NRLC-PAC's endorsement of a primary candidate for President came as a surprise to many pro-lifers and I voiced some (not much) surprise . . . so sue me. Thompson's vaunted "100% pro-life voting record in the Senate" is great, but anyone who follows the issue of abortion knows that the minimalist/baby-step/incremental legislative strategy pursued by the national pro-life movement in the 90's presented some pretty safe (tame?) voting opportunities for Republicans. Don't get me wrong; I'm appreciative for Thompson's votes on abortion while he was in the Senate, but don't hold it against me that I have some political context for thinking about the matter. A candidate's outspokenness on the issue, and willingness to lead on the issue, and public/campaign statements on the issue are significant. I'm trying to decide which presidential candidate best reflects my views on issues--and that consideration involves more than looking at final votes on a variety of fairly non-controversial (for a Republican) legislation.
Which leads me to my next beef with Gill et al. Gill provides a short (though it sure seemed long)
Consistent with his Federalist principles, Thompson prefers to allow the states to apply restrictions on abortion should Roe v. Wade get overturned. . . .Well, as someone who--I guess, "[doesn't] believe the Constitution means what it says," I don't view abortion on demand (aka the opposite of "the right to life") as a mere "particular policy" or a mere element of a "political agenda." You're free to disagree with me, but abortion on demand isn't something that I--as a citizen in a republican form of government, am willing to condone. So, while there is an argument that a Federalist strategy, if successful, would result in a short-term decrease in the number of abortions in America, there is also an argument--my argument, that an across the board protection for innocent human life is warranted. Please don't hate me for using the primary season to sift through all the campaign rhetoric to discern which candidate I think is closest to sharing that opinion.
Thompson’s preferred policy process lies at the foundation of the Constitution. In the 9th Amendment it is clearly stated that “the enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.”
. . . .
This Federalist approach to handling issues actually has very little to do with any particular policy itself, since it was intended to be broadly applied rather than on a selective basis to promote a specific political agenda. There can be little doubt that this is the approach the Founding Fathers intended; and respecting that approach does not mean Thompson is "soft" on the issue of abortion. He simply believes that the Constitution means what it says.
Concluding his comments about the advantages of a successful, state-by-state Federalist approach, Gill writes:
"And abortion on demand would continue to occur in those states while the effort to pass a Constitutional ban on abortions would continue." (emphasis added)See, that's the problem, Steve. You (and Thompson and many of Thompson's current supporters) are assuming that Pro-lifers believe he would advance (or at least not stymie) "the effort to pass a Constitutional ban on abortions." Based on Thompson's spotty record of past public statements on the issue (e.g., before he was running for the GOP nomination); based on his conveniently-pragmatic/"realistic" Federalist position on the issue; based on his current, suspect language when discussing the issue; I'm leery of casting all my support to him, at this stage in the process, and at least with regard to the issue of abortion.
I like Thompson and could heartily support him against almost any Democrat I've seen. I know that some in the Thompson camp are growing concerned about his performance in various polls, and that they're getting a little frustrated with "the unpersuaded." That's no shock; but if you want my vote, stop deriding me. Fair enough?
No comments:
Post a Comment