using Roe v Wade as precedent.
***Wrong. This extends the protection of the right to life to the unborn under the 14th amendment. The supremes would have to shoot down the 14th amendment or the definition of person. Not that easy to do. And Hunter is in favor of this approach (+ others) while Fred is against it, showing that Hunter is a better pro-life candidate.
I've been working in the pro-life movement since 1973, and demanding purity on the issue hasn't done one blessed thing to save ONE baby since 1973. I'm tired of 'pie in the sky', and I want something actually DONE to help save the lives of unborn children. If we have to go about it incrementally, that's fine with me, because we'll at least be saving SOME babies while we're changing hearts and minds on the issue with the ultimate goal of folks accepting the unborn as a citizen with rights.