Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Is Waiting For a Constitutional Ban on Abortion Really Pro-Life?
The Southern Ledger ^ | November 18th, 2007 | Steve Gill,

Posted on 11/18/2007 5:27:53 PM PST by Josh Painter

When the nation’s largest right to life organization endorsed Fred Thompson last week it sparked some criticism of his pro-life record by his disappointed opponents for the Republican nomination. Thompson produced a 100% pro-life voting record during his eight years in the U.S. Senate, yet some in the pro-life community were dismayed by the National Right to Life endorsement decision and see him as “squishy” on the issue. He believes Roe v. Wade was wrongly decided and should be overturned, but he has also expressed doubts about whether a Constitutional ban on abortion is practical or politically feasible.

Consistent with his Federalist principles, Thompson prefers to allow the states to apply restrictions on abortion should Roe v. Wade get overturned. It is that viewpoint that has evoked outrage from those who claim Thompson’s approach is actually a pro-abortion position.

-snip-

Given the opportunity, there are perhaps thirty states that would impose restrictions on abortion that could dramatically reduce the numbers of unborn babies killed each year... But the practice would come to an end, or face reasonable restrictions, in many places.

The bottom line is that the Thompson approach would actually save lives while the “we won’t save anybody until we can save everybody” plan will result in hundreds of thousands of abortions each year that COULD be prevented. So, which approach is really MORE pro-life? I suspect that the unborn babies in Tennessee, Alabama, Georgia, Mississippi, Texas, and numerous other states where voters would support restrictions on abortion would support Thompson and his Federalist approach…if they could. The fact that the nation’s largest pro-life organization sees the practical, and life saving, value of an incremental approach to abortion policy should be applauded rather than utilized as a political wedge to divide pro-life voters.

(Excerpt) Read more at southernledger.com ...


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Culture/Society; Government; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: fredthompson; gop; nomination; prolife
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-6061-69 next last


Fredipedia - the definitive Fred Thompson quick-reference

The Fred Thompson War Room - Fighting back for Fred!
1 posted on 11/18/2007 5:27:56 PM PST by Josh Painter
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Josh Painter
Excellent point.

The liberals have gotten themselves where they are today through incrementalism.

Thompson's federalist approach is constitutionally sound, and it would probably save more babies faster than trying to get a constitutional amendment through -- which can take years and years, even in the best of circumstances, and if opposed by a political faction it may take forever.

So (especially given his 100% voting record) it seems to me that calling Thompson's position pro-abortion is not just a stretch, it's an outright lie.

2 posted on 11/18/2007 5:32:18 PM PST by AnAmericanMother ((Ministrix of Ye Chase, TTGC Ladies' Auxiliary (recess appointment)))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: AnAmericanMother

“probably save more babies faster”
Excellent point.


3 posted on 11/18/2007 5:34:00 PM PST by dynachrome (Immigration without assimilation means the death of this nation~Captainpaintball)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: AnAmericanMother

“So (especially given his 100% voting record) it seems to me that calling Thompson’s position pro-abortion is not just a stretch, it’s an outright lie.”

quite a twist of logic there


4 posted on 11/18/2007 5:38:00 PM PST by driftdiver
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Josh Painter
It's worth noting that Abraham Lincoln's response to questions about the Dred Scott decision was, "We believe it was wrong and will work to get it changed."

We shouldn't have to amend the Constitution every time the Supreme Court botches a decision.

5 posted on 11/18/2007 5:48:19 PM PST by JoeFromSidney (My book is out. Read excerpts at http://www.thejusticecooperative.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Josh Painter

Are there any MittWits left to make this into a big argument? If there are, they’ve been awful quiet today.


6 posted on 11/18/2007 6:02:45 PM PST by perfect_rovian_storm (John Cox 2008: Because Duncan Hunter just isn't obscure enough for me!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Josh Painter

Is it Pro-Life?

It is if you’re settin’ the stage for the repeal of the laws and court decisions that allow baby killings.

But not if you’re just sittin’ on your hands doing nothing.


7 posted on 11/18/2007 6:07:55 PM PST by papasmurf (sudo apt - get install FRed Thompson)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: AnAmericanMother; Josh Painter

Returning the abortion issue to the states is actually a good idea because the states have an important role to play in the amendment process. Any amendment must be ratified by three fourths of the state legislatures before it becomes law.


8 posted on 11/18/2007 6:16:11 PM PST by steadfastconservative
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Josh Painter

Great article. It’s a cop out for a candidate to say, “I’m for the HLA” when in reality the President has no role whatsoever in amending the Constitution. That’s like being for apple pie and motherhood. Great, but what are you going to do about it? Republicans have been “for the HLA” for decades, and where has it gotten us? At least Fred has a plan that might actually work.

Fred’s federalist method, given half a chance, will drastically reduce the number of abortions in this country in a way that being “for the HLA” hasn’t.

It also opens up the debate in all 50 states and lets pro-life forces bring the issue to the forefront of peoples’ minds. The specifics of abortion are not something people want to dwell on. Open up the debate, run ads, get the issue out there, and make people confront their consciences. I think we’d likely end up with at least 30 states banning abortion outright with several more restricting it. Then the next logical step would be to use those states as a platform from which to push for a Constitutional ban.

Being “for the HLA” is a great political soundbite, but, pragmatically, it hasn’t worked. Returning the issue to the states will.


9 posted on 11/18/2007 6:18:33 PM PST by LadyNavyVet
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Josh Painter

No, it’s not. Frederalism will save babies, tilting at windmills for an impossible-to-obtain HLA won’t.


10 posted on 11/18/2007 6:31:31 PM PST by Titus Quinctius Cincinnatus (Conservatives - Freedom WITH responsibility; Libertarians - Freedom FROM responsibility)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Josh Painter
Hello,

Excellent article, and absolutely right. The Left got a hold on this nation over many decades. They didn’t reach this point overnight. We will not be able to reverse the damage done by the Left overnight.

Let’s do, today, what we can to improve the situation. Then, tomorrow, we will be able to do more. The next, even more.

MOgirl

11 posted on 11/18/2007 6:40:42 PM PST by MOgirl (Prayers for my Mom. (Your prayers must be working, she is doing much better!!))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: AnAmericanMother

“Thompson’s federalist approach is constitutionally sound, and it would probably save more babies faster than trying to get a constitutional amendment through”

I believe Thompson is not against a Constitutional amendment, per se. I think the kind of amendment that he would support would remove abortion from federal jurisdiction, while it want not, on its own, make federal “pro-life” mandate. I agree with that approach, from a constitutional and federalist perspective and I believe that social conservatives, primarily protestant and Catholic Christians, would achieve many gains (against abortion on demand), in the states, if federal courts, and particularly the supreme court could not intervene. I think an amendment that simply ends that intervention would serve everyone well.


12 posted on 11/18/2007 6:47:54 PM PST by Wuli
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Wuli

I agree.

Anyone willing to look at the 10th Amendment should agree that abortion should never have been a federal issue in the first place.


13 posted on 11/18/2007 7:00:46 PM PST by guinnessman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Josh Painter
In the current pro-life abortion debates, there is too much emphasis on changing the law, and not enough emphasis on changing minds. If enough minds are changed, the law will eventually follow. If abortion is somehow made illegal without changing those minds, abortion will be soon be legalized again.

The most important thing is to convince young women that abortion is immoral, so they make the right "choice." What matters is the fetal body count, not the ideological purity of presidential candidates.

I wonder if pro-life films save more fetuses than pro-life politicians. A film is able to promote the pro-life message in a way that actually changes minds.

By the way, this business of calling Thompson/Giuliani/Romney "pro-abortion" is factually wrong and anti-Republican. None of them wants for abortions to occur, and I very much doubt that electing any of them would increase the fetal body count.

14 posted on 11/18/2007 7:18:51 PM PST by TChad
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Josh Painter

The Republican Platform:

As a country, we must keep our pledge to the first guarantee of the Declaration of Independence. That is why we say the unborn child has a fundamental individual right to life which cannot be infringed. We support a human life amendment to the Constitution and we endorse legislation to make it clear that the Fourteenth Amendment’s protections apply to unborn children.


15 posted on 11/18/2007 7:24:04 PM PST by EternalVigilance (Our God-given rights, and those of our posterity, are not open to debate, negotiation or compromise!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: TChad
None of them wants for abortions to occur

Neither does John Kerry:

"I oppose abortion, personally. I don't like abortion. I believe life does begin at conception." - John F. Kerry

16 posted on 11/18/2007 7:26:00 PM PST by EternalVigilance (Our God-given rights, and those of our posterity, are not open to debate, negotiation or compromise!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: JoeFromSidney

>>We shouldn’t have to amend the Constitution every time the Supreme Court botches a decision.<<

I’ve been thinking about this.

I believe there is a right to privacy but that it does not include the right to kill your child. (tempting though that me be after the age of 15). Since the right to privacy lives in many parts of the Constitution and congress can’t simply change one part, the Supreme Court needs reverse Roe v Wade. There’s really no other way to clean up the judicial precedents set by the Court in Roe, if you believe like I do.

Now, a different conservative might disagree with me. He may think privacy is not one of the non-enumerated Federal rights. He might need more than simply reversing Row to feel a win - He may feel the Supreme Court needs its scope reduced in one of the two legal ways - law or amendment.

I don’t think its so much that I’m right or that he is right but rather point our points of view are both reasonable depending on whether you think privacy is a Federal right.


17 posted on 11/18/2007 7:29:30 PM PST by gondramB (Preach the Gospel at all times, and when necessary, use words.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: EternalVigilance
As a country, we must keep our pledge to the first guarantee of the Declaration of Independence. That is why we say the unborn child has a fundamental individual right to life which cannot be infringed

This was never the law, anywhere in the US prior to Roe v. Wade, nor in any other common law country.

Abortion has never been punished as murder - never, nowhere.

What you are trying to do is very difficult, because it has never been done.

18 posted on 11/18/2007 7:36:41 PM PST by Jim Noble (Trails of trouble, roads of battle, paths of victory we shall walk.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Jim Noble

That’s been the Republican platform since 1984.


19 posted on 11/18/2007 7:37:29 PM PST by EternalVigilance (Our God-given rights, and those of our posterity, are not open to debate, negotiation or compromise!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: EternalVigilance
That’s been the Republican platform since 1984.

Yeah, yeah, I know.

Have they done anything about it?

Why do you think that is?

20 posted on 11/18/2007 7:43:11 PM PST by Jim Noble (Trails of trouble, roads of battle, paths of victory we shall walk.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-6061-69 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson