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.
I guess that’s a reason too.
We can start by withholding an ounce of political support from any candidate for public office who doesn’t have a proven track record of defending the personhood of the unborn. That’s what I’m doing.
Yes, my TV is plugged in. We just don’t sit there waiting for things to come on. We watch one or two shows and that’s it. We depend on Rush. I trust him.
:)
Yes most, or at least many, of us would like to see abortion totally outlawed in every state and US territory. But that is not going to happen as long as there are at least 13 states which want to keep abortion legal and therefore will not ratify an amendment to ban abortion in every state. I say lets take what we may be able to get now and then work from there for a total ban on the killing of unborn babies, and if I'm not mistaken that's just what Fred is proposing that we do.
Seems to me that have made the right call, the one a good tactician makes when something is not working.
Change course...
Oh really? Just how hi are Hunters,Thompsons and Tancredos negatives?I can tell you that they are nothing compared to the witch.And yes, negatives account for a lot.
Agree. hilllereee is the LAST ONE on God’s green earth to even suggest there is dirt about Obama. What about all the filty dirt that has encircled both of those clintins? Hope someone comes up with things on them. They think they are the only ones who can dig up dirt on people? I think at this point...there are those out there now gathering what they can ... this is not the era of willie boy running for president ... this is the era of NETWORKING and people know more than ever...hilllereee chose to run and techologially speaking...this was probably the worst time she could have ever chosen. This will ALL get very interesting. Obama will not stand for this kind of trashing NOR will his wife. hillereee better think twice on this one...I am personally rooting for Obama to win the nomination. He can!
Who????
Hunter is my first choice and the only one I trust 100%.
There are many who want to save the unborn who are a little more realistic about how best to do it in the real world of 21st American politics.
You are mistaken. Thompson, and Huckabee, and Romney, and McCain, and Paul, all say that states have the ultimate right to decide the abortion question.
Again, this is in direct opposition to the Reagan pro-life plank, which recognizes the personhood of the unborn, and their protection under the Fourteenth Amendment.
Both men would make a great POTUS and when it came down to it, my choice rested upon national name recognition only.
Glad to see a reasoned Hunter supporter posting a reasoned opinion. Thanks!
We only need one.
“Whre IS Fred Thompson anyway? I rarely see him on TV. Why is he in the background so much? Is he waiting because he thinks it is all to early to be out there?”
Fred can’t get on TV shows unless he is asked. Check his website for videos of his appearances on the campaign trail and a few TV programs. His interview this morning on ABC with Steponutpolis was great. Video of the entire interview will hopefully be available soon. Folks need to see just how great Fred did answering questions strongly and honestly from a Demorat! :)
We need 2/3s of Congress as well...
That is the real problem, the one NRTL has finally acknowledged.
Gosh. Maybe you should support Hillary. Her name ID is for all intents and purposes 100%. /s
My method is to look at every single person who will be on the ballot, and pick the person who would be the absolute best President we could hope for in these dangerous times. Pundits, pollsters and gatekeepers be damned.
Just think what a different world it would be if everyone did that.
The Executive is, in his person, a co-equal branch of government. Sworn to interpret, uphold, and defend the Constitution.
That’s what we’re discussing, remember?
Because I believe incrementalism works. The interim argument is that, whatever you believe about matters of life, it is wrong to let the courts to create federal mandates on issues that are clearly not enumerated in the Constitution (I’m speaking in this case about this supposed “right to abortion”).
I don’t see it as conceding the life argument to acknowledge that the people are too divided at this point to address this at the federal level. Get it to the state level, start saving babies, and then use the equal protection argument to make the case for either a re-interpretation of the fourteenth amendment or the HLA.
As I’ve said before, our Founders agreed temporarily to let slavery go to the states, even knowing that slavery flies in the face of the principles on which this nation was founded. That wasn’t a logically coherent argument — but it was the only way forward.
I’m not being argumentative, just sincerely asking: what’s the alternative in your mind? Build up enough judges on the Supreme Court to re-interpret 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.