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!