It is interesting that the National Right to Life Committee (NRLC) has chosen to endorse Republican presidential candidate Fred Thompson, a man who once offered legal advice to a pro-choice group,
Nope. There's a difference between "offering legal advice" and being assigned a case by the firm.
voted against key pro-life issues in the Senate
Do what? Exactly what "key pro-life issues" did FDT vote against? The answer: none.
and now espouses convoluted reasons for rejecting constitutional protection of the unborn.
Convoluted only to those who don't understand the original purpose and intent of the Constitution.
Recently, Mr. Thompson refused to support a constitutional amendment that would protect innocent life by restricting the availability of abortions. The sanctity-of-life amendment was a core plank in the Republican Party's 2004 election platform, and yet Mr. Thompson said he could not support it, saying his objection stems from his federalist views.
What nonsense. If you can't come anywhere near actually passing the amendment, then you aren't protecting anything except your props with the pro-life wing of the party. FDT's way is THE way that little babies' lives will be saved. If you, dschapin, were REALLY pro-life, you'd support Fred's federalism way - because THAT is what is already producing results.
However, in 1995 he voted for a constitutional amendment to ban flag burning. If he were concerned about states rights he would have let them issue their own laws on the matter.
Um, the FEDERAL flag is a FEDERAL issue - if you don't believe me, look up the parts of the US Code already on the books concerning such things as the proper display and treatment of the flag.
Also, if Mr. Thompson were concerned about cluttering the constitution with superfluous amendments, he would not have supported a 1997 constitutional amendment requiring a balanced budget.
Actually, since Congress is specifically delegated spending powers at the federal level, the BB amendment would most definitely NOT be superfluous. Instead, it would be correctly fixing a deficiency at the federal level in the federal Constitution.
You DH people are getting both more desperate and more craven.
Please explain to me what legal rationale Fred is going to use to overturn Roe and return the issue to the states. Do you think that the court is going to reject the right to privacy - I think it is too ingrained by know for them to throw it out. So, the only way that I see unborn children being protected by law is through either a Constitutional Amendment or recognition that they are persons and thus have a right to life which outweighs the mothers right to privacy. As to offering advice to the pro-choice group if he was strongly pro-life he could have refused to do so and taken whatever consequences came. It was a large firm so he probably could have passed the case off to someone else.