His nonsupport of a Human Life Amendment is only half the problem...the least important half.
The real problem is that his position is anathema to the most important part of the pro-life plank: The assertion of the personhood of the unborn, and their protection under the Fourteenth Amendment.
The real problem is that his position is anathema to the most important part of the pro-life plank: The assertion of the personhood of the unborn, and their protection under the Fourteenth Amendment.
Your problem is obfuscation.
The goal of every conservative since the inception of Roe has been to get it overturned in order to send the issue back to the states.
The demand for conservative orthodoxy via 14th Amendment protections and the HLA are mere attempts to paint Federalist Republicans as abortionists. It won't fly, and it's a transparent tactic.
You aren't a Republican, and your desire here is to divide Republicans.
Fred Thompson or Hillary Clinton...who's your choice "EternalVigilance?"
WE can assert all we want, but unless we can get a large enough majority of people to agree with us, there will be no movement on the HLA. YOU may not like it, and I may not like it, but that's the reality of the situation. Why keep tilting at windmills when we have the chance to actually make a REAL change?
I believe this is what the NRLC had in mind. They realized many years ago that they were going to have to work incrementally to reduce abortions if they wanted any chance to try to get rid of the practice altogether. They've tried with restrictions in Congress, and individual states have tried, but they keep running into the Roe roadblock. If that were gone, there would be a much better opportunity to start saving babies immediately!