Mitt's Nuance.
By Erick Posted in 2008 — Comments (20) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
This is actually not something I'm generally inclined to write. I'm trying to get beyond writing things that might be construed as negative about Republican candidates. But, we had Hugh the other day suggest that Fred should not have gotten the NRLC endorsement because he did not support the HLA and, though not directly stating so, fairly well implied that Romney did.
In fact, of course, Romney has in the past said he supported the HLA. But then he contradicted himself. Nonetheless, after I posted the other day that Fred and Mitt held the same position, I got several emails suggesting that they did not because, in fact, Mitt does support passage of the HLA.
Kathryn Lopez sums it up best.
In August, there was also a fuss, when he said that the states would decide post-Roe. Fact is, the odds of a Human Life Amendment are slim and it will come down to the states. Considering the National Right to Life Committee has dumped automatic support for the HLA from their criteria of who should be president, what Romney said isn't all that shocking, though the coverage will continue to feed into that same flipper label that's been sticking to him, even though he's far from the only one who's been one place and moved to another.
Now, to be fair, I don't think it is safe to say "the National Right to Life Committee has dumped automatic support for the HLA from their criteria of who should be president." They did not. And Fred did not say he'd drop it from the platform. In fact, Fred said he supports the platform, like McCain, Romney, and Huck, but, as Kathryn says, "the odds of a Human Life Amendment are slim and it will come down to the states," so Fred's position, like I assume Romney's real position is, is that he'll work on goals that can be accomplished, e.g. originalist judges.
Frankly, I think Fred and Mitt hold the best position on this. The HLA is a worthy goal, but it's unrealistic to expect a President to invest major political capital in getting it passed when it won't get passed. The President can accomplish his goals in a host of other ways.
The problem, of course, is that Fred took heat for being very direct that he himself would not push the HLA. Romney, on the other hand, tried to be nuanced.
« Dueling June Obama fundraising claims? — Comments (2) | In Defense of Fox — Comments (8) »
Mitt's Nuance. 20 Comments (0 topical, 20 editorial, 0 hidden) Post a comment »
...criticize Thompson. Fred clearly has a better, longer, and far more consistent record on abortion. I think Mitt has embraced the HLA now to "shore up" his pro-life credentials and as an attempt to secure the NRTL endorsement over Fred - it didn't work. I like Mitt, but this is one area where I he has not impressed me.
“.....women and minorities hardest hit”
...that Fred Thompson believes in the Human Life Amendment, supports the plank, but for pragmatic reasons thinks there are better ways to go about achieving that goal. Instead, Fred has been consistently against HLA on principle (federalism, not criminalizing abortion for young women/parents/etc.).
Why is this important if we assume for the sake of argument (an assumption I do not share) that HLA has zero chance of ever passing?
BECAUSE it shows how much passion and care for life issues Thompson truly has at the core. If abortion is not that important issue at his core beliefs, or "criminalizing" it is not something that seems appropriate, that will come out in an assortment of ways that will factor into his overall analysis in picking justices, using the bully pulpit of the Presidency, and is an indication of how 'prolife' and pro-ideological-morality he is compared to pro-pragmatism.
Anyway, don't take my word for it: I challenge anyone to read the recent Russert MTP transcript and then on the basis of that try to actually make the case that there is any evidence erick is right rather than I on this:
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. 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...
MR. RUSSERT: Each state would make their own abortion laws.
MR. THOMPSON: Yeah. But, but, but to, to, 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.
(and later)..
MR. THOMPSON: ...Somebody comes up with a bill, and they say we’re going to outlaw this, that or the other. And my response was I do not think it is a wise thing to criminalize young girls and perhaps their parents as aiders and abettors or perhaps their family physician. And that’s what you’re talking about. It’s not a sense of the Senate. You’re talking about potential criminal law. I said those things are going to be ultimately won in the hearts and minds of people.
There is no evidence ANYWHERE that Thompson has EVER thought the principle of life (analagous with the issue of slavery) should ever trump mere federalist concerns... if anything, we see the verbiage that he thinks ANY "criminalization" of abortion is not the way to go.
Romney's position is utterly different than this, Huckabee's consistently so.
Point is- which of Romney's 3 posistions is "utterly different" than Fred's? He went from being pro-abortion, pro-Roe v Wade before the campaign, to a federalist stance earlier in his campaign, now we're to believe that he's a full blown social con?
Even if Thompson's views aren't 110% in line with that of the NRLC, he's not a newcomer to the cause; he's been consistant in his desire to see Roe v Wade overturned- and from a pragmatic standpoint that's about the best that the pro-life contingent can hope for right now. Romney- who seems to have had two or three different positions on most of the hot-button issues- has been all over the map in regards to his abortion stance.
Yes he changed his position, but now he supports both the repeal of Roe and the HLA in the future (when the US is ready). To my knowledge, he doesn't make the federalist argument like Fred, so supporting the HLA and opposing Roe isn't contracticotry. I support both Fred and Mitt and think the HLA is becoming more devisive than productive right now. It will be a generational goal to work towards, changing hearts and minds.
Thompson on MTP no only said he doesn't support the HLA. He clearly said that he opposes criminalizing women, doctors and parents (in the case of underage pregnancy) at the state level. He has been consistent on this. I really don't know why people are still debating what Fred's position is on abortion. He has made himself consistenly clear.
You know, I haven't done the research but many Fred supporters here have left the impression that Fred supports the HLA even though his position is based on federalism.
The HLA isn't something that affects me that much because right now it's more dream than reality, but it would be nice to get a definite answer (yes or no) on whether Fred support the HLA, even in theory.
On MTP he unequivocally opposed any HLA on principle. The reason so many Thompson supporters have been confused is that after he got into some trouble for his MTP position, the next day he implied that he supported it by completely dropping discussion of how he opposed it on principle and talking about how impractical it was.
-------------
Diplomacy is the art of saying 'Nice doggie' until you can find a rock.
First, their positions are somewhat different, but whether the difference matters to you depends on who you are.
Romney supports having a HLA in principle, but does not support it in practice.
Thompson opposes any HLA on principle, and also says it would not be practical.
For Romney to score any so-con points for this differentiation, he would need to talk about what kind of HLA he would support, and under what circumstances. He could then point out that Thompson would oppose that HLA - even in hypothetical favorable circumstances - on principle.
For Thompson to score any points for looking principled, he shouldn't have backpedaled to the practicality question the day after MTP. On MTP, he talked up federalism as the ultimate reason to reject any HLA. The day after, he didn't even want to mention federalism, and left a lot of people with the impression that he would support an HLA in principle. Some people here on Redstate even thought that they remembered him saying on MTP that he supported an HLA in principle.
twocents
What Thompson should have done was to not undercut the principled Republican platform and those "so-cons" in a position to help him and instead in his Tennessee drawl say something like . . . Tim . .. . you know . . . regarding a Human Life Amendment . . . the constitutional amendment process is a very high hurdle . . . before any protection of unborn human life takes place it would presume that an effective political consensus has been met . . . if the people's representatives do not vote for it . . . it does not happen . . .. it is only a start to the debate . . . but unfortunately the Supreme Court took the issue away from the people and the states. . . mandating abortion on demand for any reason or no reason and disallowing any meaningful protection at any stage of life in the womb . . . the Supreme Court erected such a high hurdle that in our system of government even to regulate abortions done for sex selection . . . well only a change in the Court or the amendment process is available to us . . . I believe in the protection of all vulnerable members of the human family, the same protection you and I enjoyed when we were inside our mothers womb . . . but given the emotion and confusion regarding this issue the first step ought to be to at least overturn that atrocity of jurisprudence Roe v Wade, return the matter to the people and their elected representatives . . . the states may choose differently . . . but that is far superior to having no meaningful protection to unborn human life available anywhere . . . next subject Tim." Instead he managed to call into question the substance of his own position by not being prepared. By the way I thought he did pretty well in the first half talking about Iraq and Iran.
HLA is even worse law. Have the proponents of the HLA thought through the legal consequences of granting 14th amendment rights at conception? All pro-lifers support an exception for the life of the mother. Fine. Do you realize that if HLA is passed, the woman would not be able to terminate the pregnancy without a court order as due process rights would be extended to the unborn. Also, the notion of making exceptions for rape and incest would be impossible under HLA. Why? Because there is no precedent in the law where a child is punished (via capital punishment) for the criminal activity of the father. What about the notion that only the doctors will be punished? Make that work under a HLA regime. Are we going to let women off for hiring someone to kill their two year old? Well, you might say that's different. No. Under HLA the fetus is just as much a child as the two year old. The equal protection clause would demand that the doctor be treated the same as the hired gun and vice versa. I could go on and on about this but I think I have made my point. The HLA was an overreaction to Roe v. Wade and it is not a worthy goal. It is pure idiocy.
twocents "If Roe v. Wade was bad law.... by Chekote
HLA is even worse law." Roe v. Wade was not about law, it was about creating a regime of no law, it was about creating a wall that prevents any meaningful protection of unborn human life period. If you are serious about understanding what an HLA would do look to testimony in various Senate Judiciary Committee hearings regarding the subject during the early 80's.
A reference to an HLA in the Republican Party is not "the HLA." Find and review the Republican platform hearings regarding the matter. In short no such amendment is self enforcing. Several types have been introduced over the years and I believe most provide a simple section that sets forth that the Congress and the states shall have power to enforce the Article by appropriate legislation. The 14th Amendment does not require equal punishments between classes of homicide (manslaughter vs first degree murder vs second degree, etc.)nor even equal punishment within a class ("aggrevated" charges that may or may not be tacked on or even who to prosecute). Drug laws in many states basically ignore even virtually authorize otherwise illicit activity while focussing the law anfd the prosecution on dealers and distributors (abortionists). There is no 14th Amendment issue or confusion.
The crime would be "abortion" or perhaps "unlawful taking of unborn human life."
The reason drug "pushers" are punished more severely than the users it is because they actively promote or "push" drugs. The last time I checked, doctors do not go knocking on women's doors "pushing" abortion. It is the women that go to the clinics. That is the reality. Trying to portray women as "victims" is another idiocy. It infantalizes women. They know exactly what they are doing.
I don't care whether it is called HLA or not. The idea of extending 14h amendment rights to the moment of conception has tremendous legal reprecussions. The proponents of such an idea have an obligation to address how they will go about implementing it.
The reason they go after the supply side is that there are always far fewer dealers than users, so it is more manageable to attack the supply than the demand. It's also because dealing is viewed as a much more serious crime than using.
The last time I checked, doctors do not go knocking on women's doors "pushing" abortion. It is the women that go to the clinics.
Dealers don't have to promote anything. They don't go knocking on doors to "push" drugs. They don't take out advertisements. They don't have to. They deal out of their house or stand around on a street corner and wait for the users to show up. There's no shortage of them.
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman
and enticing children into taking drugs. Getting them addicted. I never heard of an abortionist going into playgrounds telling children to get pregnant so that hey can have abortion clients. Planned Parenthood is just as much about birth control as abortion. I have yet to find a drug dealer that also run rehab centers.
twocents
You claimed that there was a 14th Amendment problem. There isn't. As far as abortionists not enticing girls into abortion you have to be kidding. I would call a yellow page ad an enticement, not to mention their so called counseling. If you review Planned Parenthood literature over the years you will see that it not only trivializes sex, which produces more abortion especially among the young, but also that its historic arguments have been that abortion is a positive good, at least as a birth control back-up. Their advocacy of abortion for eugenic purposes is long and deep. proportionately fewer women regret carrying to term as opposed to aborting their young, whether it be out of panic, or being lied to by the likes of Planned Parenthood.
than an indictment of Romney.
And Fred did not say he'd drop it from the platform. In fact, Fred said he supports the platform, like McCain, Romney, and Huck, but, as Kathryn says, "the odds of a Human Life Amendment are slim and it will come down to the states," so Fred's position, like I assume Romney's real position is, is that he'll work on goals that can be accomplished, e.g. originalist judges.
The difference between Fred and Romney (let's set aside for the moment whether Romney is being sincere, since he has had a recent switch in favor of HLA) is that Fred opposes HLA on principle.
Politics is the act of getting support from one group while at the same time, not attempting to get the other group upset. The odds of getting a constitutional amendment for or against Abortion are about nil and none.
So for liberals, the only way they can get an amendment is to put up a constitutional right. As conservatives, we are simply trying to get the constitution applied as the founders intended.
Of course, there isn't any politician that doesn't do a little bit of the political two step dance. The question is how far they are willing to go. In some cases they are doing the limbo, in others they trying to step out of the way of herd.