Posted on 11/18/2007 12:10:42 PM PST by dano1
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 on Fox News Sunday.
The former Arkansas governor, who has drawn within striking distance of Mitt Romney in Iowa's leadoff presidential caucuses, said he was surprised by the National Right to Life Committee's endorsement of Fred Thompson.
"But my surprise was nothing compared to the surprise of people across America who had been faithful supporters of right to life," said Huckabee, a conservative who is challenging Thompson's claim to the title.
"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 pre-recorded interview on ABC's "This Week," Thompson said Roe v. Wade, the landmark Supreme Court decision allowing legal abortion, should be overturned, with states allowed to decide individually whether to permit abortions.
"We need to remember what the status was before Roe v. Wade," Thompson said in the interview, taped Friday.
Huckabee also previewed his first television ad of the campaign on the program. The 60-second spot stars actor Chuck Norris, and is scheduled 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," 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 won't change a lot of 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."
Wow. Thanks for the information.
Yep.
I realize that a Right to Life Amendment may not be politically possible at this time, but Fred isn't even saying he wants one.
I have asked over and over for someone to explain to me the difference between a politician saying....
"I am personally pro life, but I can not impose my morals on the mother" (like every single pro choice candidate says...
And...
"I am personally pro life, but I can not impose my morals on the State". (Like Fred is saying) in fact his words were "the States have the right to make laws, even if I, Fred Thompson disagree with them.
The only feedback I have gotten is people saying that a RTL Amendment can't get passed. I know that, but I also know that Romney and Huckabee have expressed their wish to get Roe V Wade overturned (like Thompson) and then press on to a Amendment (unlike Thompson). In fact on this issue he has stated he DOES NOT want that extra step.
I want someone to tell me why it is not intellectually dishonest to say that Fred is any different, on this issue, than any other pro choice candidate. Explain to me what the difference between a mother having a choice, and a State? The end result is still a dead baby.
I’ll gladly answer your question, if you’ll first answer a couple for me:
1) Was Justice Blackmun correct in the majority decision in Roe in asserting that an unborn child is not a person.
2) Was Justice Blackmun correct in the majority decision in Roe in asserting that if the child were a person they were therefore protected by the Fourteenth Amendment?
3) Should the Republican Party nominate a candidate whose position is in direct opposition to the Reagan pro-life platform, which asserts the personhood of the unborn, and that they are therefore protected by the Fourteenth Amendment?
It’s a scary thing, actually. We know, for example, that some substances are absolutely harmful in most any quantity (ie heroin etc etc). But think about a more innocuous drug - caffeine.
Once you start down the slope of legislating that some substances can get you prosecuted, where do you stop ? Do you believe that any study in the JAMA saying findings point to some harm, for example, would give a state the ability to throw a woman in jail for endangerment ?
I don’t have an answer to this one either.
I don't believe states are going around aborting anyone.
Abortion is a state issue just like murder is, unless you have your abortion on Federal land.
Huh?
Huckabee might as well be pro abortion since his attempt to ban abortion from the federal level is a pipe dream.
Yet another politician utterly oblivious to the Constitution he would be sworn to uphold.
Right..on!
Only an amendment would keep them from granting this right.
In the case of murder by itself, the states happen to outlaw it, in various forms. But nowhere is a right to murder granted (unless you consider capital punishment murder). So it has not become the issue, problem, wholesale slaughter that abortion has become. If states were to start granting the right to murder, you would soon see a push for a constitutional amendment.
So President Huckabee would propose a Federal Murder Amendment and disband the homicide unit of every local police department and have the FBI investigate?
Worst. Candidate. Ever.
The lady driving obviously cares for the unborn, but by her very actions, she does not care about the child once it is born. I see this a lot in the pro life arena. Once the child is out of the womb, much of the caring of said child stops.
If you do not want to answer my question, and a fair one it is, so be it. BTW, Reagan was elected to office while I was in high school. It is easier to get an abortion now than it was in the early 80's. Even Sean Hannity has said that abortion will never be fully outlawed.
How about allowing states to make abortion illegal? That's the way it used to be before the court got involved, and that's the way it was since at least 1789.
Like I said, answer my questions, and I’ll answer yours. We have to have a basis for the discussion, and I’d like to know if you’re just blowing smoke.
Sean's a genius, fer sure. /s
I highly recommend Justice Rehnquist’s book on impeachments. I’ll get the name of it you cannot find it. Rehnquist covers all impeachments prior to Clinton and it is most intersting to learn why and how impeachment was used and explains why it is not viable so far today.
My feelings don’t matter. We can’t base our laws on feelings. That’s why I’m asking you what you THINK about the law, as spelled out in our Constitution.
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.