Skip to comments.Thompson gets National Right to Life endorsement
Posted on 01/12/2008 11:15:32 AM PST by Salvation
Former Tennessee Sen. Fred Thompson (R) received a major boost to his campaign Tuesday with the endorsement of the National Right to Life Committee. In supporting me, those who have worked tirelessly to defend life are supporting a consistent conservative who has stood with them yesterday, who stands with them today, and will stand with them tomorrow, Thompson said. The groups endorsement should help the former senator strengthen his network of grassroots supporters in the key primary states. When National Right to Life speaks, were not speaking as a Washington group, said David OSteen, the groups executive director, pointing to National Right to Lifes strong state roots. There have been endorsements by individuals of various candidates, OSteen added. Every candidate has received endorsements from some individuals, and thats to be expected. But this is the first endorsement in the Republican race from a major, grassroots, pro-life organization, representing 50 state organizations and about 3,000 chapters.
Thompson gets National Right to Life endorsement
November 13, 2007
Former Tennessee Sen. Fred Thompson (R) received a major boost to his campaign Tuesday with the endorsement of the National Right to Life Committee.
In supporting me, those who have worked tirelessly to defend life are supporting a consistent conservative who has stood with them yesterday, who stands with them today, and will stand with them tomorrow, Thompson said.
The groups endorsement should help the former senator strengthen his network of grassroots supporters in the key primary states.
When National Right to Life speaks, were not speaking as a Washington group, said David OSteen, the groups executive director, pointing to National Right to Lifes strong state roots.
There have been endorsements by individuals of various candidates, OSteen added. Every candidate has received endorsements from some individuals, and thats to be expected. But this is the first endorsement in the Republican race from a major, grassroots, pro-life organization, representing 50 state organizations and about 3,000 chapters.
Please notify me via FReepmail if you would like to be added to or taken off the Catholic Discussion Ping List.
For your ping lists.
Thanks for posting. I like FT anyway, and this just helps solidify my support for him.
There are some Catholics who are supporting other nominees, so I thought this needed to be out there.
Thompson is coming up! God bless him!
Check out the link above with the article.
The second link is a search on FReeRepublic that shows a lot of state Right to Life chapters also endorsing Thompson.
I think the pro-lifers are waking up!
For your ping lists.
I have been awake for a long time. I have watched NRTL undermine other prolife groups. I truly wish I could believe your guy, but I don’t. I have seen way too many campaign conversions during my life.
I will continue to pray for discernment for all, and pray his conversion is sincere.
You seem to be confusing Fred Thompson with Mitt Romney. Fred had a perfect pro-life record back in his Seanate term.
No, Fred is the guy who called the Republican party’s prolife platform a problem. I don’t know what Romney has said about it.
Did Fred initiate any prolife legislation while he was in the Senate?
He was a senator from a nominally prolife state, and there are some “prolife” votes, I am told, but if he was prolife, why didn’t he do something about abortion and euthanasia and embryonic stem cell research?
He seemed to vote to get along on most things, but the areas where he took initiatives are things like Campaign Finance Reform.
Look, I’ll say it again: I pray he is prolife, and I pray he will follow through on his current promises, but I am not sold.
MR. RUSSERT: This is the 2004 Republican Party platform. [Reads excerpt.] Could you run as a candidate on that platform, promising a human life amendment banning all abortions?
MR. THOMPSON: No.
MR. RUSSERT: You would not?
MR. THOMPSON: No. . . . I think the diversity we have among the states, the system of federalism we have where power is divided between the state and the federal government serves us very well. I think thats true of abortion.
Meet the Press with Tim Russert, Nov. 4, 2007
The Reagan GOP pro-life platform:
"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 Amendments protections apply to unborn children."
Well then, let me tell you...
I believe that each state should be able to make their own choice as to whether they are pro-life or prochoice. - Hardball with Chris Matthews, Dec. 12, 2005
Here’s the others, just for the record. Not one of them in agreement with the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution, or the Reagan GOP pro-life platform:
All Roe v. Wade really did was to take it away from
the states and federalize it. . . . Its best left to the
Iowa Voice blog interview, Aug. 3, 2007 (also see Right Wing News interview, 2006)
Just as I believe that the issue of gay marriage
should be decided by the states, so do I believe that
we would be better off by having Roe v. Wade return
to the states.
This Week with George Stephanopoulos, Nov. 19, 2006
While Roe v. Wade is invalid, a federal law banning
abortion across all 50 states would be equally
Ron Paul column, Federalizing Social Policy, January 31, 2006
I think that the problem with Roe against Wade is
that it took the decision away from the states. If Roe
against Wade were overturned because it was poorly
decided, if the justices decide that, it would then go
back to the states, and it would seem to me that that
would be the answer. . . . Ultimately, I think these
decisions should be made on a state-by-state basis.
CNN/YouTube debate, Nov. 28, 2007
Stand and fight for our Republican principles
“The founding principle of our country is that we are all created equal and endowed by our Creator, not by human choice or will, with our unalienable rights. And that means from the moment of fertilization we are dealing with something that represents the will and the authority of the Creator God and we have no choice but to respect it.
“It is already clear in the Constitution that the ultimate aim of our government is to secure the blessings of iberty to ourselves and our posterity. Our posterity, including of course the elemental part of posterity that lies in the womb, is placed by the Constitution on an equal level with ourselves in terms of the claims to liberty.
“The question is answered right there in the Constitution, and we simply need to respect that answer. Whether you are talking about children in the womb or innocent people in the World Trade Center, the abortionists and the terrorists have no right to target innocent human life.
“Thats the cause for which we are fighting and it in fact involves the fundamental principle on which our whole way of liberty is based.
“My first priority as President would be to reestablish ith in the executive branch respect for, and protection of, the unalienable rights of the unborn children in the womb - to make sure nothing was done by the executive branch of the United States that violated the Constitution of the United States in this regard.”
I know this endorsement happened a month ago, but it has not been posted on Religion — as far as I could see.
You are correct. It was posted on News/Activism back on 11/13/07 when it was announced. A second posting never hurts...
Abraham Lincoln recognized that we could not survive as a free land when some men could decide that others were not fit to be free and should therefore be slaves.
Likewise, we cannot survive as a free nation when some men decide that others are not fit to live and should be abandoned to abortion or infanticide.
Abortion and the Conscience of a Nation, 1983
Dont be fooled by politicians who say that any individual OR STATE has any right to practice or allow abortion. They dont.
The central purpose of the U.S. Constitution, according to the document itself in its preamble, is to secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves AND OUR POSTERITY.
The Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments guarantee the unalienable right to life of all innocent persons.
Justice Blackmun, whose majority decision in Roe v. Wade opened the door to the brutal killing of tens of millions of American children over the past thirty-five years, admitted, in the text of Roe, that if it could be established that the unborn are persons, then they were therefore protected by the Fourteenth Amendment.
If the suggestion of personhood is established, the appellants case, of course, collapses, for the fetus right to life would then be guaranteed specifically by the
[Fourteenth] Amendment. (Judge Blackmun, Roe v. Wade)
The Reagan Republican prolife platform spells out how we overturn Roe and forever end the heinous practice of abortion in America: enforce a policy that recognizes the personhood of the unborn!
Allowing states to decide the issue for themselves would be an improvement on the status quo, and would likely be a necessary intermediate step toward getting a pro-life amendment ratified.
Further, I would posit that just as states have the authority to declare under what circumstances homicides are "justifiable", so too they would--absent a Constitutional amendment--retain the authority to render such decisions for abortion. Would you take away states' authority in the former instance?
Freep-mail me to get on or off my pro-life and Catholic Ping List:
Please ping me to all note-worthy Pro-Life or Catholic threads, or other threads of interest.
Fred is the man.
Come on South Carolina and shock the world.
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men..."
Blackmun predicated Roe on the lie that unborn children are not persons.
Is an unborn child a person?
The only time abortion is in any way “justifiable” is when the life of the mother is threatened.
C. Everett Coop, Ronald Reagan’s Surgeon General, said that in his decades of experience delivering babies, he never saw a case like that.
**C. Everett Coop, Ronald Reagans Surgeon General, said that in his decades of experience delivering babies, he never saw a case like that.**
That has always been my belief too.
BTW, thanks for your posts here.
I’m thankful that we have a forum like this where we can at least reach some with the truth of this most critical life-and-death matter. God bless you, Salvation.
I hold Reagan in the highest esteem. IMO he was the greatest president of the century. However, I'd like to point out to you that he was president for 8 years and abortion is still legal.
Some people here have a distorted view of the presidency. You aren't electing a dictator or emperor. They have real limits on their power. And no matter how much they want abortion gone, it isn't in their power to abolish it.
Every President, every elected official, raises their right hand and swears to uphold and defend the Constitution. First, in order to even keep that oath, they must interpret it, wouldn’t you say? And, once they have, they have an obligation to follow it, no matter what the other two co-equal branches might do or say.
In all honesty, I have absolutely NO IDEA what that has to do with my post.
If a President believes that an unborn child is a person, they have a sworn obligation to uphold the Fifth and the Fourteenth Amendments.
And do what?
"...re-establish within the executive branch respect for, and protection of, the unalienable rights of the unborn children in the womb to make sure nothing was done by the executive branch of the United States that violated the Constitution of the United States in this regard." - Alan Keyes
Minnesota's MCCL is one of them.
One may use deadly force against an adult, at least in some states, even when one's life is not at stake. Should states not have the authority to permit such?
Before a constitutional pro-life amendment can be ratified, it will almost certainly necessary for 38 states to have enacted strong pro-life legislation. States aren't apt to enact such legislation unless or until it becomes clear the federal government will honor their authority to do so.
Do you see any realistic means of getting a pro-life amendment ratified that would not first require states to be allowed to pass their own legislation?
You seem to be avoiding the question. I want to know what, specifically, a president would do to overturn Roe v. Wade. Considering Ronald Reagan, a champion of the pro-life movement, was unable to do anything.
I suppose that the president could perhaps forbid the actual disbursement of any federal funds toward those providing abortions, but I can't see any ability for him to do anything else. What else could he do--have people arrested for performing abortions notwithstanding the fact that there would be no legal basis for such arrest?
There are a multitude of things that can be done. I choose not to address the specifics now. You’ll have to leave it to your imagination.
If someone offers up a constitutional amendment, I’ll support it, providing it’s properly worded and treats all persons equally before the law. But that’s only useful as a means to clarify for those who can’t read the plain meaning of words. Our Constitution already contains the provisions to protect the unborn in the Preamble and the Fifth and the Fourteenth Amendments. All we lack is the political will in all three co-equal branches of government to enforce it.
What the heck is THAT supposed to mean? Are you serious about abortion or just a sneering ideologue?
IOW, all you can do is spout slogans.
Overturning Roe is the first step to the protection of unborn children - which is so limited currently by the Courts. I get the idea that part of the pride that Senator Thompson takes in helping get John Roberts approved in the SCOTUS is because of this law.
The false designation of not-person is in the Roe decision as is the “right” to privacy. Overturning Roe overturns any supposed “right” to abortion and would have to acknowledge the false premise of a right to privacy (that allows unlimited abortion until “viability” and some limits by the State afterward).
Somehow, we’ll still have to deal with Doe vs. Bolton and PP v. Casey. These two will be considered, even if there were an amendment.
Each State has discretion between first degree murder, manslaughter and self-defense. In the same way, the States will regulate abortion in the case of ectopic pregnancies and life of the mother. These are decisions that belong to the State, according to the Constitution.
The “problem” with the Platform is that it proposes several Constitutional amendments that have little or no chance of passing and which will distract from the fight in the Supreme Court.
Overturning Roe on the basis on the personhood of the unborn necessarily outlaws abortion everywhere in the country.
The “problem” with those who disagree with the platform is that they refuse to address the personhood of the unborn.
Are the unborn persons?
Do you make any other point?
Okay. We’ve established that.
So, does the Fourteenth Amendment protection of innocent persons then bind all three branches of government to the protection of the lives of all persons, on all territory of the United States, as part of their sworn duty?
Are you getting to a point here, or are you just repeating your argument in yet another way?
You do realize that restating the exact same point over and over doesn't advance your argument, don't you?
And since you've found more time to post, perhaps we can get back to the question of what EXACTLY a president can do to end abortion.
Whatever is within his sworn duty, and his powers as president.
IOW, you have absolutely no clue. And this is just an exercise in futility.
Seriously, if you can't answer that simple question, how are we to take you seriously?