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.
Pass up an electable GOP candidate who will make the SCOTUS appointment(s) needed to reach this goal, for a nominee who will lose to another Clinton and have her SCOTUS appointment save Roe v. Wade for our lifetime.
With this moral logic, why settle for a U.S. HLA... when unborn babies are being killed all over the world. We must not compromise! We must take it to the U.N... there must be a worldwide ban on abortions. After all doesn't the U.N. charter say:
"WE THE PEOPLES OF THE UNITED NATIONS DETERMINED...Surely you can't say the unborn are not human!to reaffirm faith in fundamental human rights"
I believe he is trying to lay the gorund work ... and pointing out the hypocrisy that goes on with murder.
Abortion is murder of the unborn. You can’t get away with murdering an adult and have THAT vary by state. You don’t want abortion, which is murder, legal in one state and illegal in another for the same reasons.
I’m not a lawyer, but my bet is that if a state inheritance law past, present or future limited the beneficiaries of a will to living persons, federal courts would not become involved.
Is anyone aware of any instance of federal law or courts becoming involved in this state issue?
Nest of kin sound familiar?
We are talking about “unborn” at the time of probate... when the property changes hands. I thought this was obvious.
People have been trying to pass a pro-life amendment to the Constitution of 35 years and it has gotten absolutely nowhere. Overturning Roe V. Wade could be as immediate as the next Supreme Court justice to drop dead, then the only thing holding up the process would be activist judges.
So go tilt at windmills all you want while people with solutions that work do the hard work.
You just won’t get it.
It’s a simple point - you must FIRST define the unborn as persons.
Until then, the pro-choicers can and do claim a fetus is no different than a tumor.
Your fight should be to get a legal definition of life as including the unborn. I believe Colorado is very close to that now.
“So go tilt at windmills all you want while people with solutions that work do the hard work.”
LOL!
What “hard work” are you doing?
Watching windmills?
That's what I am talking about. A child who is not born yet at the time that a state probate court orders an executor to divide the property.
I would think any/every court would wait to see if the child was born to divide the property.. What if the woman aborts the baby after the property is divided?
[What “hard work” are you doing?
Watching windmills?]
No, the hard work I’m doing is watching people like you twist in the wind for 35 years not getting a damn thing done about abortion. Pushing a mountain that doesn’t move is hard work, but also stupid and ineffective. Taking the mountain apart shovelful by shovelful isn’t as glorious but gets the mountain moved.
It wouldn't be her property - it would be held in trust for the child.
If the child dies before he reaches majority the property reverts to the estate.
That's precisely the way my will works, for example.
If I die, my assets will be held in trust for my children until they reach age 35, with disbursements before that age for such things as medical care, education costs and other necessaries of life.
This is a standard way of protecting one's children in the event that one's spouse remarries after one's death to an unscrupulous individual. And, of course, if one suspects that one's spouse would get an abortion if she were pregnant when one died, there are ways of making that cost her dearly as well.
I agree, but the first step has to be to win the battle over whether or not the Supreme court gets to make policy decisions that have the effect of law.
Trying to overide the flawed reasoning in Roe v. Wade with a constitutional amendment is tilting at windmills I’m afraid.
Right now it is the Federal Government that has set abortion policy, that’s worked out just swell hasn’t it.
After all, a born child's property upon death passes to the parent. If an unborn child was considered a person of equal standing to a born child, an unborn child's property would also pass to the parent.
This is of cause in wills or trusts without specifics on the age of the beneficiaries (to keep the principles clear).
The trust has a beneficiary, who is a claimant of the proceeds of that trust.
It is that individual's property, being held in trust on their behalf.
Generally, but not necessarily.
As I implied before, a trust can be structured so that if one sibling predeceases another sibling while both have assets being held in trust, the trust assets will then be applied to the ebenfit of the surviving sibling and not the parent.
Aside from the angles that can be played using Trusts, what would be the case if it was a simple will... would the child, unborn at the time of the final division of property, be considered a beneficiary?
Usually, yes - if the child proves to be a natural child of the decedent.
We haven’t really pushed for the HLA since Reagan left office. Yeah, its introduced every now and then but we haven’t been making a concerted effort to get it passed. Instead the NRTL has been following the gradual approach for many years now. So, I think it is unfair to say that we have been pushing for the HLA. Also, I think we need to both do more gradual stuff and push for the HLA.
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.