Posted on 11/19/2007 5:32:58 AM PST by the tongue
Huckabee: Abortion Not States' Call
Sunday, November 18, 2007 3:01 PM
Article Font Size
WASHINGTON -- 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 in a broadcast interview.
The former Arkansas governor, who has drawn within striking distance of Mitt Romney in Iowa's leadoff presidential caucuses, said he was taken aback by the National Right to Life Committee's recent endorsement of Fred Thompson, the ex-Tennessee senator.
"But my surprise was nothing compared to the surprise of people across America who had been faithful supporters of right to life," said Huckabee, who is challenging Thompson's claim that he is the most reliable candidate in the GOP field.
"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 separate interview aired Sunday, Thompson said Roe v. Wade, the landmark Supreme Court decision allowing legal abortion, should be overturned, with states allowed to decide whether to permit abortions. "We need to remember what the status was before Roe v. Wade," he said.
Huckabee also previewed his first television ad of the campaign on the program. The 60-second spot, which features actor Chuck Norris, was 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" on gun ownership, 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 will not change many 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."
The Thompson campaign was quick to respond.
"With his new campaign ad featuring Chuck Norris, Mike Huckabee has confused celebrity endorsement with serious policy. What would Huckabee do to secure America's border against millions of illegal immigrants pouring into our country? According to his ad, 'Two words: Chuck Norris,' " said Thompson campaign spokesman Todd Harris.
"It's appropriate that Chuck Norris would co-star in an ad with Mike Huckabee, given Huckabee has been 'Missing in Action' on the issue of illegal immigration his entire career," Harris said, referring to one of Norris' films.
Huckabee appeared on "Fox News Sunday" and Thompson was interviewed by "This Week" on ABC.
© 2007 Associated Press. All Rights Reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.
Muddled thinking.
The government does not have rights: it has specific Constitutional obligations and is granted the requisite authority to undertake those obligations.
Under the 14th Amendment, the federal government has the obligation to ensure that no state deprives any person of life without due process of law.
The states do not get to decide who gets to live and who gets to die. They have absolutely zero authority under the US Constitution to legislate on depriving unborn persons of life.
If one believes that abortion is a matter for the states, then one believes that the unborn are not persons and are therefore not protected by the 14th Amendment to the US Constitution.
“Mike is right about this:”
So the 10th Amendment means NOTHING to you, nmh? That’s sad.
Murder is wrong in every state, theft in all its varieties—robbery, burglary, fraud. . .—is wrong in every state, so too assault, rape, vandalism, . . .
yet all of these are defined and prosecuted by state laws, save as they affect interstate commerce or the functioning of the Federal goverement (e.g. murder of Federal officials). Divorce is a moral matter, yet the grounds for divorce (or, alas, policies permitting groundless divorces) are a matter of state law.
It is precisely because it is a moral issue, like murder, theft, the definition of marriage, and the like, that abortion policy is properly decided by the level of government closest to the people affected, as has always been done in the United States from the days when Virginia’s laws had a decidedly Anglican character, and Massachusetts’ laws a Calvinist flavor.
Huckabee is wrong—his logic would create a unitary state, where all laws are Federal, and the states become mere provinces—all political decisions are fundamentally moral decisions, as the fundamental question of politics—how ought we order our society—is subordinate to the fundamental question of morality—how ought we live our lives.
Oh, so making slavery ILLEGAL for ANY state is okay?
But for some ILLOGICAL reason we should leave MURDERING our unborn up to the “states” so we have an ARBITRARY standard on what “murdering the unborn is”. Yeah ... this makes allot of sense - ONLY to those like yourself that are utterly ILOGICAL and COLD. YOU are the ILLOGICAL person and have NO CLUE on our founders and their INTENT.
Abortion has nothing to do with the 10th Amendment. The 10th Amendment does not empower the states to authorize the murder of anyone.
Abortion is MURDER of a small person.
The unalienable right to life needs to be recognized in ALL states and NOT the arbitrary manner you suggest through states. Life is too important to be left up to illogical folks like you that are abortion, murder supporters.
Interesting discussion. Thanks to all posters.
life
Written historical records date abortions back to ancient Egypt. Legal & illegal abortions have existed in all societies. The founding fathers were well read enough to know this and yet they left this (as with murder) up to the states. This is how it was before Roe v. Wade. To go further requires a Constitutional Amendment - which today could not pass the 3/4 of the states. Period & end of story.
This is hyperbole, firstly, and secondly it is bad legal argument.
Are the unborn persons or are they not?
If they are not, then abortion on demand should be freely available.
If they are persons, then they are protected from being deprived of their lives on a federal basis by the 14th Amendment.
If you want to make all murders federal crimes ok, but I hardly think the federal government is equipped to deal with that. Why are you getting personal and calling me cold? Does everyone have to believe exactly like you do?
“Abortion needs to be ILLEGAL in EVERY state - just like slavery.
I have NO DOUBT that our founders would NOT want abortion legal in ANY state.”
Take the word “abortion” out of the equation and look at the issue. It’s a clear states rights issue, as the Constitution provides no right to the feds in the issue of prosecuting crime beyond piracy and treason. Murder isn’t mentioned anywhere.
That said, I agree abortion shouldn’t be legal, but I don’t want the feds taking care of it.
So insulting me is gonna make me see things your way? Whose ignorance is showing now?
That is exactly my position, and I believe that's the way Fred Thompson sees it.
“That said, I agree abortion shouldn’t be legal, but I don’t want the feds taking care of it.”
May I add, neither did the founders because they reserved no specific clause to abortion.
“Huckabee is wrong—his logic would create a unitary state, where all laws are Federal, and the states become mere provinces—all political decisions are fundamentally moral decisions, as the fundamental question of politics—how ought we order our society—is subordinate to the fundamental question of morality—how ought we live our lives.”
Hurrah to this post. Federalizing this law will lead to federalization of the next thing, and then the next thing. Like the idea of a federal driver’s liscense? Huck’s idea would bring THAT one step closer by empowering the feds to jump further into our lives.
QUESTIONS TO ALL ABORTION FOES:
Why after struggling to overturn Roe v. Wade for 40 years, and when it is now probably within one SCOTUS appointment from being done, you know want to move the goal post back further for the cause?
Why risk having another Clinton fill the next SCOTUS vacancy and save Roe v. Wade for our lifetime?
IS overturning Roe v. Wade is NOW NOT ENOUGH?
Well Huck, if you can get the constitution amended, by all means do so, but in the meantime, how about respecting the Constitution we have right now.
Maybe Chuck could secure the border, but it would be pretty hard for him to do with Huck handing out green cards for Jesus.
IS overturning Roe v. Wade is NOW NOT ENOUGH?
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.