Posted on 11/19/2007 5:32:58 AM PST by the tongue
Huckabee: Abortion Not States' Call
Sunday, November 18, 2007 3:01 PM
Article Font Size
WASHINGTON -- Republican presidential candidate Mike Huckabee rejects letting states decide whether to allow abortions, claiming the right to life is a moral issue not subject to multiple interpretations.
"It's the logic of the Civil War," Huckabee said Sunday, comparing abortion rights to slavery. "If morality is the point here, and if it's right or wrong, not just a political question, then you can't have 50 different versions of what's right and what's wrong."
"For those of us for whom this is a moral question, you can't simply have 50 different versions of what's right," he said in a broadcast interview.
The former Arkansas governor, who has drawn within striking distance of Mitt Romney in Iowa's leadoff presidential caucuses, said he was taken aback by the National Right to Life Committee's recent endorsement of Fred Thompson, the ex-Tennessee senator.
"But my surprise was nothing compared to the surprise of people across America who had been faithful supporters of right to life," said Huckabee, who is challenging Thompson's claim that he is the most reliable candidate in the GOP field.
"Fred's never had a 100 percent record on right to life in his Senate career. The records reflect that. And he doesn't support the human life amendment which is most amazing because that's been a part of the Republican platform since 1980," Huckabee said.
In a separate interview aired Sunday, Thompson said Roe v. Wade, the landmark Supreme Court decision allowing legal abortion, should be overturned, with states allowed to decide whether to permit abortions. "We need to remember what the status was before Roe v. Wade," he said.
Huckabee also previewed his first television ad of the campaign on the program. The 60-second spot, which features actor Chuck Norris, was to begin running in Iowa on Monday.
"My plan to secure the border. Two words: Chuck. Norris," says Huckabee, who stares into the camera before it cuts away to show Norris standing beside him.
"Mike Huckabee is a lifelong hunter who'll protect our Second Amendment rights" on gun ownership, says the tough-guy actor, who takes turns addressing viewers.
"There's no chin behind Chuck Norris' beard, only another fist," Huckabee says.
"Mike Huckabee wants to put the IRS out of business," Norris adds.
"When Chuck Norris does a push-up, he isn't lifting himself up, he's pushing the earth down," Huckabee says.
"Mike's a principled, authentic conservative," says Norris.
In closing, Huckabee says: "Chuck Norris doesn't endorse. He tells America how it's going to be. I'm Mike Huckabee and I approved this message. So did Chuck."
Huckabee acknowledged that the ad probably will not change many minds.
"But what it does do is exactly what it's doing this morning," he said. "Getting a lot of attention, driving people to our Web site, giving them an opportunity to find out who is this guy that would come out with Chuck Norris in a commercial."
The Thompson campaign was quick to respond.
"With his new campaign ad featuring Chuck Norris, Mike Huckabee has confused celebrity endorsement with serious policy. What would Huckabee do to secure America's border against millions of illegal immigrants pouring into our country? According to his ad, 'Two words: Chuck Norris,' " said Thompson campaign spokesman Todd Harris.
"It's appropriate that Chuck Norris would co-star in an ad with Mike Huckabee, given Huckabee has been 'Missing in Action' on the issue of illegal immigration his entire career," Harris said, referring to one of Norris' films.
Huckabee appeared on "Fox News Sunday" and Thompson was interviewed by "This Week" on ABC.
© 2007 Associated Press. All Rights Reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.
State law also trumps federal law in how the comatose and retarded are treated - as we saw in the Schiavo tragedy.
Applying the existing Constitution & its Amendments to abortion is a waste of time. The unlikeliness of a new Amendment passing all the states required would make it a shame to divert energy from overturning Roe v. Wade NOW THAT IT IS WITHIN GRASP.
Fred Thompson nailed this phony-baloney yesterday in his interview with George Step-on-all-of-us. Referred to Huckabee as a “right-to-life liberal”.
Right said, Fred!
Thank you!
Some people are terminally dumbed down and COLD when it comes to human life.
Terri S. comes to mind ...we don’t want a society that EXPOLITS the extremely retarded, comatose or others unable to properly defend themselves due to their disability in life. They have a right to live too! They have a right to have property bequeathed to them and a responsible HONEST adult help them to manage it - perhaps for their care.
This is not NAZI Germany! There the unborn and born where mercilessly experimented on primarily for the evil thrill of it - especially twins. Adults were viewed as subhuman. No one cared about pregnant Jewish women. Now we have people ADVOCATING NAZI GERMANY tactics in the most arrogant way. These folks are NO BETTER THAN NAZIS.
An amendment won’t make it.
Roe vs Wade needs to be ABORTED.
It was based on LIES and fabrications.
Not on murdering the unborn.
You can’t have murdering your unborn legal in one state and illegal in another. We don’t allow murder of an ADULT in one state and ILLEGAL in another state. The unborn deserve the same protection as HUMAN BEINGS.
Methinks Mikey's trolley just ran off the tracks.
I'd like for him to explain where, in the Constitution, it reserves the right to control over an individual's body and allow them to murder unborn children to the federal government.
I'll wait.
You can’t have murdering your unborn LEGAL in one state and ILLEGAL in another state.
We don’t allow murder of an ADULT in one state and ILLEGAL in another state. The unborn deserve the same protection since they are defenseless HUMAN BEINGS. It's long overdue that we got away from being "relative" and "situational ethics". It's no wonder our kids are confused .... the adults are confused and hypocritical that support abortion and get indignant at kids murdering adults or adults murdering kids. For some sick reason, it's okay with them to have adults or kids MURDER babies and unborn babies - it's sick and Nazi Germany like in it's SICK "logic".
Not on murdering the unborn.
You can’t have murdering your unborn LEGAL in one state and ILLEGAL in another state.
We don’t allow murder of an ADULT in one state and ILLEGAL in another state. The unborn deserve the same protection since they are defenseless HUMAN BEINGS. It's long overdue that we got away from being "relative" and "situational ethics" concerning abortion. It's no wonder our kids are confused .... the adults are confused and hypocritical that support abortion and get indignant at kids murdering adults or adults murdering kids. For some sick reason, it's okay with these hypocrites to have adults or kids MURDER babies and unborn babies - it's sick and Nazi Germany like in it's SICK "logic".
Definitely the New White Meat.
He racked through civics class it appears. Big puddle of drool on the desk where his notebook should have been.
The founders compromise on slavery worked out real great for them and for our country didn’t it. The Civil war killed more Americans then all of our other wars combined. Yet the number killed in the civil war pales compared to the millions killed by abortion. How many more lives are you willing to sacrifice on the alter of a misguided view of federalism.
I don't think you have understood my post. I said that we need an amendment ASAP!
We don’t allow murder of an ADULT in one state and ILLEGAL in another state
True, but we do allow variations in types of murders, mitigating circumstance, punisment etc. Anyway, I don't think every state needs to have the same speed limits, tax policies or hunting laws and seasons. Do you?
Huckabee's comments about civil war are ridiculous. Do think that a civil war could be any worse than the slaughter of abortion?
In the absence of an new Amendment - which requires super majorities of various representative bodies - you better settle for reversing Roe v. Wade, or you'll wind up with NOTHING.
Indeed. But the unborn beneficiaries of the will still get their day in probabte court - thus their property rights are subjected to due process.
State law also trumps federal law in how the comatose and retarded are treated - as we saw in the Schiavo tragedy.
Again, the presumption was that Terry Schiavo had rights and those rights could not be infringed without the due process of law.
The unlikeliness of a new Amendment passing all the states required would make it a shame to divert energy from overturning Roe v. Wade NOW THAT IT IS WITHIN GRASP.
Of course Roe v. Wade should be overturned at the earliest opportunity.
I don’t think that nmh is arguing that the same exact same penalties or defenses should apply in every state. I believe that he is arguing that the 14th Amendment allows Congress to require each state to criminalize abortion. As to the exact details that would left up to the states. Similarly, Congress doesn’t require each state to adopt one exact form of homicide laws. However, congress could intervene to prevent a state from legalizing homicide.
Dschapin, answer this question. How many babies has the push for an HLA saved, to date? Feel free to limit yourself to one hand in counting them all.
Is anyone aware of any instance of federal law or courts becoming involved in this state issue?
We need to get rid of the very flawed Roe v. Wade first and foremost. A constitutional amendment may be possible down the road, but anyone who thinks a constitutional amendment has a chance at this stage is hard to take seriously.
“Huckabee’s comments about civil war are ridiculous. Do think that a civil war could be any worse than the slaughter of abortion?”
Aren’t we having a civil war against the unborn?
They absolutely would.
Hypothetical: Say someone made out a will in 2005 leaving an equal share of his estate to "all my natural children." At the time he signed the will he had two children aged 10 and 15. In 2003 he had divorced their mother and in 2005 married another woman. In 2006 his new wife was expecting a child when he got hit by a bus crossing the street.
If the counsel for the children of the first wife tried to argue that the unborn child of his second wife was not "a living person" and therefore not entitled to his equal share of the father's inheritance, and the state courts ruled against the youngest child, that case would be appealed to a federal court.
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.