Huckabee Says Abortion Not for States

The Associated Press ^ | 11/18/07 | WILL LESTER

[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."

[Morgan in Denver]

Great point and I commented on that someplace on this thread on that very issue. I think Thompson is wrong on this being a states rights issue.

[EternalVigilance]

Except in certain specific cases like murder of a federal employee, there is no federal law against murder. You can kill me today and face no federal charge.

So, you believe that a state could legalize murder, then.

How absurd.

Every state is guaranteed a republican form of government, and you can't have a republican form of government, according to the American republican model, that doesn't protect the unalienable rights to life and liberty.

What you're supporting, though I doubt you realize it, is the dissolution of the Union, and a complete abrogation of the very principle that this free republic is built upon. You're repudiating the very reason for the existence of government, any government.

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men..."

[Sherman Logan]

All anyone would have to do is take a ride up to AR (which I have). ... There are more illegals there per capita than in CA.

I think you're factually incorrect.

CA is #1, with over six illegal aliens per 100 people.

Arkansas is #28, with less than one per 100.

http://www.statemaster.com/graph/peo_est_num_of_ill_imm_percap-number-illegal-immigrants-per-capita

[madison10]

They are all horrendous and I think babies are viable at conception.

Maybe the word should have been barbaric, but that doesn’t work either.

[loboinok]

If it’s a national issue, then there needs to be a constitutional amendment passed since the constitution does not address it (the major problem with Roe v Wade).

Preamble

We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

Amendment V

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

Amendment X

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.

Amendment XIV

Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

The Constitution covers it well, IMO

[widowithfoursons]

Where are you getting you stats?

[Sherman Logan]

I posted a link. I’m sorry I don’t know how to post is as an active link, but you can always cut and paste it.

[Popocatapetl]

Americans differentiate between ethics and morality.

They see ethics as following the laws people have made for themselves by democratic means. Such laws are by the people and for the people, and can be changed by the people. They are also enforced by the people, and we seek that if anyone violates them, then the punishment should be the same for all.

Morality is seen as much more nebulous. While for many it is just as certain, for many it has no certainty at all. It is often seen as “the will of heaven”, which cannot be altered by men and is unchanging. It is a function of faith and religion, and its particulars are not shared between people of faith, religions, or even sects within the same religion.

Based on this difference, Americans are more comfortable with a politician they believe is ethical, in that he follows the written law, than one who claims to be moral. This is because they don’t know what he means when he says he is moral. The morality of someone who goes to your church, or the morality of a Wahabbi Muslim?

Liberal-leftist politicians often claim they are moral, even when though they are Catholic, they vote against what the Catholic church teaches. Implied is that they think their personal morality is better than that of their church.

So how does this relate to the abortion issue?

Well, the governor is right that it is a moral issue. But that is not enough for some of us to impose our morality on others. It is more important that it is also an ethical issue, again, like slavery.

Slavery was immoral, but it was also unethical, because it did not recognize that slaves were men too, equal to everyone else in the social contract that is the basis of our laws and ethical society.

The same applies to abortion. Claiming abortion is immoral, while felt in much of the country, neglects that vast parts of the country that feel it is perfectly moral. But ethically, it is unjust, like slavery, because it takes away the rights of the unborn on the pretense that they are not human.

So while the governor can declare against abortion as an immoral act, his stronger argument is that it is an unethical act. As much as a law that said some people could be killed at random for no reason. Or that said that some people could be enslaved.

[Vigilanteman]

Huckabee's stance is pure sophistry on this issue. The time for a human life amendment is after Roe v. Wade is overturned. There is no way it will even get out of congress, let alone be ratified by 3/4th of the state legislatures before then.

Thompson's stance is both realistic and respectable.

[dufekin]

The Constitution does not address “abortion” directly. But you must understand that “abortion” emerged only recently as a sterile politically correct term for “feticide,” the murder of unborn children. So the “abortion” debate—or whatever the politically correct term of choice is this week—focuses squarely on the “right to Life,” as our Founders wrote. They did not contemplate that Americans of a later generation could slaughter literally hundreds of thousands of their children every year with complete impunity.

The Declaration of Independence tells us that men institute governments to secure the certain inalienable right to Life with which our Creator endowed us. The Right to Life then does not come from or through any level, organ, or agency of Government but from Almighty God Himself, and no Government can abolish it. The Preamble to our Constitution intended the document “to secure the Blessings of Liberty to ... our Posterity.” But our Posterity cannot reap the Blessings of Liberty if we massacre them before they gain the age and wisdom necessary to understand liberty.

We then have the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments. I explained these in post #71 (I think), but they explicitly protect the Right to Life generally and specifically against State governments.

The Department of Energy finds little Constitutional justification (perhaps in regulation of commerce, but I’m not really sure that it does much of anything), and the Department of Education enjoys even less. We probably would get more energy and education without those two federal bureaucracies.

[SUSSA]

In Texas you can kill someone for stealing your property. In New York you can’t. In Texas you can kill someone who you believe is threatening you without retreating. In New Jersey you can’t.

We have more than 50 different definitions when it is legal to kill the born person and when it’s not. Why should the unborn person have more rights than the born person?

If we want a federal law against killing we should amend the Constitution. But I submit to you that would open a whole different can of worms that neither you nor I will like.

[Morgan in Denver]

I heard it but don’t have a link. However, I believe both Justice Scalia and Thomas have addressed this in terms of what can or cannot be done by the court.

[Morgan in Denver]

Thank you! I have been trying to get a better handle on this and you provided it to me.

[Free Vulcan]

Here in Iowa we call that lying.

[Jim W N]

Going to the Supreme Court was never the issue. A majority of Justices who uphold the Constitution has always been the issue.

[EternalVigilance]

Yep.

[Cobra64]

Huckleberry don’t need to sell me on his views on abortion. He does have work to do on illegal aliens/border issues and taxes.

You left out national security.

Anyway the abortion issue becomes a non-issue if terrorists are blowing up America. There will be no pregnancies if we're all dead.

Americans in general need to get their priorities straight.

Even President Bush doesn't understand national seurity. A big chunk of national security is illegal aliens in this country. He and the liberals want to legalize lawbreakers. Does anyone remember that the a9 9-11 crowd were here on visas.

The stupidity of most people is un-friggin'-believable.

"immigration reform." What a crock. Reform what? Those cock-roaches are here illegally. Enforce the law and kick 'em out.

What is being done about this?

[EternalVigilance]

Anyway the abortion issue becomes a non-issue if terrorists are blowing up America. There will be no pregnancies if we're all dead.

Those who commit or empower abortions are of the exact same spirit as the terrorists. There is no difference whatsoever.

Both are a complete repudiation of everything America once stood for.

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men..."

[goldstategop]

I agree with him: the right to life is a universal right and you can't have 50 different versions of it. Does the Republican Party want to be faithful to the Declaration Of Independence? Its one of those issues that's not really complicated at all.

"Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached." - Manuel II Palelologus

[Dan Middleton]

Wow, and the people on the "federalist" side of this issue claim that getting the HLA adopted is a pipe dream. Good luck with your plan to get the 14th repealed. In the meantime, as long as it remains, it seems to place abortion squarely in the federal sphere as far as I can see. You can't ignore it just because you don't like it.

Note that I don't necessarily favor a federal law banning abortion or even the passage of a new constitutional amendment. I don't think they're necessary. If Roe v. Wade is overturned, then the abortion issue can indeed be returned to the states...and any state laws allowing abortion would be struck down as a violation of the 14th.