Skip to comments.Shaking up the Republican primary abortion-style (MUST READ!)
Posted on 11/18/2007 6:55:13 AM PST by 2ndDivisionVet
Make no mistake about it - when the nation's largest pro-life group endorsed Fred Thompson on Tuesday its goal was to shake up the Republican contest for the presidency. The National Right to Life's endorsement is the gold standard coveted by those Republicans seeking the White House because it bestows a legitimacy and authenticity on the candidate who receives it as the standard-bearer for those who want to end abortion on demand.
The Thompson endorsement not only signals how the organization representing 3,000 pro-life groups has grown up, but it shows just how close the country is to seeing Roe vs. Wade ended. In recent days former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee, who for some was the most logical choice to receive the NRTL endorsement, had become increasingly critical of Thompson's position on abortion.
Thompson, who had a 100 percent pro-life record in the Senate, said he favored ending Roe vs. Wade because in his estimation, it was wrongly decided. When asked, he said that he did not favor pursuing a federal constitutional amendment banning abortion because it was largely impractical. Thompson is a federalist and for him, ending Roe is the next step. Roe took abortion out of the democratic process and to end it would take it away from the Supreme Court and return abortion policymaking to the states.
In response, Huckabee said Thompson was soft on abortion for not supporting the constitutional amendment banning the procedure, an amendment that has been part of the Republican Party platform since 1980. The thought was that Huckabee's criticism and forceful advocacy for a "life" amendment would be a marker for those primary voters who care deeply about ending abortion and would show the NRTL that he - not Thompson, not Romney, not McCain - was the most pro-life candidate.
It didn't work. The endorsement of Thompson over the other pro-life candidates is a reflection of where the movement is in 2007 and how much the country has changed.
Throughout the 1980s, NRTL's advocacy for a constitutional amendment banning abortion was a necessary step for drawing the line in the sand. Even then, the thought of receiving the supermajorities in the U.S. Senate and the state legislatures would discourage the fiercest pro-life advocates.
But in the late 1980s and 1990s the movement began to get smart, politically. The movement refocused its efforts and began to take on abortion incrementally. It started with pushing for parental notification laws, arguing that if a 14-year old girl needed her parent's permission to take an aspirin at school, she most certainly needed their permission to receive an abortion.
During that time, the country came to terms with infanticide by way of partial-birth abortion. State after state began banning the gruesome procedure. By 1997, around 70 to 80 percent of the American public opposed it. Planned Parenthood, the National Organization for Women, NARAL and other so-called abortion rights groups were in retreat, left defending unpopular policies because they didn't want any restrictions placed on abortion.
But the country's leadership wasn't in line with its citizens. President Bill Clinton vetoed a federal ban on partial-birth abortion. The U.S. Supreme Court struck down state partial-birth abortion laws and other limits on abortion. These events signaled that abortion on demand had taken the country somewhere a majority of Americans didn't want it to go.
In 2000, George W. Bush was elected. He'd promised to appoint Supreme Court justices in the mold of those on the court who effectively disagreed with Roe.
Some of the common-sense limits on abortion became law. A ban on partial-birth abortion stood, states passed legislation on parental consent and informed consent, and when there were vacancies on the high court, Bush appointed solid conservative jurists.
So now in 2007, it is widely believed that the country is one or two retirements away from being able to determine the Supreme Court's next step on Roe. This is something the NRTL realized and its leadership said it thinks Fred Thompson gives the country the best opportunity to see abortion on demand ended.
This is the very reason Fred was endorsed. National Right to Life understands that we need two more appointees to the Court that will totally shift the court back on track, Thompson is the man to do this very thing.
Whre IS Fred Thompson anyway? I rarely see him on TV. Why is he in the background so much? Is he waiting because he thinks it is all to early to be out there?
Of all the candidates running on the republican side,Hunter,Thompson and Tancredo are the only ones I trust on this or any other issue.
No matter what you think about a constitutional amendment to outlaw abortion, if you are pro-life you must realize that the first step in any pro-life scenario is eliminating Roe V Wade. That’s exactly what Fred wants to do, and he’s exactly the person to do it.
The media are busy looking at Hillary and Willard.
Whre IS Fred Thompson anyway?Part of the answer is he's being frozen out by the media (though he'll be on Meet the Pess today), but part of the answer is he's ignoring current-events opportunities.
Right now, Hillary having dirt on Obama is in the news. Fred should jump on that and remind America of those FBI files. It's the right thing to do. America should not forget those files. And it makes good campaign sense to do it now.
Great read and a bookmark!
“Some of the common-sense limits on abortion became law. A ban on partial-birth abortion stood, states passed legislation on parental consent and informed consent, and when there were vacancies on the high court, Bush appointed solid conservative jurists.”
We will see if using “Abortion” as a measuring stick in appointing supreme court justices also applies to the rest of the Constitution such as right to keep and bear arms. We will see if this forumula actually works.
The formula is appointing Justices as 1-issue wonders “Abortion.”
Be sure and read the last paragraph.
Still voting for Hunter, but some of my Hunter FRiends were out of line in the way they attacked Thompson on the issue of the “life” amendment. The NRLT endorsement vindicates Thompson on this issue.
Now, I hereby call on all supporters of conservative candidates to discontinue the circular firing squad so that we can ultimately put forth a conservative ticket (that means TWO people) that isn’t bleeding from “friendly” fire.
“Of all the candidates running on the republican side,Hunter,Thompson and Tancredo are the only ones I trust on this or any other issue.”
And sadly, at this point, I cannot see one of them beating Hillary.
Thanks Larry, lets all aim the guns at Rudy and Mitt, enough with this intramural bar-room brawl.
So now in 2007, it is widely believed that the country is one or two retirements away from being able to determine the Supreme Court’s next step on Roe. This is something the NRTL realized and its leadership said it thinks Fred Thompson gives the country the best opportunity to see abortion on demand ended.
45 Days away from the beginning of the process by the states to select the GOP nominee. Who will get the nomination to be in position to have the opportunity to make the SCOTUS selections that may just end Roe v Wade? My guess is that it won’t be any of the lower tier candidates that haven’t moved well up the ladder in the past several months since they have been running.
Romney is playing the win in the early states card and using that for momentum while Giuliani is banking to begin his swoop around the Super Tuesday states. Hopefully Huckabee can be the one to slow or reverse the Romney machine in Iowa and thus change the trend over all to where Thompson can step up.
A very different cycle this time for the Rupublicans.
Very interesting. Thanks for posting.
Is your tv plugged in? He's on This Week (abc) right now.
Talk to the MSM. Fred is out there talking to the only ones who count, the voters.
That’s the last thing the press wants to show.
We have a winner...
I just saw Fred on ABC minutes ago, with Sepanopolis (sp?)
I don't believe the Rats will ever allow another conservative justice to be confirmed as long as they run the Senate, or as long as they can filibuster it. The only way you will get another Scaliea type on the court is if the Pubs retake the Senate, and there are no McCain/Graham/Spector types who would help them block the "nuclear option". Don't hold your breath.
This should be shouted from the rooftops around here! I'm getting really turned off by some supporters of candidates I really like attacking other candidates that are at least other conservatives. It does no good & will not help us win - either against Rudy in the primaries - or against the dems in the general election.
It's time for us to unite - not divide!
Where are all theFReepers who do not care one bit for the federalism approach because, while impratical politically because of the make-up of the country, the approach is just too soft? I know that these FReepers are out there.
“Of all the candidates running on the republican side,Hunter,Thompson and Tancredo are the only ones I trust on this or any other issue.”
Besides a perfect pro-life voting record, Hunter authored the personhood-at-conception bill, and Hunter and Brownback were the only presidential candidates to attend the pro-life march in Washington, D.C.
Dr. Richard Land doesn’t endorse candidates, but does give his pros and cons about various candidates, and when someone called his talk show yesterday saying Huckabee was pro-life, Dr. Land said that Hunter was just as pro-life as Huckabee.
“And sadly, at this point, I cannot see one of them beating Hillary.”
I think any of our guys (except Rudy) can beat Hillary; she is not liked.
If Rudy ends up being the nominee (which I doubt after all is said and done), then I think the Dem candidate will win, because of all of the people who will stay home and vote third party, because Rudy is a lib.
I work 16 hour days in my restaurant so I don’t get to keep up on the chats. I had a question on the “life amendment” and Thompson’s take on it. After reading your post, is that a subject to be avoided? I started following Hunter’s positions last spring and am trying to catch up on Thompson’s positions. I would like to know the pros and cons of the “life amendment”.
WARNING: If you wish to join, be aware that this ping list is EXTREMELY active.
“Dr. Land was right on both candidates.”
Dr. Land is a smart man and does his research.
I figured this was the case all along. The idea that Fred isn’t pro-life because he doesn’t support the plank in the Republican platform calling for the HLA, is ludicrous. The NRLC has known for a while that they would not get the HLA in this generation, or maybe even the next. It will take a while to weed the attitude that babies are expendable out of the consciousness of America, but with patience, it might be done. In the meantime, instead of waiting for ‘pie in the sky’ solutions, we need to work with what is attainable in the here and now, and that’s Fred.
You won’t see him on TV, because he’s appearing with small groups, not at big flashy gatherings. He’s building his base in a solid fashion, and those strong supporters will the perfect people to talk him up in their states.
Obviously you're supporting someone else and not bothering to find out what Fred is doing. He's been meeting with small groups in different primary states for several weeks now. No, it's not on the news, but he's there, working steadily, and not expecting any sort of 'coronation'.
The people, including FReepers, are being scammed by these candidates, and by these sold-out organizations.
Fred Thompson’s positions are one hundred and eighty degrees out of phase with the Reagan Republican platform, and I’ll continue to say so. If you, and NRTL, want to regress to Jerry Ford’s position, which is what the majority of these candidates are explicitly advocating, including Thompson, that’s your business. But I won’t be a party to it.
His nonsupport of a Human Life Amendment is only half the problem...the least important half.
The real problem is that his position is anathema to the most important part of the pro-life plank: The assertion of the personhood of the unborn, and their protection under the Fourteenth Amendment.
So then let’s be honest. If we are discussing Reagan’s Platform on abortion 20+ years later, how well has it worked?
Maybe it’s time for another tactic...
Even when we had both houses of Congress AND the White House, it was never brought forward, because in order for it to pass, it has to get a super-majority in Congress, and even with Republicans in the majority, there were too many rabid Democrats for whom the 'right' to have an abortion is one of the most important issues.
The National Right to Life Committee has been pushing for the Human Life Amendment for years, but has come to realize that it is a lost cause right now. As the article states, they have realized that they have to chip away at the idea of a 'right' to abortion, and their major obstacle has been Roe v Wade. Since George W. Bush was able to nominate some solid conservatives to the Supreme Court, we are in the best position since 1973 to actually overturn it, and the NRLC understands that, with the right President, it CAN happen, because the oldest Justices right now are the most liberal, and it is they who will likely be the first to be replaced, either because of retirement or death.
Traditional American Values
Fred Thompson is pro-life. He believes in the sanctity of human life and that every life is worthy of respect. He had a 100% pro-life voting record in the Senate and believes Roe v. Wade was a bad decision that ought to be overturned. He consistently opposed federal funding to promote or pay for abortion and supported the Partial Birth Abortion Act, the Child Custody Protection Act, and President Reagan’s “Mexico City” policy. While Fred Thompson supports adult stem cell research, he opposes embryonic stem cell research. He also opposes human cloning.
Fred Thompson believes marriage is the union of one man and one woman, and that this institution is the foundation of society. As such, he supported the Defense of Marriage Act when he served in the Senate. He supports a constitutional amendment to prevent activist judges from misreading the Constitution to force same-sex marriage on any state and on our society.
Protecting our Kids
While censorship is dangerous, obscenity is not legally protected, and laws against it should be vigorously enforced. Parents need to be empowered to protect their children from inappropriate matter, whether on TV, in video games, or on the computer. And we must do all we can to fight the explosion of child pornography over the Internet.
Limiting the Role of the Judiciary
For many years, the judiciary has been too eager to engage in social engineering under the guise of interpreting the Constitution. Fred Thompson is a lawyer who understands the difference between interpreting the law and making it. He is committed to appointing judges who understand and respect that difference and who will only interpret and apply the law, not make it. When President Bush needed someone to shepherd the nomination of John Roberts to be Chief Justice of the United States, he turned to Fred Thompson, who steered the Roberts nomination to its successful confirmation. John Roberts represents the kind of judges Fred Thompson would seek to appoint as President.
Wrong. It is non-adherence to that platform, primarily by the compromisers at NRTL, that has stalled the movement. That’s a fact.
They compromise away the powerful primary moral, legal and intellectual arguments and then can’t figure out why they keep losing.
Unfortunately, for the rest of the party, those who cannot see the forest for the trees wind up losing for all of us.
Whoever the nominee is to be in the GOP, we need to stand behind them, no matter if we have to hold our noses, or Hillary or worse will get into the WH, control both houses, and then we will ALL suffer the consequences.
The NRTL endorsement legimized the Thomson campaign, whether you like it or not, it is the chip every candidate needs to take the high road on the contest for the nomination.
Regardless of who is the 'best' candidate, in your opinion, it has not translated to NATIONAL support.
Next up for Fred, the NRA endorsement.
That part you have right. It is time to stop following the very same leaders, like those at NRTL, who have utterly failed, and who now are trying to lead pro-lifers even further down the road of compromise.
Have you ever heard the saying: “The perfect is the enemy of the good”?
NRTL has been compromised for a number of years now. Those who have been out on the front lines of this movement know it.
Two of their top leaders have endorsed Mitt Romney, a man who has spent the last thirty-five years of his life using his political power to strenuously promote abortion on demand.
Now, they endorse a man who is openly opposed to the principles in the Reagan platform, and who thinks states have a right to abrogate the unalienable right to life.
People need to wake up and start thinking for themselves. They need to realize that they’ve been sold down the river by the vast majority of their leaders.
Lip service is not nearly enough. At least three to four thousand American children continue to be slaughtered every day.
Have you ever heard the saying, “The lesser of two evils is still evil.”
Blaming these organizations and such is not the issue, the issue is how the Fed acts and the members in Congress. God himself has not changed their minds, NRTL and others could hardly do more.
It is time for an end run. First rule of combat is that if the current method fails to reach your object you change tactics.
My objective is saving lives, by any means possible, and get stuck on one unachievable ideal method to do so.
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.