I believe these undecideds grow to embrace life by increments. I've seen this happen with a lot of people I know -- people who once were purely "pro-choice" see that babies as young as 21+ weeks can survive, and come to believe that abortion after that point is infanticide. Then they see their own babies' hearts beating on the sonogram at 7 weeks, or moving their arms and legs not too much later, and the line of what's acceptable moves back again. At some point many realize that all these lines -- seven weeks, fourteen weeks, 20 weeks -- are arbitrary. However, if you had hit them back before their 21 week realization with the fact that even embryos are babies, they would have outright rejected it. I believe the same thing happens with abortion law.

I'm not knocking you for your stance -- it's absolutely logically consistent. But I just can't see how we get there from here without convincing people state by state. What's the quickest path to protecting life on a federal level, in your view?

[EternalVigilance]

Fight the fight at every single level, with all our might.

Only elect candidates, at every level, who understand and who have proven that they will fight for the personhood of the unborn.

Don’t compromise the principle. Ever. Our rights to life and liberty come from God, not man, and are not alienable, or negotiable. This is the cornerstone principle of America, upon which the entire edifice stands or falls.

When you’re talking economic policy, or spending, or taxes, or regulation, or any number of other things, compromises can be made without jeopardizing the national soul.

Abortion is not like that.

There are no gray areas when it comes to life and death matters. Alive is alive, and dead is dead.

The “quickest path” is to have an entire movement, an entire party, who will not give one ounce of political support of any kind to any politician who won’t fight for the personhood of the unborn. Make the threat real, and the politicians will end the holocaust so fast it will make your head spin.

[ellery]

We're talking about the choice of a President. The "alternative" is to elect one who understands and advocates for unalienable rights, and who will keep his sworn oath of office.

Okay. But if our Founders had done that re: slavery, our country and Constitution would probably not exist.

I can't assert this with certainty, of course, since it's impossible to predict the "what-ifs. It may be that our Constitution would have been ratified years later than it was, but that we would have avoided the Civil War (Given the grasp of history that shines through your posts, I suspect you've read "What If?").

It's still a fact, though, that even our Founders turned to state-based incrementalism in order to deal with issues that are unquestionably unalienable rights, but that the nation was too divided to deal with federally. It's possible they were wrong to do so; but the fact that they did tells me that an incremental, state-centered approach to abortion is in line with what they might do were they here today.

[EternalVigilance]

Bad example. Slavery was the original sin of the founders, one which festered for more than half a century, before it bathed the nation in blood, and nearly consumed the republic. They should have done whatever it took to root it out from the beginning, for no other reason than that they knew it was a violation of the principles they had laid down. They should have known that the price to their posterity for avoiding the accomplishment of justice would be too horrible for words.

But abortion has already killed far more Americans.

You think God might call that to account?

"Fondly do we hope, fervently do we pray, that this mighty scourge of war may speedily pass away. Yet, if God wills that it continue until all the wealth piled by the bondsman's two hundred and fifty years of unrequited toil shall be sunk, and until every drop of blood drawn with the lash shall be paid by another drawn with the sword, as was said three thousand years ago, so still it must be said "the judgments of the Lord are true and righteous altogether." - President Abraham Lincoln, Second Inaugural Address

[ellery]

It’s certainly not a pretty example. My question, though, is this: if the Founders had not compromised in order to get the Constitution ratified, would slavery still legally exist today in some states? Without the Union, there might have been no framework (or possibly even reason) for some states to force others to give up the abomination that is slavery.

[EternalVigilance]

My question, though, is this: if the Founders had not compromised in order to get the Constitution ratified, would slavery still legally exist today in some states? Without the Union, there might have been no framework (or possibly even reason) for some states to force others to give up the abomination that is slavery.

"What shall we say then? Shall we continue in sin that grace may abound? Certainly not!" - Romans 6:1-2

[EternalVigilance]

The bottom line is this: While God is more than able to bring good out of the greatest of evils, and often does, it is presumptuous in the extreme for us to think we can bring about good by doing evil. With such thinking we do nothing but destroy ourselves.

[ellery]

The “quickest path” is to have an entire movement, an entire party, who will not give one ounce of political support of any kind to any politician who won’t fight for the personhood of the unborn. Make the threat real, and the politicians will end the holocaust so fast it will make your head spin.

But that takes us back to the beginning. How do you convince enough people of the principle that an embryo is a human life that deserves the same protection as born humans do? I guess that's the crux of our disagreement (and one that won't be resolved, of course).

Human beings are not typically logical creatures who act based on principle. They need demonstration projects, and proofs of concept, in order to be convinced. They just do. I think what you're saying is absolutely intellectually consistent. But I don't think it's in line with human nature.

When you’re talking economic policy, or spending, or taxes, or regulation, or any number of other things, compromises can be made without jeopardizing the national soul. Abortion is not like that. There are no gray areas when it comes to life and death matters. Alive is alive, and dead is dead.

I agree -- but that's why it's so important to overturn Roe so states at least have the power to save lives. I don't think taking an imperfect step forward imperils the national soul -- taking imperfect steps forward is a good description of our entire existence as a nation.

I have to say I'm not accustomed to arguing the "pragmatism" side of discussions here on FR -- usually I'm on the vote-third-party and let the chips fall end of things.

[EternalVigilance]

My argument is the only way to overturn Roe properly.

The privacy arguments are a loser for our side. Americans have a right to privacy, and they’re rightfully not willing to give that up.

But, the right to life outweighs privacy arguments by many magnitudes.

Even Blackmun, in the Roe majority decision, said that if the child in the womb is a PERSON, they are protected under the Fourteenth Amendment.

If you give away this ground, it is doubtful you can ever overturn Roe, except by brute political power on the Court, under some other specious means that would leave millions of unborn American children unprotected from the predations of the Planned Barrenhood ghouls and their allies. You would also have given away the moral argument for ending abortion in the states.

How “pragmatic” is that?