WE'RE GOING TO SEND FRED A THANKSGIVING DAY GIFT!
Click Here!
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."
That could hurt him in the deep south.
I support and have always supported passage of a constitutional amendment to protect the right to life. As President, I will fight for passage of this amendment. My convictions regarding the sanctity of life have always been clear and consistent, without equivocation or wavering. I believe that Roe v. Wade should be over-turned.
I applaud the Supreme Court's recent decision in Gonzales v. Cathcart forbidding the gruesome practice of partial birth abortion. While I am optimistic that we are turning the tide in favor of life, we still have many battles ahead of us to protect those who cannot protect themselves, and so it is vital that we elect a pro-life President.
No candidate has a stronger record on the sanctity of life than I do. I have always been actively and aggressively pro-life. I first became politically active when I helped pass Arkansas' Unborn Child Amendment, which requires the state to do whatever it can to protect life.
As Governor, I used that Amendment to pass pro-life legislation. The many pro-life laws I got through my Democrat legislature are the accomplishments that give me the most pride and personal satisfaction. I banned partial birth abortion, I required parental notification, I required that a woman give informed consent before having an abortion, I required that a woman be told her baby will experience pain and be given the option of anesthesia for her baby, I allowed a woman to have her baby and leave the child safely at a hospital, and I made it a crime for an unborn child to be injured or murdered during an attack on his mother.
What I accomplished as Governor proves that there is a lot more that a pro-life President can do than wait for a Supreme Court vacancy, and I will do everything I can to promote a pro-life agenda and pass pro-life legislation. If I'm saddled with a Democrat Congress, I'll veto any pro-abortion legislation they pass. I will staff all relevant positions with pro-life appointees. I will use the bully pulpit to change hearts and minds. I have no desire to throw women in jail, I just want us to stop throwing babies in the garbage.
To me, life doesn't begin at conception and end at birth. Every child deserves a quality education, first-rate health care, decent housing in a safe neighborhood, and clean air and drinking water. Every child deserves the opportunity to discover and use his God-given gifts and talents.
With respect to stem cells, I support federal funding of research using existing stem cell lines. I do not believe in creating life for the sole purpose of destroying it. I'm encouraged by recent discoveries showing that stem cells from the umbilical cord offer great promise.
Perhaps that’s why my Pro-Choice Liberal Democrat friend is so supportive of him. He doesn’t seem to care about the Constitution or Federalism.
By his (il)logic, why isn’t all murder a Federal crime?
Does he really not understand the American system, or does he just not care?
Huckabee’s a loser. This is all sour grapes because the NRLC didn’t endorse him. He’s going to need more than Chuck Norris for him to win.
PING
One problem conservatives have to face is either we are for state’s rights or we are not. If we are then abortion would become one of those issues states decide. 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).
My only point is there are numerous questions besides simply yes or no on Roe.
BUMP
The Man for Hope just may cut into some of Romney’s lead in Iowa...... Here’s Hope....
45 days and we’ll see how the caucus goers rate the participants from 1 - 100.
Fred's position makes sense to me.
Why does the Huckster have an obsession with inserting racial bigotry when addressing controversial issues ?
Oppose Amnesty = Racist
Federalism = Slavery
This is getting old , fast .
LLS
Hey Huck how about alcohol?
How so?
1) Amending the Constitution, these days, on any substantive issue, is impossible. You can't get 2/3rds of both houses to whistle 'Yankee Doodle' together, much less pass an amendment on an important issue in the fashion required by the Constitution. Therefore, the Human Life Amendment merely represents posturing, and one's support for or opposition to it just more posturing. Arguing over this type of amendments is just like arguing how many unicorns can fit atop a desk.
2) Huckabee's position on the morality (or not) of abortion, as well as his analogy to slavery, is valid (and I share it), but irrelevant to the Consitution. Amendment X is very specific, to wit:
'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.'
The Constitution says nothing whatever about abortion, either explicitly or implicitly. Therefore, the United States has no lawful, Constitutional authority to legislate upon the issue. Period.
Of course, we all know how scrupulously (cough, choke) the Regress obeys the Constitution, as in their utterly unlawful creation of the Dep'ts of Education and Energy, to name but two examples.
You and your candidate have no clue what Federalism is, do you?
For example, has Fred ever been active on forefront of the fight against abortion within his own home State?
Was Fred ever a state legislator?
States already have lost too many rights to the Feds. Evidence shows, on social issues especially, that they do a fine job one one thing - not doing anything.
I disagree with Huckabee. Roe v. Wade should never have made it to the Supreme Court because it belonged at the state level. We cannot have it both ways. (except maybe in the case of partial birth abortion, which is horrendous)
“For those of us for whom this is a moral question, you can’t simply have 50 different versions of what’s right,”
I agree that abortion is morally wrong, but there’s a lot of jurisdictions in the USA that do not agree. Federalism works. I like Fred Thompson, and don’t like Mike Huckabee. But if Mike is the nominee of the party, he’s still better than any Democrat!
However, I think abortion is a constitutional issue. It's depriving the unborn of life without due process, breaking Constitutional Law stated in the 5th Amendment. Any state allowing abortion would be breaking the 14th Amendment.
“I have lived in Tennessee all of Freds political life, and not once have I ever known him to lead an abortion fight in this state”
So what? Does that make Fred pro abortion?
They aren’t too big on taking orders from Washington.
Shaking up the Republican primary abortion-style
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1927483/posts
Explains why Fred got the National Right To Life Committee endorsement.
He leaves out what day he will sign amnesty.
Mike Huckabee:
“Roe v. Wade is based on a real stretch of Constitutional application--that somehow there is a greater privacy issue in the abortion concern--than there is a human life issue--and that the federal government should be making that decision as opposed to states making that decision. So, I've never felt that it was a legitimate manner in which to address this and, first of all, it should be left to the states, the 10th Amendment, but secondly, to somehow believe that the taking of an innocent, unborn human life is about privacy and not about that unborn life is ludicrous.”
They aren’t too big on murdering the unborn either.
If you think keeping abortion within the sole purview of the Feds(Dems) is going to result in an across the board ban; then you're delusional.
Withing the present framework you are never going to get a federal ban. There's an alternate definition for a word that goes something like this: 'doing the same thing and expecting different results.' The word: Insanity.
I suppose it is desirable to you to have a federal ban, but the question is; would you prefer to go for a federal ban, that you're never likely to get, or go with a 25~50% ban on the state level and work from there?
We've been trying for about 30 years now to ban it, and we're not making much headway.
Time to change tactics.
“Huckabee Says Abortion Not for States”
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.
The right to life for every person is the preeminent unalienable right. Which lesser rights do you now want the states to decide? Slavery? The RTKBA? Free speech? Assembly? What?
I agree that it should be a state’s rights issue, and that if it were, most states would prohibit abortion in all (or most) cases. But, just as a point of fact, it should be noted that in the years prior to Roe, several states had repealed/”reformed” their abortion laws, so that it was not quite “universally” illegal. Overwhelmingly illegal, yes, but not quite universal.
So, I guess there might be some merit to the argument that, if we want to protect life in all cases, in all areas of the country, a constitutional amendment may be the way to do it. Still, I think we should work on undoing the damage of Roe first, then see what still needs doing after the dust settles.
If that is true, why are the homosexual marriages from Massachusetts not recognized in Alabama? They aren't, are they?
Oh goody! President Huck wants moral laws nationwide. Now will this come before or after his drive to ban smoking nationwide? Hmmmm, what did those that argued for the Constitution say...I believe it's somewhere...oh yes...
The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government, are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce; with which last the power of taxation will, for the most part, be connected. The powers reserved to the several States will extend to all the objects which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties, and properties of the people, and the internal order, improvement, and prosperity of the State.--Federalist 45
Now of course a good 'conservative' (i.e. big government Republican) will post the Preamble as if that's some sort of argument against what Mr. Madison, the father of the Constitution, has stated. And one would think as Mr. Madison helped write the Preamble, Mr. Madison knew what he was talking about.
I'm as pro-life as any conservative but this is an issue for the separate and sovereign states.
Actually, that's the one thing our "leaders" HAVE NOT been trying to do.
Why? Abortion is almost gone in most places in the deep south.
No one is stopping you from taking the argument to the supreme court. Why don't you try it?
WE'RE GOING TO SEND FRED A THANKSGIVING DAY GIFT!
Click Here!
I think you are experiencing issues below the surface that are more important than what is stated or claimed. Good catch.
Rudy hopes to persuade voters he is okay by saying he would appoint conservative judges. Left unsaid are things like executive orders or abortions paid with federal tax dollars, or the agency positions that all affect abortion. How about defunding the ACLU and Planned Parenthood?
Romney has a similar problem. He supported the liberal line until he started running for the presidency.
McCain? Well, let’s not go there.
I am not endorsing anyone yet but pointing out that Thompson, Hunter and Tancredo have stated past positions that are consistent with their positions today.
Some of us in the deep South, or having political leanings as those in the deep South, are tired of having 537 jackasses telling us what's legal and not legal within our state. Especially considering that was not the intent of the Framers. I will not vote for a candidate that advocates nationalizing anything not explicitly intended to be by the Framers. I don't care what party they run for.
You can have a candidate who promises the unreachable goal of a constitutional amendment, or a candidate who has identified a reachable goal. Who will actually accomplish the most to restrict abortion?
Huck’s position is one that will guarantee that abortion will remain freely available.
I’ve recently changed my stance from nominal Huckabee supportr back to “undecided.” However, on this issue, I’m pretty much fully in agreement with Huckabee. As I’ve said before, as long as the 14th Amendment remains in effect, calling abortion a state issue is iffy at best, and I personally think his slavery comparison is spot-on.
He is taking this point of view because it will make Thomson look bad, he hopes. Thompson is right, states should decide, otherwise we will be back to a huge federal government, and what we need is for the states to take back their powers.
If partial birth abortion is horrendous, then what makes abortions done 2 weeks prior less horrendous? Than 4 weeks earlier? Than 2 months earlier?
Is it just less horrendous because to you because the earlier it’s done, the less the baby looks like a person? You’re falling into the pro-choice ‘viability’ argument and the ‘not yet a person’ fallacy argument.
You set in stone that it is a national, rather than a state issue, and you are one election away from an end to the state imposed restrictions.
While I certainly wouldn’t oppose a federal law against abortion, don’t we have 50 different state laws against homicide? They’re all against it, no?
Thompson’s take on things isn’t 100% what I’d like, but as of today and his remarks on Schiavo, I can live with the difference.
Moreover, let’s say a federal law comes to President Thompson’s desk. Can you see him vetoing it because it doesn’t correspond perfectly to his federalist principles? Maybe you can. I don’t know. But I’m not sorry I voted for GWB and he’s disappointed me bigtime on several occasions.
His Supreme Ct nominees are not among those!
Thompson would get to nominate two, maybe more judges. You know they’ll be as pro-life as he can get through the process. The road isn’t always expressway straight, but with him we’ll get where we want to go.
Whereas Huckabee, like Romney, like Giuliani...I just don’t trust these people.
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.