Posted on 11/25/2007 10:26:20 AM PST by pissant
Contact: Karen Hanretty, 571-730-1010; www.Fred08.com
MC LEAN, Va., Nov. 25 /Christian Newswire/ --
In February 1995, Huckabee supported revising the GOP abortion plank to let states decide their own abortion laws.
"The issue divides strongly committed pro-life and pro-choice Republicans but is not a central issue to most other Republicans. A possible platform revision long under discussion would say the Republican Party, 'unlike the Democratic Party, does not stand for abortion on demand and is basically a pro-life party.' In the spirit of federalism, the proposed GOP revision also would replace the abortion amendment with a statement saying the issue should be left up to the individual state legislatures to deal with as each sees fit. 'That's exactly what we have looked for, and if it's left up to the states, more of them are going to put some restrictions on abortion,' Arkansas Lt. Gov. Mike Huckabee said in an interview after appearing on a conference panel yesterday." (Ralph Z. Hallow, "Conservatives Hold Fire On Abortion," Washington Times, 2/12/95)
And in an April 2006 interview with the blog "Right Wing News" Huckabee indicated that abortion decisions should be left to the States.
John Hawkins [Right Wing News]: Switching gears again, do you think we should overturn Roe v. Wade?
Mike Huckabee: It would please me because I think 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. (www.rightwingnews.com/interviews/huckabee.php)
The Huckster is a chameleon PING
Try and spin this, robot
Huckster is a real piece of work!
It appears that Fred’s position is a bit more popular than DBM would have us believe.
Makes it sound like Huckabee’s grasping desperately at Thompson’s coattails.
Amazingly dense move, politically. For many of us, a strong pro-life position was the one thing he had going for him.
Welcome back to FR!
He can’t. No more than he can spin this from May 17, 2006 in the Washington Times:
Mr. Huckabee said he approved of virtually everything in the Monday night speech on immigration by Mr. Bush, including his National Guard and guest-worker initiatives, even though that agreement put Mr. Huckabee at odds, he said, with some fellow conservative Republicans.
“I do believe some of it is driven by racism or nativism,” he said of the opposition within his party to Mr. Bush’s view that illegal aliens should not be deported but rather fined and eventually allowed U.S. citizenship.
“It’s not amnesty to make people pay for breaking the law,” Mr. Huckabee said.
http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1G1-145938811.html
He’s currently just below Rudy on my list of favorites.
It appears Huckabee’s criticisms of Fred’s positions are phony, since he apparently thought the same until the Road to Des Moines popped up.
Popular or not, it's just plain wrong...an abrogation of the founding principle of America, as found in the Declaration of Independence, the Preamble to the Constitution, the Fifth and the Fourteenth Amendments, and the Reagan pro-life platform.
States' rights do not trump unalienable rights.
I just don't agree that any government has a right to take innocent human life -- or to allow its citizens to freely do so. But if others can, then give me the right to abort the Presidential candidates I find inconvenient. Fair is fair. Not only are they inconvenient, but they threaten to take my money by force and call it "compassion."
I consider myself strongly pro-life, but I have no problem with this position.
The states define murder and most other crimes. Where in the Constitution is an exception made for abortion? Finding anti-abortion language in the Constitution requires almost as great a stretch as Roe v. Wade.
I support a pro-life constitutional amendment in theory, while recognizing that its utter impossibility of passage makes focusing on it a poor choice of priorities.
A federal law or judicial decision against abortion would be a violation of federalism, just as Roe was.
but, but, but....that is a lie pissant....his website says so.
To believe that, you must agree with Blackmun, the author of Roe vs. Wade, that un unborn child is not a person.
This is the Jerry Ford position, not the Ronald Reagan position.
Or. maybe the other way around!
The only candidates on my list that fall below Rudy are Paul and Romney, in that order. Huckabee is just one above Thompson for me, because of the marriage issue.
So, which other unalienable rights can the states alienate?
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.