It's not about the Human Life Amendment
(a minor Presidential political squabble)
By Mark Kilmer Posted in 2008 | Abortion | Fred Thompson | Human Life Amendment | issues | Ronald Reagan — Comments (13) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
Doffing my cap to Erick's post below, I have a quick reflection to add.
Neither Fred Thompson nor Mitt Romney, unless they've changed their minds, will propose a Right to Life Amendment, or anything federalizing abortion. Neither will a party platform. It is up to Congress, and nothing has been happening there.
The currently-heralded 1980 Republican Party Platform reads on this matter:
While we recognize differing views on this question among Americans in general—and in our own Party—we affirm our support of a constitutional amendment to restore protection of the right to life for unborn children.
What amendment? It was up to Congress to propose.
The platform continued:
We also support the Congressional efforts to restrict the use of taxpayers' dollars for abortion.
The latter, not requiring a consensus of the three-fourths of the State legislatures, is much more doable and has been done. And will continue to be done. But President Reagan did not strongly push the Amendment and Congress brought nothing of import. The plank was a laudable goal, as is much of what comprises a party platform, but it was not a true draft of policy much less legislation.
But it can be something meaningless but contentious when argued out of context on a Sunday Morning Talk Show.
Read More…
Here's Russert and Thompson on the November 4 edition of NBC's Meet the Press:
MR. RUSSERT: This is the 2004 Republican Party platform, and here it is: “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,” “we endorse legislation to make it clear that the Fourteenth Amendment’s protections apply to unborn children. Our purpose is to have legislative and judicial protection of that right against those who perform abortions.” 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 have always—and that’s been my position the entire time I’ve been in politics. I thought Roe v. Wade was wrongly decided. I think this platform originally came out as a response to particularly Roe v. Wade because of that. Before Roe v. Wade, states made those decisions. I think people ought to be free at state and local levels to make decisions that even Fred Thompson disagrees with. That’s what freedom is all about. … I think that’s true of abortion. I think Roe v. Wade hopefully one day will be overturned, and we can go back to the pre-Roe v. Wade days.
Back to pre-Roe.
The 2004 GOP platform said on this matter:
We support a human life amendment to the Constitution and we endorse legislation to make it clear that the Fourteenth Amendment’s protections apply to unborn children. Our purpose is to have legislative and judicial protection of that right against those who perform abortions.
What Amendment? That will be up to Congress, not to Fred Thompson, Rudy Giuliani, John McCain, Mike Huckabee, or Mitt Romney.
As Erick pointed out, Romney opposed the HLA before he supported it, as the nuance abounded, and it seems to be that Romney would be better served my backing away from this one quickly. He's in no house from which to hurl stones, let alone a mountain from which to lob thunderbolts, on this matter.
Writing forThe Human Life Review in 1983, as reprinted by National Review Online in 2004, President Ronald Reagan gave his take on life and federal action regarding it. He praised legislation prohibiting "the federal government from performing abortions or assisting those who do so, except to save the life of the mother."
He continued:
I have endorsed each of these measures, as well as the more difficult route of constitutional amendment, and I will give these initiatives my full support. Each of them, in different ways, attempts to reverse the tragic policy of abortion-on-demand imposed by the Supreme Court ten years ago. Each of them is a decisive way to affirm the sanctity of human life. [My emphasis.]
President Reagan admitted that an HLA Amendment would be difficult, perhaps beyond his reach. He might have been more reluctant to embrace the federalism on this issue endorsed by Thompson (and Romney) because of his own experiences therewith.
So again, we have Reagan and Thompson in the same basic camp. Rudy's building his own camp, dammit, and that's how it's going to be. Huckabee is Huckabee. (Hugh, Morning Glory!, but I'm not sure if you are really defending Romney or just the emanations of the penumbra of your campaign bio.)
This is not about the Human Life Amendment. This is Presidential politics, and once everything is calmly and rationally explained, I suspect most Republicans will agree with Fred Thompson (in his context) and Ronald Reagan (in his). And Huckabee, and as far he stands currently, Mitt Romney.
« Dueling June Obama fundraising claims? — Comments (2) | Mitt's Nuance. — Comments (20) »
It's not about the Human Life Amendment 13 Comments (0 topical, 13 editorial, 0 hidden) Post a comment »
... a lady who is associated with the NRTL organization here in South Dakota. I ran into her again yesterday as well. (I will leave my description of her generic because if I gave more detail it would become obvious who she is. Since the conversation was private and involved personal feelings I will leave it off the record - To the directors, I will confirm the identity in an e-mail if you wish)
The thinking her and I were in agreement with on Fred is that he is a Federalist and wants good judges and to let the states decide for themselves these matters.
As Hillery learned with nationalized health care, and Newt learned again in 1994 with his attempts at reform, dramatic change gets demagogued immediately and the fear and terror mongers come out in force promptly. We saw this with the attempt at social security reform in 2005.
So, with that said, the thinking is not so much the desire to pass a "right to life" amendment, yes that is the goal, but we need to get there in stages. The judiciary is one of the first things to be addressed, because you can pass all the laws you want, and even pass constitutional amendments (think California and their state amendment to deny funding and services to illegals) but if the judges are going to over turn everything you do when law suits are filed, what have you accomplished?
Nothing!
All you do is stir up the hornets nest of opposition and galvanize them into opposing you, and the judges are more than happy to help.
So, what do you do? You get a President and hopefully a Congress that will get good judges on the bench who espouse the principles of good constitutional law (Alito, Robert, and Thomas for instance) and get them on the bench!
After my conversation with this lady, the idea is that Thompson is the candidate most likely to help fulfill that goal. That is the reason why they like him so much. That is why this lady and I like him so much too.
Then add to that the positions of fiscal conservatism and we have a big winner in our minds.
This was a "personal" preference and thinking conversation and not official policy, but I think it explains the thinking behind the endorsement of Fred.
I hope this explains some things on this matter.
Wubbies World, MSgt, USAF (Retired):
public static void main(String[] args) {
System.out.println("An argument is a sequence of statements aimed at demonstrating the truth of an assertion.); }
...on HLA and life issues in general not only in consistency over their careers, but this year in statements made.
You may say it doesn't matter because they'll all appoint "strict constructionist judges" (yeah, and Bush 1 said that and gave us Souter and Bush II Harriet Miers) but its not just the abortion issue; their clear difference is the best bellweather as it shows how much passion and priority they will give to moral social conservative issues; you are naiive if you think romney and thompson and mccain (who said once Roe shouldn't be overturned in the last election) will give the same priority to the assortment of social conservative issues now pressing (gay 'rights'-marriage, abortion, faith based initiatives) as huckabee, but for some reason you all see some need to post over and over again "there is no difference that makes a difference between the candidates."
Nor can you say any longer 'huckabee doesn't matter' when he's tied for 2nd nationally after spending relatively no money but surging only on the fumes of a powerful message and messenger (see latest rasmussen here
www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/election_2008__1/daily_...)
and is 2nd in Iowa and closing the gap.
This stuff is best left for post election debates and pondering, when parties have some time to reflect and only the truest polticos are still contributing to the debtate... a minor squible at this juncture indeed.
The only abortion position that really bothers me at this time is Rudy's "Trust me... wink - wink - nod - nod... I support strict contructionist judges...er ah... strict constructionist judges could validate Roe as precedent..." Clinton-speak hogwash.
...but so long as the redstate main posters keep over and over again saying there is no difference with Thompson and the others that makes any difference, its worth responding in kind that there is a clear difference on this issue between him/Romney/mccain and huckabee in both substance, passion, and consistency on life issues, which is the best 'litmus test' on how much of a true social/moral conservative a candidate is.
...but so long as the redstate main posters keep over and over again saying there is no difference with Thompson and the others that makes any difference, its worth responding in kind that there is a clear difference on this issue between him/Romney/mccain and huckabee in both substance, passion, and consistency on life issues, which is the best 'litmus test' on how much of a true social/moral conservative a candidate is.
budding socialist who's passionate about expanding the role of government to help everybody who needs it rolls into your thinking(?) how?
The Huckster is lots of things but "conservative" is most certainly not one of them. He would be much more at home standing next to John Edwards or Obama in the next debate than standing on a stage with Republicans.
____
CongressCritter™: Never have so few felt like they were owed so much by so many for so little.
Vote Ron Paul 2008.
We're taking the whithouse back! Be a part of the Revolution.
one row too high?
____
CongressCritter™: Never have so few felt like they were owed so much by so many for so little.
twocents
I think the issue of the candidates positions on protecting the right to life is more than nuance. Regardless, it seems that Reagan and Bush I and Bush II were able to run and win without repudiating the relevance of the Republican platform. And if there is so much maneuvering room in the platform and in Reagon's statement and in Bush's position, then Thompson should have adopted their position. Thompson has not. Their positions did not preclude acceptance of reversal of Roe and returning the issue to the states. Thompson's position on Meet the Press was that he does not like the platform provision, he would not run on it.
Tell the friend in South Dakota that it would be nice if NRLC, you know, being a right to life organization and all, having failed to get Thompson to adopt a more consistent position with the platform, did not outright endorse at this time an even more inarticulate candidate on the issue than G W Bush waswhen he ran and who has an inferior position to what G W Bush ran on and won. It would also be nice if that organization would not presume to tell pro-life Republicans who the most electable candidate is, people who have to evaluate a variety of issues in their own decision making process even when right to life is the priority for them as well. NRLC has no particular competence to do that and they should not try to given this field.
Take Huckabee for example, who ever heard of a Governor from Arkansas winning the Presidency, I know, couldn't happen. I presume they are worried about the general election. It would clearly be impossible for a former Governor of Massachusettes a heavily Democrat state, who is doing well in states that are actually engaged with primary and caucus decision making (a governor who by the way has positions superior on right to life to another eastern governor who happens to be running)to win the Presidency. So we want a winner right . . . and states where people are engaged with the decision making process . . . well the NRLC "clear choice" candidate isn't running so clearly well.
Agree with? No. Agree to? Yes.
Of course an HLA is a (very) long-term goal, but it would be nice - and is not outrageous - for a Presidential candidate to agree, in principle, that passing it at some point, after we've done a lot of other things that need doing first, would be a good thing for the nation. Contrary to what some may think, support for it is not a death knell to a campaign. So no, I don't agree with them. That said, I would agree to any of them, as they would help get the rest of us closer to that goal than would the alternatives (Rudy or Hillary).
www.republicansenate.org