thanks for the ping. B4DH.
Hunter is probably more pro-life than Huckabee, who’s getting so much mileage from his steadfast position.
And then when we contrast Hunter to Thompson, we see Thompson wanting to take a federalist approach. No one would take a federalist approach to baby killing, so it is a sign that Fred simpy doesn’t want to deal with it.
Open Letter to the South Carolina GOP – Duncan Hunter is the Only Choice
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/1952186/posts?page=42#42
Dissembling. While Mitt Romney has given his explanation for how & when he switched from pro-choice to pro-life, you will not find a similar explanation from Mr. Thompson. In fact, he falsely says he was always pro-life. That is patently untrue, as all of his public statements and survey answers showed he was indeed pro-choice at least through the late1990s. Granted, he always supported certain restrictions, at least after the first trimester. But his direct quotes such as “The ultimate decision must be made by the woman. Government should treat its citizens as adults capable of making moral decisions on their own” are proof positive he was pro-choice. And his answers about his role in McCain Feingold have been equally evasive and disingenuous at best. CFR is every bit as much his baby as it is McCain’s or Feingold’s, with the worst part – the prohibition of independent issue ads before an election – receiving his full sponsorship and support. It appears that his ‘straight talk’ is similar to that of McCain’s.
“And then when we contrast Hunter to Thompson, we see Thompson wanting to take a federalist approach. No one would take a federalist approach to baby killing, so it is a sign that Fred simpy doesn’t want to deal with it.”
Exactly. Plus, it is an unconstitutional approach. Many people here seem to confuse federalism with states’ rights. States’ rights is only one aspect of federalism.
Federalism is about defined powers and duties, separate powers and duties, and shared powers and duties.
The constitution identifies some powers as belonging to a specific branch of govt., or to the state or federal domain,as in the president being the commander in chief, or the congress controlling budgets, and undefined powers belonging to the states.
Then, there are supposed to be separate powers, like the federal gov’t maintaining the military, and state govt’s handling ordinary and local things, like zoning, and police and fire departments.
Then, of course, there are shared duties: like DEFENDING HUMAN LIFE-the primary purpose of all levels and branches of government.
Defending human life is not a federalist issue.
“Hunter is probably more pro-life than Huckabee..”
That is so frustrating. Duncan Hunter has been fighting for years for LIFE, which shows his high commitment.
Duncan Hunter:
“I would amend the U.S. Constitution and provide blanket protection to all unborn children from the moment of conception by prohibiting any state or federal law that denies the personhood of the unborn. Likewise, I have also introduced the Right to Life Act, which would legally define “personhood” as the moment of conception and, therefore, guarantee all constitutional rights and protections, including life, to the unborn without utilizing a constitutional amendment.” [www.gohunter08.com]
Duncan Hunter wrote a bill called the Life at Conception Act, that would define life at conception ensuring that the 14th amendment applies to unborn children in defending life. More about the bill here:
http://www.prolifealliance.com/life%20at%20conception%20act.htm