Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: Larry Lucido

I work 16 hour days in my restaurant so I don’t get to keep up on the chats. I had a question on the “life amendment” and Thompson’s take on it. After reading your post, is that a subject to be avoided? I started following Hunter’s positions last spring and am trying to catch up on Thompson’s positions. I would like to know the pros and cons of the “life amendment”.


31 posted on 11/18/2007 8:38:57 AM PST by EldonH (semper fi, USMC68-69)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies ]


To: EldonH
The Human Life Amendment was added to the Republican Platform back in the late 70's or early 80's as a way to delineate the ideas of the two parties. The Democrats were beginning to be the party of unfettered access to abortion, and were using Roe v Wade as a club with which to beat any and all restrictions that states might try to place on it. Pro-life groups wanted the HLA so as to supercede Roe, and protect unborn children. It was, and is, a noble idea, but the idea of abortion as a right has become so ingrained in America, that it has absolutely NO chance of passage. It is really easy for a Republican candidate to say he supports it, because he'll never have to actually ACT on it.

Even when we had both houses of Congress AND the White House, it was never brought forward, because in order for it to pass, it has to get a super-majority in Congress, and even with Republicans in the majority, there were too many rabid Democrats for whom the 'right' to have an abortion is one of the most important issues.

The National Right to Life Committee has been pushing for the Human Life Amendment for years, but has come to realize that it is a lost cause right now. As the article states, they have realized that they have to chip away at the idea of a 'right' to abortion, and their major obstacle has been Roe v Wade. Since George W. Bush was able to nominate some solid conservatives to the Supreme Court, we are in the best position since 1973 to actually overturn it, and the NRLC understands that, with the right President, it CAN happen, because the oldest Justices right now are the most liberal, and it is they who will likely be the first to be replaced, either because of retirement or death.

41 posted on 11/18/2007 9:12:48 AM PST by SuziQ
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies ]

To: EldonH

Traditional American Values

Protecting Life

Fred Thompson is pro-life. He believes in the sanctity of human life and that every life is worthy of respect. He had a 100% pro-life voting record in the Senate and believes Roe v. Wade was a bad decision that ought to be overturned. He consistently opposed federal funding to promote or pay for abortion and supported the Partial Birth Abortion Act, the Child Custody Protection Act, and President Reagan’s “Mexico City” policy. While Fred Thompson supports adult stem cell research, he opposes embryonic stem cell research. He also opposes human cloning.

Supporting Marriage

Fred Thompson believes marriage is the union of one man and one woman, and that this institution is the foundation of society. As such, he supported the Defense of Marriage Act when he served in the Senate. He supports a constitutional amendment to prevent activist judges from misreading the Constitution to force same-sex marriage on any state and on our society.

Protecting our Kids

While censorship is dangerous, obscenity is not legally protected, and laws against it should be vigorously enforced. Parents need to be empowered to protect their children from inappropriate matter, whether on TV, in video games, or on the computer. And we must do all we can to fight the explosion of child pornography over the Internet.

Limiting the Role of the Judiciary

For many years, the judiciary has been too eager to engage in social engineering under the guise of interpreting the Constitution. Fred Thompson is a lawyer who understands the difference between interpreting the law and making it. He is committed to appointing judges who understand and respect that difference and who will only interpret and apply the law, not make it. When President Bush needed someone to shepherd the nomination of John Roberts to be Chief Justice of the United States, he turned to Fred Thompson, who steered the Roberts nomination to its successful confirmation. John Roberts represents the kind of judges Fred Thompson would seek to appoint as President.

http://www.fred08.com/Virtual/AmericanValues.aspx


42 posted on 11/18/2007 9:13:33 AM PST by 2ndDivisionVet (Your "dirt" on Fred is about as persuasive as a Nancy Pelosi Veteran's Day Speech)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson