Huckabee: Abortion Not States' Call

Newsmax ^ | Nov. 18, 2007

[dschapin]

Right now its the courts that set abortion policy. The only way that we will be able to end abortion for good is through an amendment. If we leave it to the courts many state courts will immediately strike down anti-abortion laws as violating the state Constitutions guarantee’s of privacy.

[Titus Quinctius Cincinnatus]

We haven’t really pushed for the HLA since Reagan left office. Yeah, its introduced every now and then but we haven’t been making a concerted effort to get it passed. Instead the NRTL has been following the gradual approach for many years now. So, I think it is unfair to say that we have been pushing for the HLA. Also, I think we need to both do more gradual stuff and push for the HLA.

So what you're essentially saying is that pushing for an HLA hasn't saved a single life. Thank you for making my point. Now, we KNOW that various State-level actions against the abortion industry (enforcement of health regulations, local ordinances, etc.) has resulted in a number of abortion clinics being shut down, making abortion rarer in the areas where this takes place (IIRC, North Dakota doesn't have a single abortion mill left in the state, for instance). THAT is saving babies. FDT's way will save babies.

[dschapin]

You have to work on both approaches at the same time. If we say that the decision should be left to each state then we are basically conceding that unborn children are not persons with a right to life. If we do that we have pretty much destroyed our argument for over-riding the mothers liberty interest in privacy and autonomy.

[FastCoyote]

“You have to work on both approaches at the same time.”

I can agree with that. But I would suggest that unless you lead with the Frederalist approach, you will have no chance at all of getting the Constitutional Ammendment passed. Got to build the momentum from the current zero.

[Rider on the Rain]

I agree with you.

[Rider on the Rain]

dumbed down and COLD

Whois cold in the head, Blondie?

[Texas Federalist]

Huckabee will then push for federal laws banning smoking and drinking, and prohibiting states from implementing laws designed to curb illegal immigration.

The law is what Mike Huckabee claims Jesus says it is!

[drpix]

... nor "Usually" shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property...?

Doesn't sound like "...nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property..."

[drpix]

For a different spin on the usual abortion question...How would state courts view the woman being artificially inseminated with a sperm bank deposit of the decease - the day before the the property will be divided? And how and when should federal courts get involved in this when does life begin test?

[drpix]

CORRECTION: decease = deceased

[truth_seeker]

“Our founders would NEVER, EVER have approved of abortion nor would they want that understood to be a “right” to murder a small human being.”

What makes you so certain? They couldn’t agree about what to do on slavery, which was a big topic for many decades, both pre-Constitution, post-Constitution, in Britain and elsewhere.

BTW good luck with a Constitutional Amendment;

Article. V. - Amendment

The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate.

I seriously doubt 3/4 of the states would vote to explicitly make abortions illegal.

So the Thompson plan to overturn Roe v. Wade is the more rational, practical, probable approach. That is if results is the goal.

OTH Making a big play for a Constitutional Amendment may make a bigger splash for awhile, for publicity, until it fails miserably to pass-hence no results.

There are a lot more than 1/4 of the states which are liberal to moderate enough, to not completely outlaw abortions.

[RatsDawg]

Does Bob Novak ever have anything great to say about Republicans these days?

[Eric Blair 2084]

Bud Light presents: "REAL MEN OF GENIUS"

(Real men of genius)

Today we salute you, Mr. Mike Huckabee paid FR campaign shill!

(Mr. Mike Huckabee paid FR campaign shill)

What does a liberal Republican do when he is afraid to face grass roots conservatives himself? He pays his coffee and errand boy minimum wage to do it for him...

(skim milk with three sweet and lows)

Armed with nothing but talking points from your candidates website, you attempt to convince conservatives that your candidate is not a Christian socialist or a pro-life Democrat... (Jesus would want amnesty for illegals)

Confronted with evidence that your candidate is a fiscal liberal, environmental wacko, open borders, nanny state smoker banner, flip flopper, you provide the brilliant answers...a link to his campaign website

(copy, paste, copy, paste)

So crack open an ice cold Bud Light, oh Karl Rove of the blogosphere, because when a FReeper runs for office, we'll be calling you...

(Mr. Mike Huckabee paid FR campaign shill)

Bud Light beer. Anheuser-Busch, St. Louis, Missouri.

[WOBBLY BOB]

This seems to be the one issue he figures he can win on in Iowa. I’m guessing he’s going to be an ethanol pimp there ,too, given it’s a corn state and he’s a glo-bull warming true believer.

[wideawake]

Doesn't sound like "...nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property..."

My original point was that (1) the federal government has a responsibility to ensure the states don't deprive any person of life, liberty or property and (2) they are not doing a very good job of it.

[drpix]

My point has been not to overreach. Go for the most electable Candidate that will make SCOTUS appointment s who will overturn Roe v. Wade. The Constitutionality question is very muddy water and the Amendment process at this time is a bridge too far. (But thanks for the info on estate planning... it gives me something to think about personally.)

[wideawake]

the Amendment process at this time is a bridge too far

There is no need for any Amendment other than the 14th, which guarantees the right to life on a federal basis.

It somply needs to be enforced.

[stephenjohnbanker]

“Huckabee can kiss my pink rosy arse”

BUMP : )

[stephenjohnbanker]

“Gee, that sure is funny, Governor Mike “Open Borders for Jesus” Huckabee. Will Sergeant Carter be Secretary of Defense, Andy Taylor as FBI director and Aunt Bee cookin’ up some vittles in the white house?”

Mike “Open Borders for Tyson” Huckabee.

[drpix]

You forgot "The Constitutionality question is very muddy water" part.

The 14th Amendment has been in effect since 1868. From then until Roe v. Wade, many states had legal abortions at various times and many states banned abortions at various times.

If you claim that the unborn are covered by the 14th Amendment "...nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property..." than show me a federal court that has ever agreed.

Can you produce one instance where a federal court stepped in to raise the issue of the 14th Amendment in a state were abortions were legal or one instance where it was made illegal because of the 14th Amendment rather than a state law?