Thompson gets National Right to Life endorsement

National Right to Life ^ | November 13, 2007 | Klaus Marre

[Salvation]

Thompson gets National Right to Life endorsement

 

By Klaus Marre | Posted: 11/13/07 11:22 a.m. [ET]

November 13, 2007

Former Tennessee Sen. Fred Thompson (R) received a major boost to his campaign Tuesday with the endorsement of the National Right to Life Committee.

With his main rivals for the GOP nomination all receiving the endorsement of a prominent figure in Christian conservative circles, the backing of the prominent anti-abortion group is key for Thompson.

“In supporting me, those who have worked tirelessly to defend life are supporting a consistent conservative who has stood with them yesterday, who stands with them today, and will stand with them tomorrow,” Thompson said.

The group’s endorsement should help the former senator strengthen his network of grassroots supporters in the key primary states.

“When National Right to Life speaks, we’re not speaking as a Washington group,” said David O’Steen, the group’s executive director, pointing to National Right to Life’s strong state roots.

“There have been endorsements by individuals of various candidates,” O’Steen added. “Every candidate has received endorsements from some individuals, and that’s to be expected. But this is the first endorsement in the Republican race from a major, grassroots, pro-life organization, representing 50 state organizations and about 3,000 chapters.”

[hocndoc]

The “problem” with those who disagree with the platform is that they refuse to address the personhood of the unborn.

No, they address the problem in a different way than you.

There is no justification for the concept of "personhood" in law as a division between those humans who have the right not to be killed and those who don't. Agreed?

[hocndoc]

21, What do you consider “lifting one finger” and what exactly would it be possible for anyone to do as under the Constitutional duties of a President? What exactly leads you to believe that Fred Thompson would not do those things?

21 and Kevmo, are you aware of the roll the Senator had in the confirmation of John Roberts? Do you know that he voted 100% to limit and/or ban abortions when given the chance in the Senate?

Have you read or heard the Senator’s story about witnessing the ultrasound of his daughter?

Here’s the pdf from Senator Thompson’s website, on traditional family values
http://www.fred08.com/Virtual/Media/SocialValues120507.pdf

From the “Issues: Principles” page at the website, http://www.fred08.com/Principles/PrinciplesSummary.aspx

“Building Strong Families: Strong families are the bedrock of our nation and our culture. They are built around the sanctity of life and the institution of marriage, which is the union of a man and a woman. “

[hocndoc]

That original Executive Order went too far. It prohibited counseling on abortion, without a distinction between ethical counseling and unethical counseling. It was interpreted to mean that I, as a pro-life doctor, couldn’t counseling *against* abortion while a Family Medicine resident at a public hospital and clinics. (However, I could very carefully explain the law that prohibited me from counseling.)(grin)

Remember, limits on free speech can cut both ways.

[RichardMoore]

It is truly amazing that Keyes has been totally ignored once again. He is head and shoulders above all these politicians who tell people what they think they want to hear.

[La Enchiladita]

Fair enough, SuziQ. Everyone is entitled to the candidate of their choice, and I respect the advocacy of candidates. What we have on this forum is a small claque of Fredheads who are on a crusade vs. Mitt Romney using propaganda and smears rather than honest statements of personal opinion such as yours.

What we have is a Catholic who pings a large number of Catholics on forum every day posting the Daily Office and Mass, who has been visibly and vocally anti-Mormon and now purporting to hold up Fred as THE pro-life candidate to Catholics who are solidly in the camp of another candidate, Mitt Romney.

I didn’t even realize this topic was posted in the Religion Forum until way after I contributed my posts. I don’t understand what qualifies this article for the Religion Forum, except for the fact that Salvation and Petronski seem to enjoy protection in this forum.

That is fine, too. It just took me a while to realize it. Not my forum, I don’t make the rules nor do I have the hard task of being a moderator. I just want to say if we are being warned re personal attacks, then include me in that warning per at least one of the comments I made to Salvation.

[La Enchiladita]

end of 2nd paragraph should read, “Mitt Romney, who happens to be a Mormon.”

[TAdams8591]

"There is a contingent of pro-lifers and Catholics who have touted their lack of support for Romney under the guise of issues, like the life issue, when their REAL reason for not supporting him is his Mormon religion."

While the above is true, note that I use the word contingent and not all and I didn't mention you specifically as one of those who are a part of that contingent nor did I ever think it, as I have read many of your posts regarding this presidential race. There are also Catholics and conservatives who oppose Romney's candidacy on grounds other than his Mormon religion, a fact I have stated on this forum several times, and have always seen you as one of them.

It has only been recently that I have realized there are Catholics who oppose Romney principally and primarily because he is Mormon, the spirit of which is in opposition to our precious faith, imho and the reason for my comment was as a reminder to those people.

[SuziQ]

I never thought you meant me, personally. I just wanted to assure you that there are Catholics who don't support Romney in the primaries, and as you have noted, it has nothing to do with his being a Mormon.

As I also said, if Mitt is the nominee, I'll have no trouble supporting him, I just am working for Fred to be the nominee.

I won't back myself into a corner, do or die. I'm a pragmatist when it comes to politics. I'd rather have half a loaf with which we can work, than have none at all, and starve. A Democrat in the White House will do nothing to advance the pro-life cause, and will work hard to overthrow all the gains we've made in the last 7 years. That means that the slaughter of the last 35 years will continue, unabated. Even the more liberal of the possible nominees won't do the damage a Democrat would do, because he knows that to go against the mainstream of the Republican party, which is conservative, would damage his chances of re-election.

When it becomes clear who the nominee will be, and frankly, even before that, we all must work within our states to make sure that the most conservative candidates are elected to Congress. This will support and bolster our pro-life cause, so that even if a liberal Republican is elected, the legislation that is sent to him will be pro-life, and the conservatives out here can keep the pressure on him to pass it.

[Petronski]

Why would one endorse a candidate who doesn't support a Human Life Amendment (Thompson) and can't win over one who does (Romney) and can win?

a) The President has no constitional role in the amendment process. None.

b) Your can't-win/can-win analysis is your speculation.

c) Even National Right to Life recognizes that the HLA is not passing any time soon.

This is just a Willardian wedge talking point meant to obscure Slick Willard's pro-abortion very-recent-past.

[Petronski]

...except for the fact that Salvation and Petronski seem to enjoy protection in this forum.

ROFLOL

As if!

[TAdams8591]

Well, I’m not using it as a wedge. I prefer candidates who support the HLA (as Reagan did) and Marriage Amendments, even if the HLA will be long time coming.

[TAdams8591]

"I never thought you meant me, personally. I just wanted to assure you that there are Catholics who don't support Romney in the primaries, and as you have noted, it has nothing to do with his being a Mormon."

That the above is true about Catholics and conservatives, I have understood from day one. It is the realization there exists Catholics who oppose Romney primarily because of his religion, that is a new one for me.

Except for our current differing choice of candidates, there is nothing else about your post with which I disagree. Well said. I will have great difficulty supporting Giuliani if he is the nominee however, and find myself continually vacillating on whether I will vote for him or not. While I generally support the Republican nominee, in very rare instances, at least for me, there is an exception. I am concerned in the very, very small chance that if Giuliani should win the nomination and then the general, social issues will be relegated to the dust pan of American political history, as they have been in Europe.

[TAdams8591]

"I never thought you meant me, personally. I just wanted to assure you that there are Catholics who don't support Romney in the primaries, and as you have noted, it has nothing to do with his being a Mormon."

That the above is true about Catholics and conservatives, I have understood from day one. It is the realization there exists Catholics who oppose Romney primarily because of his religion, that is a new one for me.

Except for our current differing choice of candidates, there is nothing else about your post with which I disagree. Well said. I will have great difficulty supporting Giuliani if he is the nominee however, and find myself continually vacillating on whether I will vote for him or not. While I generally support the Republican nominee, in very rare instances, at least for me, there is an exception. I am concerned in the very, very small chance that if Giuliani should win the nomination and then the general, social issues will be relegated to the dust pan of American political history, as they have been in Europe.

[redgirlinabluestate]

I agree. We all know that the HLA is an uphill battle, but why start with a strike against you with a president who doesn't even believe in it to begin with? To me, it is mind-boggling that right-to-life organizations are endorsing someone who does not support (by his own admission on Meet the Press) their ultimate goal -- Ronald Reagan's HLA.

While a president does not have a magic wand that can stop all abortions overnight, certainly having someone in the Oval Office who will use the bully pulpit to further the cause is preferable to someone who will not (same goes for the Federal Marriage Amendment too).

[steadfastconservative]

Allow me to weigh in on this. I read this article in NRL’s newspaper a couple of months ago. They are endorsing Thompson because of his pro-life stance and his pro-life voting record in the Senate.

The HLA should be a long-term goal for pro-lifers but it cannot be a short-term goal. There is very little chance that this amendment would get the required votes in Congress or be approved by three fourths of the state legislatures any time in the foreseeable future. Moreover, the President really does not play a role in the amendment process. The President’s appointments to the federal judiciary, especially the Supreme Court, are more important than his views on the HLA.

I’m voting for Thompson in the primaries but I would be very willing to vote for Romney if he were the nominee.

[redgirlinabluestate]

What you say is true, but Mitt offers all that PLUS he supports the HLA. I don't understand why we need to settle for less. Additionally, Mitt has the most exceptional conservative legal minds on his team. Please read what Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas' law clerk, Wendy Long, wrote about Mitt's judicial choices here:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1873628/posts

Mitt Romney was credited with a political coup last Tuesday when it was announced that Wendy Long has joined his campaign as a senior legal advisor and vice chair of his National Faith and Values Steering Committee. Long is a familiar name to conservatives who follow the courts. She is chief counsel to the Judicial Confirmation Network, an organization of conservative lawyers that has played a critical role in the confirmation battles for appellate and Supreme Court judges including Sam Alito and John Roberts. She was a litigation partner with Kirkland & Ellis LLP and previously a law clerk to U.S. Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas and to U.S. Appeals Court Judge Ralph Winter. We talked to her about her decision to back Romney, her thoughts about the future of the judiciary, and why even non-lawyers should care about the courts.

So he's got the whole thing covered. And don't even start to ask La Enchiladita what she thinks about legal super star Doug Kmiec and his support of Mitt!

[fetal heart beats by 21st day]

Fred, like McCain, Paul, Romney, Huckabee and Giuliani, thinks that states’ rights trump the unalienable right to life:
Fred Thompson

MR. RUSSERT: This is the 2004 Republican Party platform. [Reads excerpt.] Could you run as a candidate on that platform, promising a human life amendment banning all abortions?

MR. THOMPSON: No.

MR. RUSSERT: You would not?

MR. THOMPSON: No. . . . I think the diversity we have among the states, the system of federalism we have where power is divided between the state and the federal government serves us very well. I think that’s true of abortion.

Meet the Press with Tim Russert, Nov. 4, 2007

The Reagan GOP pro-life platform:

“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.”

[TAdams8591]

"While a president does not have a magic wand that can stop all abortions overnight, certainly having someone in the Oval Office who will use the bully pulpit to further the cause is preferable to someone who will not (same goes for the Federal Marriage Amendment too)."

Most agreed, rg. There is no one who makes the case for the importance of candidate belief in the HLA better than you. Mitt speaks clearly and passionately for the cause of Life on the campaign trail, and there is no candidate who has the ability or who will articulate the pro-life message better, or even as well as, Governor Romney.

[TAdams8591]

"Fred, like McCain, Paul, Romney, Huckabee and Giuliani, thinks that states’ rights trump the unalienable right to life:"

Sorry, but in the case of Governor Romney that isn't true. Mitt Romney supports the HLA.

[fetal heart beats by 21st day]

I forgot to put quotations around that. Sorry. That is a copy of a post from Eternal Vigilance. I will let him address it.