Fredipedia - the definitive Fred Thompson quick-reference
The Fred Thompson War Room - Fighting back for Fred!
Posted on 11/18/2007 5:27:53 PM PST by Josh Painter
The liberals have gotten themselves where they are today through incrementalism.
Thompson's federalist approach is constitutionally sound, and it would probably save more babies faster than trying to get a constitutional amendment through -- which can take years and years, even in the best of circumstances, and if opposed by a political faction it may take forever.
So (especially given his 100% voting record) it seems to me that calling Thompson's position pro-abortion is not just a stretch, it's an outright lie.
“probably save more babies faster”
Excellent point.
“So (especially given his 100% voting record) it seems to me that calling Thompson’s position pro-abortion is not just a stretch, it’s an outright lie.”
quite a twist of logic there
We shouldn't have to amend the Constitution every time the Supreme Court botches a decision.
Are there any MittWits left to make this into a big argument? If there are, they’ve been awful quiet today.
Is it Pro-Life?
It is if you’re settin’ the stage for the repeal of the laws and court decisions that allow baby killings.
But not if you’re just sittin’ on your hands doing nothing.
Returning the abortion issue to the states is actually a good idea because the states have an important role to play in the amendment process. Any amendment must be ratified by three fourths of the state legislatures before it becomes law.
Great article. It’s a cop out for a candidate to say, “I’m for the HLA” when in reality the President has no role whatsoever in amending the Constitution. That’s like being for apple pie and motherhood. Great, but what are you going to do about it? Republicans have been “for the HLA” for decades, and where has it gotten us? At least Fred has a plan that might actually work.
Fred’s federalist method, given half a chance, will drastically reduce the number of abortions in this country in a way that being “for the HLA” hasn’t.
It also opens up the debate in all 50 states and lets pro-life forces bring the issue to the forefront of peoples’ minds. The specifics of abortion are not something people want to dwell on. Open up the debate, run ads, get the issue out there, and make people confront their consciences. I think we’d likely end up with at least 30 states banning abortion outright with several more restricting it. Then the next logical step would be to use those states as a platform from which to push for a Constitutional ban.
Being “for the HLA” is a great political soundbite, but, pragmatically, it hasn’t worked. Returning the issue to the states will.
No, it’s not. Frederalism will save babies, tilting at windmills for an impossible-to-obtain HLA won’t.
Excellent article, and absolutely right. The Left got a hold on this nation over many decades. They didn’t reach this point overnight. We will not be able to reverse the damage done by the Left overnight.
Let’s do, today, what we can to improve the situation. Then, tomorrow, we will be able to do more. The next, even more.
MOgirl
“Thompson’s federalist approach is constitutionally sound, and it would probably save more babies faster than trying to get a constitutional amendment through”
I believe Thompson is not against a Constitutional amendment, per se. I think the kind of amendment that he would support would remove abortion from federal jurisdiction, while it want not, on its own, make federal “pro-life” mandate. I agree with that approach, from a constitutional and federalist perspective and I believe that social conservatives, primarily protestant and Catholic Christians, would achieve many gains (against abortion on demand), in the states, if federal courts, and particularly the supreme court could not intervene. I think an amendment that simply ends that intervention would serve everyone well.
I agree.
Anyone willing to look at the 10th Amendment should agree that abortion should never have been a federal issue in the first place.
The most important thing is to convince young women that abortion is immoral, so they make the right "choice." What matters is the fetal body count, not the ideological purity of presidential candidates.
I wonder if pro-life films save more fetuses than pro-life politicians. A film is able to promote the pro-life message in a way that actually changes minds.
By the way, this business of calling Thompson/Giuliani/Romney "pro-abortion" is factually wrong and anti-Republican. None of them wants for abortions to occur, and I very much doubt that electing any of them would increase the fetal body count.
The Republican Platform:
As a country, we must keep our pledge to the first guarantee of the Declaration of Independence. That is why we say the unborn child has a fundamental individual right to life which cannot be infringed. We support a human life amendment to the Constitution and we endorse legislation to make it clear that the Fourteenth Amendment’s protections apply to unborn children.
Neither does John Kerry:
"I oppose abortion, personally. I don't like abortion. I believe life does begin at conception." - John F. Kerry
>>We shouldn’t have to amend the Constitution every time the Supreme Court botches a decision.<<
I’ve been thinking about this.
I believe there is a right to privacy but that it does not include the right to kill your child. (tempting though that me be after the age of 15). Since the right to privacy lives in many parts of the Constitution and congress can’t simply change one part, the Supreme Court needs reverse Roe v Wade. There’s really no other way to clean up the judicial precedents set by the Court in Roe, if you believe like I do.
Now, a different conservative might disagree with me. He may think privacy is not one of the non-enumerated Federal rights. He might need more than simply reversing Row to feel a win - He may feel the Supreme Court needs its scope reduced in one of the two legal ways - law or amendment.
I don’t think its so much that I’m right or that he is right but rather point our points of view are both reasonable depending on whether you think privacy is a Federal right.
This was never the law, anywhere in the US prior to Roe v. Wade, nor in any other common law country.
Abortion has never been punished as murder - never, nowhere.
What you are trying to do is very difficult, because it has never been done.
That’s been the Republican platform since 1984.
Yeah, yeah, I know.
Have they done anything about it?
Why do you think that is?
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.