Mike Huckabee Supports State Control of Abortion
By SCSoxFan Posted in Breaking News — Comments (28) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
I implore every Evangelical and Mike Huckabee supporter to read this.
This is a link to an interview that Mike Huckabee gave to John Hawkins at Right Wing News.
http://www.rightwingnews.com/interviews/huckabee.php
In it, Gov. Huckabee CLEARLY states that abortion "should be left to the states, the 10th Amendment."
How do you square this with his CURRENT position that the Human Life Amendment is the only acceptable way to handle the abortion issue? Is the only conclusion that his current position is SHEER POLITICAL OPPORTUNISM? If not, please try to persuade me.
Below is the relevant Q&A. It appears just above the halfway maek in the interview itself.
John Hawkins: Switching gears again, do you think we should overturn Roe v. Wade?
Mike Huckabee: It would please me because I think Roe v. Wade is based on a real stretch of Constitutional application -- that somehow there is a greater privacy issue in the abortion concern -- than there is a human life issue -- and that the federal government should be making that decision as opposed to states making that decision.
So, I've never felt that it was a legitimate manner in which to address this and, first of all, it should be left to the states, the 10th Amendment, but secondly, to somehow believe that the taking of an innocent, unborn human life is about privacy and not about that unborn life is ludicrous.
However, as governor, he could have pushed for an HLA while governor.
You may have, without intention, implied that Huck just wants to have the power to make the decision.
You may want to also be careful, Huckfans are pretty passionate about him, and anything that could be considered negative will get you their wrath.
was conducted this year, so he wasn't governor then. He was a Presidential candidate. How do you construe this statement,
"first of all, it should be left to the states, the 10th Amendment."
As advocating the Human Life Amendment?
It's not advocating it; it's just not inconsistent with advocating it.
He was talking about what should be the case under the current Constitution, not under an amended one.
This interview had nothing to do with the Human Life Amendment. Huck is for HLA.
that somehow there is a greater privacy issue in the abortion concern -- than there is a human life issue -- and that the federal government should be making that decision as opposed to states making that decision.
Instead, he is lambasting the fact the federal government overstepped their bounds when SCOTUS ruled in favor of Roe.
-- and that the federal government should be making that decision as opposed to states making that decision.
AS OPPOSED TO STATES MAKING THAT DECISION. This statement indicates that states SHOULD be making that decision. The HLA would FORBID states from doing so. It is a clear contradiction with what he says is his position in support of the HLA.
1. It looks like he was talking about the privacy issue and the overreach of Roe vs. Wade specifically in allowing abortions. This has nothing to do with HLA.
2. Read Menlo's comment again. HLA would amend the constitution to give the federal government that authority to ban abortions Huck has always been for HLA, and he has said it many times. Fred has said that he is against HLA on principle. Big difference.
"I believe in grace, because I have seen it. In peace, because I have felt it. In forgiveness, because I needed it."
-George W. Bush
Misread something that made me thing it was from the past.
I really don't see the fundamental problem here. So he has changed from saying that Roe v Wade should be cast aside and let the states decide to saying Roe v Wade should be cast aside and a Constitutional Amendment should be passed that outlaws abortion. The states are involved in the Constitutional process.
I guess I just see this as splitting hairs. He isn't suggesting that the Federal government should usurp state's right here. He is advocating for following the Constitutional process. Is that really a bad thing?
There are those who look at things the way they are, and ask why ... I dream of things that never were and ask why not. - Robert Kennedy
for holding just the position he seems to be supporting in this interview.
Huckabee to John Hawkins:
"...first of all, it should be left to the states, the 10th Amendment,"
Huckabee to Chris Wallace yesterday:
"For those of us for whom this is a moral question, you can't simply have 50 different versions of what's right," he said in an interview on "Fox News Sunday."
a belief that abortion should be left under state control, not removed from state control via the Human Life Amendment.
"...first of all, it should be left to the states, the 10th Amendment,"
He cannot make statements like this and then slam Fred Thompson for holding exactly the same opinion.
You're a Fredhead trying to defend his honor.
I'm not aware of Huckabee attacking Fred's position on state's rights with regards to abortion. Do you have a link to that?
There are those who look at things the way they are, and ask why ... I dream of things that never were and ask why not. - Robert Kennedy
Fred's state's rights position?
There are those who look at things the way they are, and ask why ... I dream of things that never were and ask why not. - Robert Kennedy
This actually is more to do with someone changing positions for political expediency. Combine this with Fox calling Huckabee out on claiming the video with him stating which tax increases were acceptable to him related to the education ruling by the AR Supreme Court and then later that day admitting that it was actually in response to a general revenue shortfall. You cannot trust what the man says.
Both Huck and Fred agree that Roe vs Wade (RVW) should be struck down, with states then able to get a shot at passing their own laws on abortion.
However, in a post-overturn of RVW scenario, there is a fundamental difference between them. I agree that HLA is largely irrelevant but does indicate where a candidate hopes to move the issue. More to the point is the matter of a federal ban passed by both houses of Congresses and then signed by the President.
While Thompson's targeted end game is unclear, he appears to be agnostic in terms of whether abortion is legal or illegal throughout the land. His own comments imply he supports its legality at least in the first trimester (i.e., that's how he would vote as a state legislator), but he may be open to some restrictions. Overall, an unenforced preference for abortion to be legal (I think about 90% of abortions take place in the first trimester, while others could presumably be accelerated).
Turning to Huckabee, if I am to read into his stance a bit, his plan is this: "let's knock down RVW and see what the states do. To the extent the practice remains legal in certain places, I will support a federal ban."
Once RVW is overruled and a number of months pass to let the dust settle on the state level, Huckabee could then join efforts to pass a federal ban. A "ban" can take many shades and levels of strictness, but let's assume that we are referring to a virtually complete ban (with some basic exceptions for rape, incest, severe risk to mother, Plan B allowed...).
If most states reject a ban for themselves, then it doesn't make sense to pursue one at a federal level. However, there could be states that don't pass a ban in spite of significant support b/c of a Governor's veto, held up in a committee or before getting to the floor, or passes one house easily but not both, etc.
The difference between Huckabee and Thompson becomes most relevant if a solid majority of states pass/clearly support a ban. Then, a case for a federal ban becomes more relevant, as the buses departing from Planned Parenthood across state lines can allow women to have abortions even if illegal in their home states (in addition to the core pro-life argument that it's a barbaric practice and if we share taxes and defense, we share basic values as a nation).
Unlike standard homicide, abortion lends itself to transporting the victim at will. It's unlikely you would kidnap me off the street in, say, Georgia and bring me up to New Jersey to murder me.
Could a federal ban be passed tomorrow in congress? No. Could it be passed after a year or two of right to life making its case for the first time after roe is reversed, by distributing the Silent Scream, etc? With President Huckabee launching a full court press giving speeches (in conjunction with a health care initiative, let's say) and having conversations with congressmen? Maybe not. But it probably gets closer than with Thompson as president. Maybe I'm giving Huckabee the benefit of clarity he hasn't provided...but then let's not forget Thompson's muddled federalism in voting for the Federal PBA ban.
Is that he's for states' rights so long as they get the "right" answer, but if he doesn't like what they do the feds should enforce their own rules.
Sounds like a liberal. States's rights isn't something you get to appeal to only when it's convenient. Either the states have power here or the feds do. If you're going to say that abortion should be returned to the states you need to be ready to accept that some states won't ban it. You fight those battles in state legislatures, you don't go to Washington to force everybody to accept your view.
This is right on. Huck's problem is that he has beliefs, i.e., aborition is wrong, etc., and while that's good, he lacks animating principles. If we are Federalists, we have to accept where that path leads, even if it is gay marriage and abortion in some states...that's called logical consistency and it is something that the Huckster does not have.
Then we would understand that the HLA would be very similar to the 13th in that it rids our Country of one of its major ills.
Every Conservative worth his salt understands to the full extent that Roe V. Wade should be overturned.
However, Conservatives with a true moral compass understand full well that Abortion is not just murder or infanticide, but also the major domestic issue of this time. These Conservatives stand for and advocate the principles surrounding the Human Life Amendment.
Let's get real: with the current political climate the easiest way to work at decreasing abortions is through the overturning of Roe V. Wade as there are many States lined up already, where it is politically feasible, to outlaw abortions or limit it to extreme circumstances.
However, that DOES NOT preclude anyone from also supporting the larger goal of the movement- to rid our country of our abortion once and for all.
As a side note: Have you ever seen the movie Amazing Grace, which displayed the difficulties in the British Abolitionist movement. Every year it was brought up, gaining support, yet defeated. Then they pushed through a measure under the radar that eliminated 80% of the slave trade. Finally, shortly thereafter they were able to outlaw slavery. We need to pull together and advocate a long term strategy to ending abortion: Starting with overturning Roe and then proposing the HLA.
His interpretation of our CURRENT Constitution is that it's left to the states. Not a liberal position, because liberals don't care about honestly reading the Constitution.
His interpretation of his PREFERRED Consitution is that legal protection is guaranteed to the unborn. Obviously not a liberal position, because liberals do not believe the unborn child is in fact a child, and don't believe he or she is entitled to ANY legal protection, let alone constitutional protection.
Huckabee supports our current Constitution, which does not mean he doesn't think it could be better.
Does that mean he supports federalism? Yes, insofar as he supports obeying our current Constitution that instantiates federalist principles. Fidelity to the Constitution requires it.
It may also mean that were he drafting a new Constitution or amending the existing one, he would be a federalist in favorign leaving most decisions regarding domestic policy to the several states.
BUT, he would not be so far a federalist in saying that a few rogue states may not tolerate the enslavement of human beings within their jurisdiction(13th Amendment) or declare open season on the lives of the unborn within their jurisdiction (28th Amendment!).
"People will not look forward to posterity who never look backward to their ancestors." -Edmund Burke
Some of us just don't trust the Federal Government to make these choices for us. Let each State decide. This would just be one more attack on the alleged Sovereignty of the States. A ban would never pass anyway either in the form of legislation or an amendment to the Constitution.
It's a question of which rights are automatically enjoyed by all Americans and which are not. Huckabee, if we buy my tentative characterization of his view, believes the right to life is fundamental and cannot rightly be infringed. Similarly, the rights to bear arms or to express a political view are individual ones that no state should be able to compromise. These last two are expressly stated in the constitution. Huckabee wants the right to life to also be formally codified in law. So, I think while virtually all candidates want most of the various minutiae of statutes to be state-driven, there is disagreement on a few basics.
The broader reality is that the existence of RVW works nicely for the GOP politically. Both the Fred Thompson and Alan Keyes (in my view Huckabee is close to Keyes) stances on abortion can co-exist and work together for a mutual goal of getting people on the supreme court who will overturn RVW. Oh, and a couple of peripheral funding questions like cutting off some funds under mexico city policy and not allowing abortions at military hospitals.
If RVW is overturned, then it could get squeamish and uncomfortable for the former pro-life coalition. Politicians will have to address the very serious question of what federal restrictions on abortion they support. This is already somewhat true following Gonzales v. Carhart. Keep in mind that the Republican party as a whole has campaigned on its support of the federal PBA ban (including Thompson). This is actually a ban on the dilution and extraction procedure after 5-7 months (fetus is not literally in the process of being born, as in live birth abortion). This begs the question of why one (extremely rare and easily substituted) abortion procedure should be banned but not others. Congress has also passed a ban on interstate transport of minors to evade abortion law. Sure, that's a parental consent derivative, but again we're talking about legislating under the interstate commerce clause.
I think the debate is very healthy, but "pro-life" will be an insufficient term as the supreme court allows more restrictions against abortion.
PS: I don't mind Thompson's postion, but that's because I'm pro-choice. Huckabee offers a serious alternative for thoughtful people who really wanted to end abortion by yesterday (e.g. shutting down clinics by law).
There is a principled distinction between saying the federal govt. should stay out of saying abortion is a fundamental right (that crazy idea should be left to the states if they want to create such a right) and saying the federal govt. and the federal Constitution SHOULD restrict states when fundamental human life interests are at stake (as in the past generation) as they never have been before because of the newly formed (unprecedented in Western civilizational jurisprudence) 'right' to an abortion.
If you are going to say abortion is a fundamental "right" when there is nothing enumerated in the Constitution, that is something that should be left to states to decide as not in any sense "fundamental" in the history of civilized societies.
However, if you are going to start getting in the business of saying women have 'privacy' rights to protect, THEN it becomes a fundamental due process right of humanity akin to Bill of Rights' protections to protect 'LIFE' at the federal level.
This position is fully consistent with what Huck said, and is a perfectly logical and conservatively legal distinction.
Abortion rights should definitely be left to the states.
Rights to life itself are, ideally if it ever becomes politically possible, due process issues (as we've stretched fundamental due process in our jurisprudence whether you like it or not) especially when that life interest is demonstrably under attack in the 50 states.
Maybe he changed just like Romney has changed 100 positions and Fred decided on his fourth kid that abortion was wrong.
Wow, you guys are stretching like a rubber-band. First of all, anyone willing to be intellectually honest about this (not that I'm accusing any Huckabee-bashers of ever doing that, mind you) knows the difference between the anti-abortion viewpoint that had Roe v Wade not happened, states would have gradually passed anti-abortion measures, and that it is precisely that context -- one in which states should have retained their rights on the abortion question -- that the overall viewpoint about abortion residing at the state level exists. We have made very clear that there are two levels to this issue, beginning with the fact that Roe v Wade was an abomination, shouldn't have happened, and we'd have no need to pursue further remedy. However, in the context of today's reality, we are at a different level, requiring two tactics to achieve the strategic goal of ending abortion: first, to push for judicial reversal that will send this issue as much as possible back to the states, using state initiatives and legislation to necessitate judicial reviews making judicial reversal possible; second, since Roe v Wade DID happen once, we must build upon the success of changes in state laws and judicial reversals by passage of the HLA.
There is NOTHING contradictory in these positions, and anyone familiar with the beliefs and work of pro-life advocacy knows this. It is ridiculous in the extreme, and a true sign of the degree to which one either lacks even fundamental understanding of pro-life advocacy or is willing to lie about it, for people to make these utterly false assertions about Huckabee's position. I'm tired of the intellectual laziness of some folks who make sideways remarks claiming Huckabee supporters are just making excuses or just aggressively attacking any criticisms of Huckabee -- all I hear is a bunch of people picking and choosing claims, using vague insults and assertions without supporting evidence, and an unbelievable degree of hypocrisy when defending their OWN chosen candidate and bashing any critics.
Take "life isn't fair" to heart for a change, rather than just some childish sing-song you spout off to others but are incapable of applying to yourself. You want to make weak, cheap, unsubstantiated, illegitimate attacks on a candidate, then sorry but yeah you're gonna get called out on it. If you're arguments aren't strong enough to withstand even basic scrutiny, that's YOUR problem, and I nor anyone else is required to go easy or remain quite just for you. If you can't fight, get out of the ring, because when you swing a weak wild left, you WILL get an uppercut, I promise you. Bottom line: a lot of you, and others in our party, expected Huckabee to go nowhere, and you thought now you'd be able to shout-down and silence people of faith and evangelicals in the party, but things aren't quite working out the way you thought, now are they? No, and you can't STAND it, and now you'll say and do anything to bash not only Huckabee but those who support him.
This blog posting is just one more example of twisting some minor nuance, or conflating some minor non-issue, to try and sink Huckabee. It is getting more desperate as his numbers keep rising and the money starts to flow in. No, he isn't going away, and we aren't going away either. So you'd better bring out better than you have, because this sort of weak-kneed, half-baked attacks are nothing. And I assure you, when we start really talking about your moderate preferences, you will find out what a real, hard-hitting, informed criticism is. Bank on it.
As I stand now, I'm not for an HLA. And not because I don't care, but because I don't think it will accomplish the objectives.
What objectives? The only OBJECTIVE is to end abortion. A Human Life Amendment wouldn't do that? Or was that rather a veiled statement to say flat out that long-term goals in mind, there is no way for the HLA to pass?
If that's the case, and you "don't care" like you said you don't, then don't rail against HLA advocates when it is a worthy goal.
Isn't Mr. Huckabee advocating a Constitutional Amendment outlawing abortion?
First bullet point on his website's views on abortion...
I really don't see an inconsistency. As a Governor he wanted to wrest away control of the issue from the Feds. As the leader of the Federal government he wants to push for an Amendment outlawing abortion.
Now you may not agree with him on this, which I don't. But I fail to see the inconsistency. Should he have acted like he was President when he was the Governor of Arkansas?
There are those who look at things the way they are, and ask why ... I dream of things that never were and ask why not. - Robert Kennedy