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.
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”.
Fredipedia: The Definitive Fred Thompson Reference
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'.
No.
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...
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.
