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).
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.
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.