What's With National Right to Life Endorsing Thompson?
Reports are that the National Right to Life Committee will endorse CFRed Thompson for President. If true, this move is illogical and inexplicable in the context of an organization whose real mission is to end abortion in the United States of America. It makes more sense in the context of an organization which has lost its way and now serves as a tool for the establishment of a certain political party. As disturbing as that prospect is, in the wake of NRLC's efforts to block South Dakota's attempts to outlaw abortion, the possibility cannot be discounted out of hand.
Fred Thompson is not pro-life by any reasonable definition. There are other candidates in the race whose records are much better than Thompson's on the issue. Many of his supporters claim that Thompson has a "100% pro-life voting record". If you are using the NRLC scorecard, this is simply not true. His scores vary from the high thirties to the low eighties for each two year cycle. To be fair, many of those negative votes were for his strong support of the McCain-Feingold bill that would have just about put grassroots organizations like the NRLC out of business, but had nothing particular to do with the pro-life issue. Still, the truth is that most difficult votes on pro-life issues never make it to the Senate floor.
Thompson does not take much of a "pro-life" position outside of his vote to ban the barbaric procedure known as "partial birth abortion". The rest of his record is about limiting but not eliminating the circumstances under which you and I should be taxed in order to pay for abortions. Thompson's position is that you and I should be taxed to pay for abortions in the cases of "rape, incest, or when the life of the mother is in danger".
Is that really a "pro-life" position? Why would a "pro-life" candidate be in favor of taxing you and I to pay for the abortion of any innocent child? We are not even talking about under which circumstances it should be legal to terminate the life of an unborn child, we are talking about circumstances under which Fred Thompson thinks we taxpayers should ante up for it.
There is no mention of overturning Roe, and in fact Thompson outright says that he does not believe that early term abortions should be criminalized. No honest person can claim that limiting the circumstances under which I am forced by the government to pay for ripping up innocent babies is a "pro-life" position. Thompson is a federalist, and that has led him to cast some votes that NRLC liked, but he voted that way because he is a federalist, not because he is pro-life.
His position papers are right there to see. Fred Thompson shows no interest in supporting laws that would ban abortion, and wants nothing to do with the issue. Voting for him is voting for the massacre of the innocents to continue.
Yet here we are, talking about the NRLC endorsing Fred Thompson for President. I don't agree with Mike Huckabee on a lot of things, but if I was grading him on the pro-life issue I would have to put him at or near the top of the pack. Certainly Huckabee deserves the endorsement more than Fred Thompson. John McCain has a longer and more solid record than Thompson too (although he earned NRLC's wrath with the McCain-Feingold bill that Thompson also strongly supported (at least at the time).
Maybe better than them all on the issue is Congressman Ron Paul, who has a 20 year pro-life record. He is an OB-GYN who has personally delivered over 4,000 babies and has a plan that would have the practical effect of overturning Roe immediately simply by passing a law that forbids federal courts from ruling on the legality of abortion laws. Instead of waiting for the right Justices to come along, and the right case to come along, Paul's plan would de-facto end Roe at once and re-empower the states to ban or restrict the foul act of abortion. Isn't that the kind of thing that the NRLC claims they want? Then why don't they act like it?
Fred Thompson is not pro-life by any reasonable definition. There are other candidates in the race whose records are much better than Thompson's on the issue. Many of his supporters claim that Thompson has a "100% pro-life voting record". If you are using the NRLC scorecard, this is simply not true. His scores vary from the high thirties to the low eighties for each two year cycle. To be fair, many of those negative votes were for his strong support of the McCain-Feingold bill that would have just about put grassroots organizations like the NRLC out of business, but had nothing particular to do with the pro-life issue. Still, the truth is that most difficult votes on pro-life issues never make it to the Senate floor.
Thompson does not take much of a "pro-life" position outside of his vote to ban the barbaric procedure known as "partial birth abortion". The rest of his record is about limiting but not eliminating the circumstances under which you and I should be taxed in order to pay for abortions. Thompson's position is that you and I should be taxed to pay for abortions in the cases of "rape, incest, or when the life of the mother is in danger".
Is that really a "pro-life" position? Why would a "pro-life" candidate be in favor of taxing you and I to pay for the abortion of any innocent child? We are not even talking about under which circumstances it should be legal to terminate the life of an unborn child, we are talking about circumstances under which Fred Thompson thinks we taxpayers should ante up for it.
There is no mention of overturning Roe, and in fact Thompson outright says that he does not believe that early term abortions should be criminalized. No honest person can claim that limiting the circumstances under which I am forced by the government to pay for ripping up innocent babies is a "pro-life" position. Thompson is a federalist, and that has led him to cast some votes that NRLC liked, but he voted that way because he is a federalist, not because he is pro-life.
His position papers are right there to see. Fred Thompson shows no interest in supporting laws that would ban abortion, and wants nothing to do with the issue. Voting for him is voting for the massacre of the innocents to continue.
Yet here we are, talking about the NRLC endorsing Fred Thompson for President. I don't agree with Mike Huckabee on a lot of things, but if I was grading him on the pro-life issue I would have to put him at or near the top of the pack. Certainly Huckabee deserves the endorsement more than Fred Thompson. John McCain has a longer and more solid record than Thompson too (although he earned NRLC's wrath with the McCain-Feingold bill that Thompson also strongly supported (at least at the time).
Maybe better than them all on the issue is Congressman Ron Paul, who has a 20 year pro-life record. He is an OB-GYN who has personally delivered over 4,000 babies and has a plan that would have the practical effect of overturning Roe immediately simply by passing a law that forbids federal courts from ruling on the legality of abortion laws. Instead of waiting for the right Justices to come along, and the right case to come along, Paul's plan would de-facto end Roe at once and re-empower the states to ban or restrict the foul act of abortion. Isn't that the kind of thing that the NRLC claims they want? Then why don't they act like it?
posted by Mark Moore (Moderator) at Monday, November 12, 2007
8 Comments:
What makes this endorsement all the more ironic was seeing Thompson on "Meet the Press" Sunday.
He stated he does not support the GOP platform on abortion, doesn't support a Life Amendment, & don't think that abortion should be "criminalized". Then the very next day the NRTL leaks that it will endorse him????
I'm starting to believe we live in a parallel universe.
I don't know what it takes to be called pro-choice anymore.
I am getting closer and closer to supporting Ron Paul. Warts and all.
Fred nabs the NRLC's endorsement in spite of his lobbying on behalf of the National Family 'Planning' and 'Reproductive Health' Association (pro-abortion activists)?!
Recall, Fred was trying to get HW Bush to eliminate the gag rule prohibiting pro-abortion counseling at abortion clinics that took federal money. I guess he needed the money. Perhaps NRLC does, too?
whatever money they need, they won't be getting anymore from me. does anybody know of a true prolife group?
Actually, the Arkansas Right to Life is a great bunch. I don't know what's going on at with the national group...?
Markus,
Check out the Hot-off-the-press CBS poll from Iowa.
http://www.cbsnews.com/htdocs/pdf/poll_111307.pdf
There's also some interesting internals, ie. whose mind is made up & respondant's second choice.
Also, your analysis would be great if you have time.
Another story here that might be interesting to anyone who is still in denial over the fact that FOX news, et al. is hacking for Roody.
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/13/nyregion/13cnd-regan.html?_r=2&hp=&oref=slogin&pagewanted=print
From my understanding the Arkansas Right to Life instructed there delegate not to vote to endorse anyone at the NRLC Board Meeting this past Sunday.
Fred Thompson is a poor poor poor choice. Even Huckabee would have been better (And that ain't saying much). The NRLC has been so taken over by the Republican Party, that common sense no longer prevails.
Post a Comment
<< Home