Huckabee's Flip-Flop On The Human Life Amendment
By Spunky Posted in 2008 | Spotlight Blogs — Comments (27) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
Mike Huckabee is now out stumping for votes using various versions of the question, "If you can't be honest before the election, can we trust you to be honest after the election?"
It's a good question and standard, so let's apply it to Huckabee.
From Mike Huckabee's official website we read,
"I support and have always supported passage of a constitutional amendment to protect the right to life. My convictions regarding the sanctity of life have always been clear and consistent, without equivocation or wavering." (emphasis added)
Sounds strong and convincing. But there's one problem, it's not true. Huckabee has not always supported a constitutional amendment to protect the right to life. In the spirit of "federalism" Huckabee once lobbied to bridge the divide between pro-choice and pro-life Republicans by revising the party platform on abortion.
Read on . . .
In 1995 Huckabee said,
"The issue divides strongly committed pro-life and pro-choice Republicans but is not a central issue to most other Republicans. A possible platform revision long under discussion would say the Republican Party, 'unlike the Democratic Party, does not stand for abortion on demand and is basically a pro-life party.' In the spirit of federalism, the proposed GOP revision also would replace the abortion amendment with a statement saying the issue should be left up to the individual state legislatures to deal with as each sees fit. 'That's exactly what we have looked for, and if it's left up to the states, more of them are going to put some restrictions on abortion,' Arkansas Lt. Gov. Mike Huckabee said in an interview after appearing on a conference panel yesterday." (Ralph Z. Hallow, "Conservatives Hold Fire On Abortion," Washington Times, 2/12/95)"
More recently in 2006, Huckabee was interviewed by John Hawkins and said,
"[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."
So up until 2006, Huckabee saw abortion as an issue that should be left up to the states not a federal issue. Now watch as Huckabee talks to Chris Wallace about his position as opposed to other candidates on Fox News Sunday, November 18, 2007.
So one year later, in an attempt to distinguish himself from the other candidates, he said he's never changed his position, that a federalist position was "not good enough" and on moral issues you can't have 50 versions of right and wrong. He is openly critical and amazed that Thompson does not support a human life amendment because it had been part of the Republican platform since 1980. He never mentions that up until last year, he held the same position or that he once sought to change the party platform in to reflect a state's rights position.
Clearly, Huckabee has switched his position on a constitutional amemdment despite what he said to Chris Wallace or his website now claims.
"If you can't be honest before the election, can we trust you to be honest after the election?"
Can we trust Huckabee to be honest after the election? I suppose the answer hinges upon your definition of the word "always."