The National Right to Life organization formerly endorsed Fred Thompson last week. Now, for any Republican, such an endorsement is indeed momentous but for a GOP candidate making a run for the White House, it’s essential not only for one’s prospects but for the party’s direction. However, despite wielding such an endorsement, it was Thompson’s recent response to the abortion issue on Meet the Press with Tim Russert that has now left many pro-lifers scratching their heads as they consider throwing the weight of their support behind preacher politician Mike Huckabee or, to a lesser degree, the uncertainty of Mitt Romney. When prodded by Russert, pointing to the 2004 Republican Party platform stating:
“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?
Thompson’s reply was:
“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. And I think the diversity we have among the states, the system of federalism we have where power is divided between the state and the federal government is, is, is—serves us very, very well. 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. But...to have an amendment compelling—going back even further than pre-Roe v. Wade, to have a constitutional amendment to do that, I do not think would be the way to go.”
Hardly the response devoted right to lifers expect to hear from a candidate earning the GOP’s coveted right to life trophy. But be that as it may, for anyone approaching the abortion issue with thought, as opposed to simply feeling, Thompson’s response and his position on the abortion issue, when coupled with his position on countless others (namely taxation, government spending and the omnipotent politics of global warming), reigns supreme over that of Huckabee. And chiefly, because Thompson’s view embraces an equal devotion to the absolute importance of Liberty.
Life and Liberty are not to be separated at birth. It is unfathomable to be a proponent of life and then enslave the child. But, be it known, the very policies of which Mike Huckabee is a staunch supporter of seek to do just that. Why, even a cursory search of Mike Huckabee’s record solidifies this point. As well, it strengthens what I’ve been saying about him and his rightful place amongst the rest of the wildlife in Africa. The man is a RINO (Republican in name only) to much the same degree as our very own Portside Pawlenty. He’s far from a hardliner on immigration given he’s pro-open borders. He is soft on taxes. He is an anti-private property/ pro-smoking ban, global warming advocate. Moreover, he is a pro-education lobby and renewable energy (read tax increase) Republican. All of these policies are ones in which we've come to subscribe to Democrats and of which we've seen as far removed from the virtues of Freedom and Liberty. Conversely however, a similar search of Thompson’s record on similar issues sheds such a contrasting light to that of Huckabee’s that one is left in an absolute state of bewilderment that the two are members of the same political party. And yet, advocates of the pro-life movement are themselves shying away from the totality of Thompson’s view on the life issue in favor of the singularity of Huckabee’s.
As they say, life is not a destination but a journey. There is a greater value associated with life than its mere existence. And, it is for this very reason that without question, life’s restful place is firmly established as the utmost tier in the hierarchy of values. But, if you are wont to dismiss Thompson in favor of adopting the singularity of Huckabee’s view on life, ask yourself; “What such value comes from the fulfillment of one’s rightful ownership of it [life] if all of the rungs beneath it serve not as steps of progression but rather weights of regression?”
3 comments:
Aren't you putting the cart before the horse, we first need to make sure that the basic belief in protecting life to the unborn happens first before we worry that government is overeaching the rest of the child's life. I would take an overreaching government over one that outwardly denies the right to life anyday.
That certainly could be said. But, Thompson's not denying the right to life. I'm merely pointing out an opinion that I believe the totality of his point of view on the issue is much more reasoned than is the view of Huckabee.
I would buy Thompson's rhetoric here, except he is supports a big government on other issues. If he thinks abortion should be up to the states, then he shouldn't have supported McCain-Feingold. If McCain-Feingold is constitutional, then so is a ban on abortions.
The only candidate who could be consistent and use Thompson's federalism defense is Ron Paul, as the rest of the candidates are pro-big government.
Post a Comment